Two memos addressed to the coordinators by Kevin Ranaghan with proposals for a People of Praise approach to state-in-life decisions, dating, engagement and weddings.
Contents
Memo on Weddings
MEMO
TO: The coordinators
From: Kevin
Re: A proposal for weddings in the People of Praise
Date: February 20, 1976
- Weddings of all community members ought to be under community headship, that is, according to the degree of headship in which the parties live the whole process of relationship, engagement, and wedding plans ought to be under the personal life heads within the branch structures.
- Normally, this process of oversight will be accomplished within the branches. It is very helpful for all coordinators to know this information before the “news gets out.”
- Engagements should be announced at the community meeting. When the engagement is announced, the date of the wedding should be announced also if that is possible, so that the focus can be on building the community and celebrating the concrete wedding, rather than on the semi-exclusive relationship of engagement.
- Generally, all community members are to be encouraged to have their weddings here in the local area. There may be good pastoral reasons for having it elsewhere. In that case the community will not make arrangements for the total wedding or take total responsibility for it, but the community through the respective branch or household may help with specific details, e.g., printing music, making dresses, providing some financial assistance, or otherwise helping out with needs.
- If a wedding is held here, it ought to be a community wedding, put on by the community and entirely under the direction of the community. However, there may be good pastoral reasons for the wedding to be put on by someone else. For example, the bride’s family or some other relatives. In this case, the community would not make total arrangements for the wedding or take responsibility for it but might help out in specific details as in (4) above.
- In cases away or here in the local area, when the wedding is not put on by the community as such, the planning of the wedding is still under the oversight of the personal heads of the groom and the bride. Personal heads should still take responsibility for pastoral preparation for marriage for the bride and groom, and as the couple make plans for the wedding, they ought to share and submit these plans with their heads in the normal course of their submission of their lives to them.
- In case of a local wedding put on by the community, the following guidelines should apply:
- The wedding is the establishment of the headship-submission relationship of the groom and the bride. The groom ought to head the relationship with the bride in which the wedding is planned, That is to say, inasmuch as the couple make plans for their wedding, the groom ought to be head of that planning relationship. The groom of course ought to be submitting his role in the wedding to his head, and the bride ought to be submitting her role in the wedding to her head. Therefore, the overall relationship of bride and groom in planning the wedding is to be submitted to their personal life heads. This means that the head of the bride and the head of the groom will have to work together heading the bride and groom in planning their wedding. In this relationship between the head of the bride and the head of the groom, the head of the groom ought to be the head of the relationship. Thus, from the point of view of community order, the key person in relating plans for the wedding to the community and to the bride and groom is the head of the groom. While many people in more than one branch may be involved in working on the wedding, from the point of view of the coordinators, it ought to be the branch of the groom, the head of the groom, and the household of the groom which are seen as the centers of action.
- In delegating the actual work of the wedding the head of the groom, working with the head of the bride ought to make a distinction between the work of men and the work of women in this preparation. For example, the preparation of the liturgy belongs properly to men, the preparation of the wedding reception belongs more properly to women. The bride’s head, therefore, will take responsibility to see that women from her household and branch, and also from the groom’s branch work together as a team with the bride planning dress, use of flowers, type of food and drink, decoration, etc. All of these arrangements, however, should pass under the oversight of the groom and his head before being acted upon. The groom’s head takes direct responsibility with the groom for the planning of the liturgy, the use of Scripture, determining who will perform the wedding, content of the homily, the kind of music that will be used at the wedding, etc.
- While this may seem complicated, it is important that the lines of headship be kept clear in the planning for the wedding. It is also important that we as a community resist the pattern of making a wedding primarily a bridal or feminine concern. We ought to work hard to establish and reinforce headship and the responsibility of the groom and husband in the relationship.
- Financial responsibility for the wedding should fall primarily on the household of the groom and the household of the bride, and secondarily upon their respective branches. If there is further need, the head of the groom can ask his branch coordinator for community financial help.
- The wedding itself ought to be relatively simple, tastefully done, modest, yet relatively inexpensive. Dress can be formal or informal, but simple. Use of flowers should be modest. Music at the liturgy ought to be provided by the music ministry. Attendants of the bride and attendants of the groom should be relatively few and should be drawn from the community. Exceptions to this last point can be made for valid pastoral reasons. During the wedding it is important that a representative group from the community, especially their heads, as well as representatives of the immediate family of the bride and groom lay hands on the bride and groom and pray with them. Inasmuch as the church situation allows and relationships with family and friends suggests is appropriate, the wedding should be fully and freely charismatic.
- The wedding reception ought to be a joyful celebration, but again, marked by simplicity. It should not be a sit-down meal, but rather, a simple reception. Food should be limited to things like pretzels and nuts, small simple finger sandwiches, brownies and cookies. There should be a nice wedding cake, large enough for everyone to share. Drinks should include coffee and tea, soft drinks, and fruit punch. Wine and beer may also be included. Hard liquor should be avoided. Music for dancing should be provided by the music ministry, or a subgroup of the music ministry. Music should be for the purposes both of singing and dancing. Music may include traditional dancing for couples and modern dancing for couples and groups. The latter kind of dancing ought to be toned down. Of all, however, folk dancing of men and women together, and of men in one group and women in another group is to be encouraged at community weddings.
- Any expenses of the LaSalle building relative to the wedding will be passed on to whoever is paying for the wedding at cost. The use of the Bronzewood Room, the second floor kitchen, and all rooms on the mezzanine will always be free of charge. Food and drink purchased for the wedding will be billed at cost.
- Facilities of the LaSalle building can also be used for rehearsal dinners, wedding breakfast and guest accommodations. In these instances the parties using the facilities will be billed at the normal rate, that is, banquet service at cost plus the added service charge with which to make a profit towards building expenses and room rate at $10.00 a night per person. Some modification of this rate can be made for couples sharing the same room.
- It is important that the head of the groom and the head of the bride working through the preparations for the wedding take adequate care in the choice of the place where the newly-married couple will live. Branch coordinators and branch heads should be well aware in advance of the couple moving into a new branch or needing new headship within a branch in which they already live. Adequate care will help the newly-married couple to be integrated immediately into the pastoral structure of the community.
- The wedding is the establishment of the headship-submission relationship of the groom and the bride. The groom ought to head the relationship with the bride in which the wedding is planned, That is to say, inasmuch as the couple make plans for their wedding, the groom ought to be head of that planning relationship. The groom of course ought to be submitting his role in the wedding to his head, and the bride ought to be submitting her role in the wedding to her head. Therefore, the overall relationship of bride and groom in planning the wedding is to be submitted to their personal life heads. This means that the head of the bride and the head of the groom will have to work together heading the bride and groom in planning their wedding. In this relationship between the head of the bride and the head of the groom, the head of the groom ought to be the head of the relationship. Thus, from the point of view of community order, the key person in relating plans for the wedding to the community and to the bride and groom is the head of the groom. While many people in more than one branch may be involved in working on the wedding, from the point of view of the coordinators, it ought to be the branch of the groom, the head of the groom, and the household of the groom which are seen as the centers of action.
Memo on Dating
MEMORANDUM
TO:
the coordinators
DATE:
12/19/79
FROM: Kevin Ranaghan
Discussion starter for our coordinators’ meeting.
It is our policy to teach those single people considering coming underway that if they come underway, they should not date, that is enter into a relationship or series of relationships with individuals of the opposite sex for about one year after they come underway. The reasons we give are:
- That as new members of the community they need to find their place in the body in relationship a lot of brothers and sisters both married and single and that they should be concentrating on becoming good and fruitful members of the body. If they were to get into a number of casual or one serious dating relationship during this early time, they would undoubtedly short circuit the process of becoming integrated into the community as a brother or sister among brothers and sisters. We say that they ought to take the time to grow and mature somewhat as Christians in the body before moving into relationships that would move towards marriage.
- Another reason we give for this non-dating period is that the patterns of the world from which they’re coming assume that everyone will or should be married. We want to challenge that assumption and to give single people an opportunity to pray through their state in life from the perspective of a new life in a strong body of Christian love. We want to make it possible for everyone to freely consider from the new perspective of community life whether the Lord may be calling them to be single for him, or whether it seems like a good thing to them to be open to getting married. It has always been our policy to give this teaching in a strong way. It is a very serious recommendation. It is not just casual advice. If someone were to violate it, they would surely be out of order. On the other hand, if someone were to violate it, we wouldn’t automatically separate them from the community, but would try to pastor them back on to the right course.
It is our policy, however, to have one or two exceptions to the above policy. If someone comes to the community who is already engaged, or an engaged couple came to the community, or someone or a couple came to the community who were “engaged to be engaged” that is to say had a really serious commitment going with someone else, we have been willing to accept that commitment as a given and to work with it.
You will note that our teaching says that in the first year being in the community people should be getting into a number of relationships with brothers and sisters in the community. Our intention has always been to provide attractive, strong, enjoyable and spiritually fruitful alternatives to the dating system in the world. The alternatives consist of a number of events in the community; community gatherings, men’s groups, women’s groups, single men’s activities, single women’s activities, mixed singles’ activities, community service, the option of household living, and informal group socialization. As we review our policy on dating we should also review the effectiveness of the alternatives that we are providing.
We expect single people to pray through their state in life. If they pray through their state in life and come up with the conclusion that the Lord may be calling them to be single for the Lord, we direct them towards the brotherhood or the sisterhood. If they pray through their state in life and come to the conclusion that they should marry, then they become open to a process of dating in the community. We should give our attention to some serious questions at this point; Who is pastoring the people through the process of praying through the process of praying through their state in life? Is it their own personal head? Their branch head? Their branch coordinator? Is everyone in headship capable of pastoring someone in this serious decision making process? Furthermore, what do people, particularly women, think is happening when they make a decision to be open to marriage? Do they think that if they make such a decision the Lord will honor it and provide them with a husband? Do they think that the Lord is directing them to get married? Or do they think it’s their own personal decision that’s OK with the Lord? Another way to put it is; Is marriage a vocation and/or charism in the smae way that being single for the Lord is? That could lead us into an extensive discussion.
As a body of coordinators, I do not think we have ever made a uniform policy on dating, but Paul and I have both taught pretty much the same thing over the years and in that sense, we have established a community teaching. Some of its elements are:
- When a person makes a decision to be open to Christian marriage, they should then be in a position to actually pursue getting married, that is they should be mature enough, ready enough, so that within a relatively short period of time they could actually be married. We would teach for example, that it is possible that a man might make such a decision, be ready, pick someone that he would like to marry and pursue that relationship aggressively so that they could, in fact, be married within a relatively short period such as six months.
- At the same time, we have taught that it would not be abnormal for the following kind of process to take place; that one making this decision to be open to marriage would need to enter into a process of coming to know some or several brothers or sisters of the opposite sex for a period of time, to socialize with some of them on an individual basis, to have a good time: in good personal brother-sisterly relationships, and in that process to be looking for a possibilities or candidates to be more seriously considered as a husband or a wife. We call this process casual dating. We have been consistent in our teaching that casual dating relationships may be carried on with a number of people at the same time, but they should be brotherly and sisterly in their character, that they should be absolutely non-worldly, non-erotic, non-smoochy. We have said that it would not be abnormal for a period of casual dating to be six months in length, although it could be longer or shorter.
- We have said that people get into a serious dating relationship in order to pursue the question of whether or not a particular brother and sister should decide to marry. It is a period of coming to know each other well and of communicating seriously enough so that a responsible decision about engagement can be made. We have said that it would be reasonable too for a serious relationship to be up to six months in length. We would not be particularly happy to see it drag on much beyond that. Some decision ought to be reached in about that period of time.
- An engagement is a commitment to marry one another. We have said that engagements should be about six months in length to allow the couple to come to really reflect on their decision and to solidify their relationship. We have always said that it is possible for an engaged couple to terminate their engagement freely should some serious problem come up, or should they get cold feet, or change their minds. Our experience has shown that six months is about the right time for an engagement. Anything significantly shorter is too hectic. Anything significantly longer becomes too tense.
- In serious dating and in engagements we have always emphasized that while the natural selection process should be functioning between a couple and they ought to have a good and healthy attraction towards each other, that their relationship should not be characterized by erotic behavior. In serious dating relationships signs of affection ought to be minimal, not much more than the normal expressions of affection between brothers and sisters in the community. In engagements we have given as a rule of thumb that couples should behave in private exactly as they would if they were in public.
An important point about all the above is that our community teaching has always been that dating is only for the purpose, whether remote or proximate, of moving towards getting married.
We have in front of us a whole set of questions concerning single people, particularly women, who have made decisions to be open to marriage, but who do not seem in fact to be moving towards marriage. This set of questions is something that I think we should take up separately from the discussion of this policy with the following exception; it is our policy to say that single people in the People of Praise, are free, if they wish to, and under the appropriate headship, to enter into dating realtionships outside the community, but that they must understand that such a course of action could affect their participation in the life of the community. We have recognized in our discussion that this is a different situation for a man than for a woman. A man can enter into a Christian marriage with someone outside the community and integrate her into the life of the community under his headship, but a woman marrying a man outside the community and becoming submissive to him is not in that position. The practical issue, however, is with women rather than with men. We have said that women, even covenanted women, would be free to pursue such a course of action as long as they understand the seriousness of its implications. While this is our policy, it does not seem to be widely known, even by those in headship in the community.
This review of our present policies and teachings leads us to two more areas of specific pastoral concern.
- How should this policy and teaching be applied in the campus branch which presents particular cultural problems to us?
- How should this policy and teaching be applied to children of the community? Working on the second question is perhaps the more critical of the two at the moment. It leads us to a discussion not only of how our kids should relate to one another, but how they should relate to their peers outside the community and what kinds of alternatives are we offering to them to replace the normal worldly way of behavior and relationships.
Copyright © 2022 People of Praise, Inc.