MARRIAGE AND BAPTISM

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22109, 3 June 1937, Page 8

MARRIAGE AND BAPTISM

TO THE EDITOR OP HIE PRESS. Sir.—lt may be useful to explain to the non-Christian public why some Christian ministers do not care to celebrate marriages for unbaptlsed persons like ‘■Benedict," whose letter appeared in “The Press” to-day. In the first place the difference between a Christian marriage and a secular marriage should be realised. In a Christian marriage the parties are pledged to union for better, for worse, dissoluble, according to tie New Testament, by death alone; in the State marriage the conditions arc easier. Those' who seek Christian marriage must be persons fitted by their established convictions to have the extraordinarily severe vows imposed by the minister of Christ, and obviously a person who does not acknowledge Christ as the Master of his or her life is unfitted to take such vows. The hall-mark of l.ie Christian, according to the New Testament, is baptism. "What must we do to be saved?" cried the crowd on the first Whit Sunday. To them St. Peter replied, "Repent and be baptised.” St. Paul, shaken by St. Stephen’s witness and convinced on the Damascus road by Christ’s appearance to him, is immediately baptised as a pledge of loyalty to Christ. Baptism is the normal mark of acceptance of Christ’s rule as taught by the New Testament. Of course it is only the beginning: and God is not tied down to the Sacrament of membership. But the fact of baptism is accepted by ministers as at least indicating acceptance of Christ’s authority and as a reasonable foundation for the taking of the tremendous vows of Christian marriage. Is it therefore unreasonable for a minister to refuse to celebrate a marriage for a man who is unwilling, as “Benedict” seems to have been unwilling, to accept the Christian hall-mark, and this particular Church’s hall-mark, of faith in Christ’s principles? How can it consistently be deemed "un-Christian” to expect conformity with Christ's rule of life as a condition precedent to obtaining Christ’s blessing on a marriage undertaken on His terms? "Benedict's" protest appears to be based on a complete misconception of the purpose of a Church marriage. The churches are not, or ought not to be, merely registry offices, but places where marriage is consecrated by ministers for and on behalf of God and on God’s terms, which are stricter than the State’s terms. And only those who are already pledged to the acceptance of God’s rule are fit and proper persons to present themselves for such consecration. The time will come when the churches which are based on the New Testament teaching will realise that they will do both God and man better service by refusing to allow their ministers to act as deputy State registrars as at present, thus confining marriage services to those who are definitely committed to the maintenance of Christ’s higher standard. The present practice, accepted for its convenience, and perhaps for fear of losing the momentary opportunity to influence for good those who come out of the void, is an apt illustration of Dr. Koo’s warning that the churches are losing or have lost influence because they have accommodated Chrisrs standards to the world’s. The proof of the futility of administering the Christian oaths of fidelity till death is to be found in the Divorce Court statistics. — Yours, etc., H. O. HANBY. Belfast. June 1. 1937.