What "spiritual" formalities would be involved? Can a UCC minister marry someone outside a church or other consecrated building ("in all the pagan showiness of nature")? Would such wedding chapels need to be consecrated in order for clergy to perform a ceremony there? What churches will and will not marry away from their churches?

Over the years, ministers from our United Church pastoral charge have routinely conducted weddings in locations other than our church. There have been garden weddings at private homes. Other weddings have been held in local community halls, because there was no local church large enough to host the number of expected guests.

Marriage, in Canada, is a government-authorized civil act. Our ministers must have a licence from the province in which they reside to conduct marriages. By having an ordained minister conduct the ceremony, we add that spiritual dimension to the ceremony, and make the couple a part of our faith community. The congregation makes vows as well as the couple.

A roadside wedding chapel would not necessarily have to be "consecrated" as a sacred space. But what would the Christ-centred "mission" of such a chapel really be?

I think it is an interesting idea. People are always looking for pretty little churches to get married in. Out here in B.C. an awful lot of the United Churches were built in the sixties and seventies, and they are, well, ugly. Not picturesque at all.

I would love to see pictures of the types of chapels you have in mind.

Here are a few samples of a simple kind of Chapel I envision but a little smaller in scale.

another but with a smaller footprint.

Jeffery wrote:
"What "spiritual" formalities would be involved? Can a UCC minister marry someone outside a church or other consecrated building ("in all the pagan showiness of nature")? Would such wedding chapels need to be consecrated in order for clergy to perform a ceremony there? What churches will and will not marry away from their churches?"

A minister in the UCCan can officiate at marriages outside of the church building (well, and inside the church building) at the sole discretion of (and policies thereto... oh, I love sounding like a twit) the Session (or Official Board, or Church Board or Church Council) of the Congregation.

Now, there is a bit of a 'loophole' on this one. If this project were delared a 'presbytery mission' or 'presbytery ministry', then Presbytery could appoint an individual minister/ministers (although, as I understand it, not ministers currenlty in covenantal relationship with a congregation who says that the minister can't do something like this), and would then set the necessary marriage policies.

There is no requirement in the UCCan that marriages take place on 'consecrated ground'... proably because there's kind of a general thought that God is in all places - therefore all places can be / are sacred.

Ah, the joys of polity. *grin*

Of course, everything I have written here is totally unofficial. For the 'official word' on it, you might want to check with the Executive Secretary of your particular Conference, or the office of the General Secretary General Council of The United Church of Canada.

Your milage may vary.

bb/Cp - Richard

I like the chapels, especially the second one. There are very few United Churches that have pretty, traditional style buildings--at least not in my part of the country. I wonder if one of the reasons the United Church is having trouble attracting younger people is because so many of the church buildings look very dated. The fundie denominations are building some attractive new churches (in attractive traditional styles) in the newer neighbourhoods. Since the United Church hasn't built many churches lately, they tend to be in older parts of the cities and towns.

Jonas,

I see one core problem with your roadside chapel idea. Who will maintain them, and at what expense?

Many rural pastoral charges, ours included, have an ongoing struggle to maintain our church buildings. Our congregation has three buildings under our care: two churches and a manse. All are suffering from deferred maintenance. One of our churches is an historic building built in 1936. It needs about $20,000 worth of work for just the routine maintenance that should be done. Our other church was built in the 1960's, and had an addition built in the 1980's. The addition needs a new roof, and we can't get a roofing contractor because they are all too busy in the overheated Alberta economy. Added all up, this church also needs about $20,000 worth of routine maintenance.

I firmly believe that if we are doing the Lord's work, He will provide the necessary resources in people, materials, and finances. But just what is the Lord's work with regard to these buildings? Are we simply to be property managers, pouring our resources into structural maintenance?

The ongoing debate in our pastoral charge is this: "What is the mission of our church buildings?" If a building has no mission, no Christian role in the wider community, then why do we work so hard to try to keep it from falling down?

The real work of the church does not lie in its architecture. It lies with people: People in need of outreach, people in need of pastoral care, people in need of a sense of community, people searching for meaning in their lives and a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

If a building serves a role in serving people, then I think it has a mission and a purpose in our faith community. Otherwise, it becomes an albatross around our necks, drawing resources away from the people and places where those resources could do the most good.