3 replies to this topic

[Stephen]

The State of Arizona (and I presume many other states are similar) have the following requirements for somebody to perform the marriage ceremony. (It is actually in the law that there must be a ceremony.)

Quote

25-124. Persons authorized to perform marriage ceremony; definition
A. The following are authorized to solemnize marriages between persons who are authorized to marry:
1. Duly licensed or ordained clergymen.
2. Judges of courts of record.
.
. snip a list of judges that may do it.
.
B. For the purposes of this section, "licensed or ordained clergymen" includes ministers, elders or other persons who by the customs, rules and regulations of a religious society or sect are authorized or permitted to solemnize marriages or to officiate at marriage ceremonies.

There are online places where you can get ordained such as The Church of Elvis, The Church of the Subgenius, The First Church of Athiesm, and The Universal Life Church. I don't believe the brotherhood would aprove of the first three, The Universal Life Church would be the least objectionable but would still be a tacit endorsement of them to be ordained by them.

As we don't "ordain" anybody and nobody has titles except possibly the aranging brethren, how do we as a body comply with the law?

(If this needs to be moved, please feel free as I had no idea where to put this)

[DJP]

The act doesn't say you need to be ordained, it says that if according to the customs of the Christadelphians, an unlicensed elder would normally solemnize the marriage, then that's recognised.

[Stephen]

DJP, on Dec 18 2009, 03:54 PM, said:

The act doesn't say you need to be ordained, it says that if according to the customs of the Christadelphians, an unlicensed elder would normally solemnize the marriage, then that's recognised.

Have you seen it done, had it done? I realize there are some weasel words at the end of the law, but this cannot be the first time the question has arisen. I'm hoping the trail has been blazed already.

Looking at the Ecclesial Guide, the master of any ceremony is the presiding brother. Would that stand up to the scrutiny of the state, or heaven forbid a judge in the case of a divorce?

Quote

25. Presiding Brethren ....The presiding brother is, in fact, chairman, or master of the ceremonies, though, if able, he is at liberty to supply the leading parts.

It is important that his office be limited to the actual session of the assembly, and carry no function with it beyond it. The way must be fenced against priesthood in all directions. This is secured by his function ceasing with the dispersion of the assembly. He should be at liberty to appoint a substitute; but only from the list of those whom the ecclesial appointment has signified as suitable.

Presiding brethren stand prominently in the front of an ecclesia's proceedings. It is therefore necessary, in their appointment, to have peculiar regard to their qualifications specified by Paul, as before quoted. Men ought not to be appointed against whom the finger of reproach can be lifted.

[Evangelion]

Stephen, on Dec 19 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

Looking at the Ecclesial Guide, the master of any ceremony is the presiding brother. Would that stand up to the scrutiny of the state

It has always stood up to the scrutiny of the state in Australia, yes.