# Renewing wedding vows



## Pergamum (Dec 9, 2013)

Is it very reformed for married couples to renew their wedding vows (a covenant renewal)? And if so, how do they do it?


----------



## MW (Dec 9, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> Is it very reformed for married couples to renew their wedding vows (a covenant renewal)? And if so, how do they do it?



Marriage is contracted for life and a vow is made to God before witnesses. Whatever is taking place in the idea of "renewing vows," it cannot be the renewing of "marriage" vows.

This idea has emerged because of another deviation from God's order, namely, making vows to each other which should be made to God. This is nothing other than a deifying of one's intended spouse. Can a spouse search your heart? Does a spouse know all things? Will a spouse reward your obedience and punish your transgression? It is a worshipping of the creature in the place of the Creator.


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 9, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Is it very reformed for married couples to renew their wedding vows (a covenant renewal)? And if so, how do they do it?
> ...



That seems an unusual perspective to me. Surely in the marriage ceremony the couple vows to each other and to God? For example, in the 1662 BCP marriage service, there is a prayer that the "persons may surely perform and keep the vow and covenant betwixt them made." I understand that this is not exactly a Reformed source; but in the PCA Directory of Worship there is a similar prayer as follows:

Most gracious God, fountain of life and love and joy, look with merciful favor upon these your servants now to be joined in
holy wedlock, and enable them ever to remember and truly keep the vows which they make as they enter into covenant with one
another and with you, in accordance with the Holy Word, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

Is such a prayer really idolatrous?


----------



## MW (Dec 9, 2013)

One wonders why the refusal to give God's glory to a creature should be considered an unusual perspective.

WCF 22.6, "It [a vow] is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone." Robert Shaw comments, "In an oath, man is generally the party, and God is invoked as the witness; in a vow, God is both the party and the witness."

Creatures may certainly covenant with each other by means of a promissory oath, and this is certainly achieved by means of the vow made to God, since the vow is the same in nature with a promissory oath (WCF 22.5). If this is all that is meant by the Book of Common Prayer and the PCA Directory it is unobjectionable. But if this is all that is meant it does nothing to support the idea that a vow can be made to a fellow creature.


----------



## Edward (Dec 9, 2013)

Should the elders examine why the couple thinks that the vows need to be renewed? What has gone on/is going on in the marriage that one of the parties thinks that a renewal is needed?


----------



## Philip (Dec 9, 2013)

Edward said:


> Should the elders examine why the couple thinks that the vows need to be renewed? What has gone on/is going on in the marriage that one of the parties thinks that a renewal is needed?



Not necessarily anything. One might choose to renew a vow not because it has lapsed but because one needs reminding or to mark a significant event. In doing such one would not be adding anything new except maybe setting a memorial stone of sorts.



armourbearer said:


> Whatever is taking place in the idea of "renewing vows," it cannot be the renewing of "marriage" vows.



So what ought we to call the promises called by the name of marriage vows in ordinary parlance?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 9, 2013)

So not only would renewing one's vows to one another be objectionable, but making those vows to one another initially would be as objectionable as well in the first place?


----------



## MW (Dec 9, 2013)

Philip said:


> So what ought we to call the promises called by the name of marriage vows in ordinary parlance?



They don't need to be called anything other than "promises."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 9, 2013)

I have a question. Would a reaffirming and recommitment to one's vows before God be considered dubious?


----------



## MW (Dec 9, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> So not only would renewing one's vows to one another be objectionable, but making those vows to one another initially would be as objectionable as well in the first place?



The "renewing" has come about because the original has changed its essential nature. It has become centred around the couple and their feelings. If marriage were brought back to its religious, legal and social institution there would be no place for renewing it. Private feelings can be created in a private setting. The idea of renewing solemn engagements on a public level makes a mockery of the original engagement. The Most High requires no such renewal. The State requires no such renewal. To do it all for the sake of the married couple presupposes that marriage is only serving the married couple.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Dec 9, 2013)

When I think of "Renewing" Marriage Vows, I think of a 25th wedding anniversary with a mock wedding service taking place & a bunch of "They said/We'd never make it/But just look at us holding on/We're still together/Still holding strong!" (I can't remember the song but you get the point)

When I think of "covenant renewal" & the "marriage covenant," I think of what the Puritans called "due benevolence" or "marriage acts." Every time the two "become one" would be covenant renewal.... Would it not? If that is the case, when it comes to covenant renewal, sexual intercourse between husband & wife would be a whole lot more "Reformed" than so-called marriage vows being "renewed" between husband & wife.


----------



## Rich Koster (Dec 10, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Is it very reformed for married couples to renew their wedding vows (a covenant renewal)? And if so, how do they do it?
> ...



This is not a strong point in the rhetoric, here.


----------



## Tirian (Dec 10, 2013)

Rich Koster said:


> This is not a strong point in the rhetoric, here.


----------



## Tirian (Dec 10, 2013)

I might just be a scrooge, but I tend to think these sorts of things are a bit tedious. Stepping your friends and relatives through something that really is between the husband and wife just seems to have a hint of vanity. Declare your love in private - then host a dinner party if you want and nobody needs to know!


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 10, 2013)

So...

It would just be better to have a party and invite a few friends?


----------



## Philip (Dec 10, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> They don't need to be called anything other than "promises."



Somehow "marriage promises" doesn't have the same connotations of solemnity or seriousness. I also promise that I will be at such and such a place at 2:00.



armourbearer said:


> The idea of renewing solemn engagements on a public level makes a mockery of the original engagement. The Most High requires no such renewal. The State requires no such renewal. To do it all for the sake of the married couple presupposes that marriage is only serving the married couple.



It might be done in the sight of witnesses for the purpose of celebrating God's faithfulness in marriage. At one time there was a custom of a sovereign renewing their vows to serve the people of a country after a set period of time. Does that make a mockery of the original vow? If a president is re-elected, he takes the oath of office again, does this make a mockery of the original oath?


----------



## iainduguid (Dec 10, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> > So what ought we to call the promises called by the name of marriage vows in ordinary parlance?
> ...



Ezekiel 16:8 is the closest thing we have to such a marriage commitment; in it the Lord, as husband, swears [an oath] to his bride and enters a covenant with her. Likewise in Malachi 2:14, married women are described as "the wife of your covenant." If the Bible has no reservation about describing the marriage commitment as a sworn oath and covenant, we should hardly reduce it to a mere "promise", even though we should certainly be faithful to all of our promises as well. Chapter 22 of the Westminster Confession suggests that there is a difference between an ordinary promise and "lawful oaths and vows," of which marriage commitments might be adduced as an example.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 10, 2013)

I think some are over-thinking it a bit.

The fact of the matter is that life takes its toll on our relationships. Numerous studies report that the majority say they would not marry their spouse if they could do it all over again. In this context, I think it is patently refreshing and lovely to go to the trouble and expense of conducting a completely unnecessary ceremony all aimed towards the goal of declaring to each other and others that "I _still_ desire and choose you" even after all this time and after all the storms of life. Reaffirming ones' commitment to a covenant, while unnecessary, does communicate the value of the other and is not without biblical precedent.

I say go for it!


----------



## Hemustincrease (Dec 10, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> The idea of renewing solemn engagements on a public level makes a mockery of the original engagement. The Most High requires no such renewal.



I would agree with this. Is it even possible to renew vows (unless they have been publicly broken) which when spoken first, were publicly declared/witnessed to be good for life? To renew something is to either make it better in some way/restore it to it’s original condition or even to start all over again. The promises made on one’s wedding day stand for life. To make them again with public witnesses (or not) might appear to some to render the original ones null and void.

There are of course, lots of ways to demonstrate a renewed love one for the other, which rather than seeking to usurp those original vows, would affirm them, by deed as opposed to word.


----------



## MW (Dec 10, 2013)

Philip said:


> Somehow "marriage promises" doesn't have the same connotations of solemnity or seriousness. I also promise that I will be at such and such a place at 2:00.



If the "marriage" is the solemnity the fact they are "marriage" promises should suffice to provide the solemnising element.



Philip said:


> It might be done in the sight of witnesses for the purpose of celebrating God's faithfulness in marriage. At one time there was a custom of a sovereign renewing their vows to serve the people of a country after a set period of time. Does that make a mockery of the original vow? If a president is re-elected, he takes the oath of office again, does this make a mockery of the original oath?



Comparisons with other institutions which are not of the same nature are irrelevant.

The modern contempt for the marriage bond should not have any impact on Christian thought.


----------



## MW (Dec 10, 2013)

iainduguid said:


> Ezekiel 16:8 is the closest thing we have to such a marriage commitment; in it the Lord, as husband, swears [an oath] to his bride and enters a covenant with her. Likewise in Malachi 2:14, married women are described as "the wife of your covenant." If the Bible has no reservation about describing the marriage commitment as a sworn oath and covenant, we should hardly reduce it to a mere "promise", even though we should certainly be faithful to all of our promises as well. Chapter 22 of the Westminster Confession suggests that there is a difference between an ordinary promise and "lawful oaths and vows," of which marriage commitments might be adduced as an example.



Then call it a "covenant." Promise and covenant, as in the words of the original Directory for Worship. But a vow should be to God alone.


----------



## JoannaV (Dec 10, 2013)

How about cases when, for example, a non-Christian couple marry, perhaps with not all that much said at all, and then later come to Christ and wish to make a public statement including vows which when they were married they did not even know were relevant to marriage? *I* don't think such a thing is _necessary_, but would there be any problem with that?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 10, 2013)

Can there be covenant renewals between men (or a woman and a man) or can there only be covenant renewals between God and man?


----------



## Philip (Dec 10, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> But a vow should be to God alone.



As indeed the marriage vow is: 

"WILT thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?
_The Man shall answer_, I will."

There is, indeed, a later promise to the spouse in the BCP service, but it apppears that the undertaking, at least in the BCP, involves vows, even under your definition.


----------



## MW (Dec 10, 2013)

Philip said:


> "WILT thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?
> _The Man shall answer_, I will."
> 
> There is, indeed, a later promise to the spouse in the BCP service, but it apppears that the undertaking, at least in the BCP, involves vows, even under your definition.



And this is unexceptionable, as I stated earlier. My original point, however, was that this order has been overturned when the vows are made to each other, which obviously happens when the couple rewrites the vows to express their love and commitment to each other and God is not so much as mentioned. The "renewing" of vows in an atheistical atmosphere is only natural. We must return to the fundamental religious, legal, and social nature of the institution.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Dec 10, 2013)

I am more than a little surprised that what Jessica has said here has not been picked up on properly. She has proven to be the profoundest theologian among us on the question. 

Clearly there were times of covenant renewal in the OT and we do it in some sense every time we engage in public worship, especially at the communion table, where our being His (in union with Him) and in communion with each other is visibly signed and sealed. But we don't do it by being baptized again and again. Baptism is the sacrament of initiation and communion the sacrament of taking up and continuing in that which was signed and sealed to us in our baptism.

With respect to marriage, we are brought into such in the wedding ceremony, which need not be repeated. The renewal of love and commitment within the marriage in an ongoing way is regularly re-enacted in the marriage bed. I trust all the analogies are clear. 

I am not arguing in any absolutistic sense against re-enacting the wedding, but I am arguing that it renders the regular renewal of such in intimacy potentially unclear. Why would I need to have a ceremony before God and witnesses again when I make clear to my wife that I love and choose her in all the ways that I engage her, particularly intimately? 

I appreciate where Ben is coming from, and there may be some situations where such a renewal ceremony would be helpful. Ordinarily, however, if man and wife have been faithfully, however imperfectly, engaging one another, a renewal ceremony might appear superfluous, if not to say trivializing, of the ordinary expressions of their love. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## THE W (Dec 10, 2013)

What example of renewing wedding vows did the OP have in mind?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 10, 2013)

THE W said:


> What example of renewing wedding vows did the OP have in mind?



A 15th or 20th anniversary renewal with a party.


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 10, 2013)

SolaScriptura said:


> I think some are over-thinking it a bit.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that life takes its toll on our relationships. Numerous studies report that the majority say they would not marry their spouse if they could do it all over again. In this context, I think it is patently refreshing and lovely to go to the trouble and expense of conducting a completely unnecessary ceremony all aimed towards the goal of declaring to each other and others that "I _still_ desire and choose you" even after all this time and after all the storms of life. Reaffirming ones' commitment to a covenant, while unnecessary, does communicate the value of the other and is not without biblical precedent.
> 
> I say go for it!



Good point, but why does it have to be public? I ask because reaffirming ones commitments does not change any of the problems of marriage. So why not just communicate these things alone to one another?


----------



## THE W (Dec 11, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> > What example of renewing wedding vows did the OP have in mind?
> ...



Nothing wrong with celebrating the vow you already made but why would you need to renew it?

Why not just rededicate yourself to adhering to your biblical spousal duties?


----------



## irresistible_grace (Dec 11, 2013)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I am more than a little surprised that what Jessica has said here has not been picked up on properly. She has proven to be the profoundest theologian among us on the question.



You are too kind.



Alan D. Strange said:


> Clearly there were times of covenant renewal in the OT and we do it in some sense every time we engage in public worship, especially at the communion table, where our being His (in union with Him) and in communion with each other is visibly signed and sealed. But we don't do it by being baptized again and again. Baptism is the sacrament of initiation and communion the sacrament of taking up and continuing in that which was signed and sealed to us in our baptism.
> 
> *With respect to marriage, we are brought into such in the wedding ceremony, which need not be repeated. The renewal of love and commitment within the marriage in an ongoing way is regularly re-enacted in the marriage bed. I trust all the analogies are clear. *


----------



## KevinInReno (Dec 13, 2013)

Pergamum said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> > What example of renewing wedding vows did the OP have in mind?
> ...



If you wanted in your celebration to RESTATE your marriage vows to each other as reminder, reflection upon them; I think that would be fine in the midst of a larger party.

Having a Pastor perform it, calling it a renewal, I would discourage you from doing.

If I was at an event and someone stated, "My wife and I, celebrating this occasion wanted to restate the vows we made 15 years ago as a pleasant reminder of the promises we made to each other then". Or something to that extent, I say go for it.

The second you use the word renewal however, I would encourage you to reflect on the marriage vow in light of how the word renewal is defined.

Renew means: resume (an activity) after an interruption.

There has been no interruption in your vow. Personally as a permanence view guy (myself) on marriage, I would feel convicted about participating or even being present at a "renewal" ceremony.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 13, 2013)

Thanks for all the input.


----------

