# Marriage Banns



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 24, 2007)

The Westminster Directory of Public Worship says concerning the solemnization of marriage:



> Before the solemnizing of marriage between any persons, the purpose of marriage shall be published by the minister three several sabbath-days, in the congregation, at the place or places of their most usual and constant abode, respectively. And of this publication the minister who is to join them in marriage shall have sufficient testimony, before he proceed to solemnize the marriage.



The Genevan Book of Church Order says:



> The Form of Marriage
> 
> After the banns or contract has been published three several days in the congregation (to the intent that if any persons have interest or title to either of the parties, they may have sufficient time to make their challenge), the parties assemble at the beginning of the sermon, and the minister, at time convenient, says as follows:



This process of proclaiming the plans of a couple to marry over successive Lord's Days in order to make public their intentions is known as the banns of marriage. 

This practice was required by the Church of Scotland, the Church of England and in New England, as well as other places like Geneva; but it is usually neglected today. Society has changed. The church has changed. 

Perhaps this change should be examined.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 26, 2007)

When my wife and I were married (17 years ago) here in New Brunswick at the local Presbyterian Church of Cananda we had the option of buying a marriage licence or reading the banns. At that time the licence was an alternative to the banns.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 26, 2007)

Bring back the banns.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 26, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> The Westminster Directory of Public Worship says concerning the solemnization of marriage:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I understand it the banns served a mainly a civil/legal purpose, not a distinctly ecclesiastical one. They are a human tradition not mandated by the Word of God.

They also were meant to function in a society where most people were born, raised, married, and died in the same town/parish.

What truly useful purpose would they serve today rather than simply being a quaint throwback to another age?


----------



## Kevin (Mar 26, 2007)

tcalbrecht said:


> As I understand it the banns served a mainly a civil/legal purpose, not a distinctly ecclesiastical one. They are a human tradition not mandated by the Word of God.
> 
> They also were meant to function in a society where most people were born, raised, married, and died in the same town/parish.
> 
> What truly useful purpose would they serve today rather than simply being a quaint throwback to another age?



And what do you have against "quaint throwbacks"?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 26, 2007)

Kevin said:


> And what do you have against "quaint throwbacks"?



Nothing. I have nothing against button hooks either, I just don't find them terribly useful.


----------

