The history of white church wedding is not biblical; it cant be found in either the old testament account nor the new testament account, nor Jewish (as most old testament section of the bible is the account of the lives, cultures, religion of the Jews Israelites), nor does it have anything to do with the teachings of Christ (new testament teachings). As a matter of fact, Christ never wedded anyone. The two most prominent accounts of marriage recorded in the bible were that of Abraham sending his servant to travel to his home town to find a wife for Isaac, see Gen. 24:33-67, and the other, in the new testament where Christ was a guest to a wedding in Canaan in Galilee, see John 2:1-11. In both cases, what took place were traditional wedding fulfilled according to their customs and traditions. The history of White wedding among Africans dated back to the colonial rule in Africa where the colonizers saw everything done by the Africans to be barbaric, ungodly, and savagery, and the customs and traditions of the Africans were the prime target for if they could convince a race (the Africans?) that their traditions and cultures were inferior and evil, but that of the Europeans are righteous, good, heavenly, progressive, they (the Africans) would easily be conquered, and they did! And also at that time, colonial cum civil service was a trophy, as any African that worked with the colonial government was a demi-god before his people, and as such, one of the surest ways to lose the prestigious colonial post was to do a traditional wedding which is seen by the colonizers as barbaric and savagery, and the colonial priests pulpit did justice by speaking the word of God which says do not be equally yoked with unbelievers, come out among them and be separated from them. And in place of the traditional wedding, the white wedding was put in place. White wedding also had this thingy of superiority because it was the way of life of the Europeans which was civilized, and it became a thing to brag with by the Africans. Understanding how Africans craved for everything Europeans will aid you in understanding how it then spread like wild fire
The New Testament account of marriage is the account of marriage that formed the hocus-pocus of White church wedding, and a little dissection will do justice to the false teachings on this issue still upheld by the post-colonial church. First, Jesus, was a guest. He was neither the officiating priest, nor master of ceremony, nor sitting at any place of relevance in the ceremony. Hence any assertion that he prayed for the couple, officiated their wedding, will be but a blatant lie. Secondly, the venue wasn't in the synagogue, or what we will call in todays language-church. Thirdly, Jesus performed a miracle at the request of the mother, Mary, and not even at the request of the celebrants, and had it not been because of the veto power of motherhood Mary had over Jesus, had it been it was another person, he could not have done anything. The response of Jesus to the mother made this assertion certain Woman, why do you trouble me, my hour has not yet come. Lets now take into some details the fallacy of ad ignorantum peddled by those who are either unable to reason well, or are ignorant religious merchandise.
Had it been the Jesus wasn't there, the miracle of turning water into wine would not have taken place.
Please, where is it in the history of the world that a groom and his bride got separated and never lived together because wine finished at their wedding?
Everybody needs Jesus in their marriage because he is the new wine that keeps ceremony (the marriage) going when the old wine has finished.
There are thousands of religions in the whole world, four thousand two hundred to be precise, and Christianity is just one of them, hence, those that do not subscribe to Christianity, have their marriage all crashed? And those that did subscribe to Christianity are their marriage all a pure bliss?
Further hocus-pocus arguments in favour of white wedding by the church:
Wedding in the church is inviting Jesus in your wedding and making Him lord over your marriage.
This argument is such porous and cannot hold any reasonable amount of water. Many sets of unfaithful wives and husbands, wife and husband beaters, who have wedded in church, have invited Jesus to be the head of the family, so is Jesus still heading such a toxic family? Many couple that have divorced, so does it mean that Jesus is such powerless that he could not glue them together, or that he does not know how to head such that he fails in his responsibilities, or that he is such irresponsible that he does not care whether his name is brought to shame by the separation of the duo in whom his name has been called?
It is needed that the couple receives the priestly blessing?
Whose hearts will pour forth gracious blessings? The priests or the both parents of the couple? In as much as that the priestly blessing should not be vilified, however, many marriages that have crashed have gone to church and have received the priestly blessing, yet they crashed. Yet do have problems too. Therefore the priestly blessing is never a guarantee for a blissful home. The both parents of the couples blessing will authoritatively speak much volume than that of 100 priests combined together because they have been the priest, mother, father, mentor, friend over ones life from birth till the very day of marriage. They have been the greater priest than that man robed in white cassock.
You are not legitimately married if you are not wedded in church, and you are committing fornication with your wife if you have only done traditional marriage.
To start with, white church wedding is the evolved TRADITIONAL wedding of the British. Having established this fact, it goes that the church values the British traditional marriage over our own traditional marriage. Secondly, from every biblical account, there has never been any wedding officiated in the synagogue, they have always been traditional marriage, so why is this big falsehood that the couple are committing fornication even when the man has paid the bride price of the woman? And both parents of the duo have consented to the marriage, where in the name of Jesus and righteousness do church priests, most especially orthodox priests get the information, and peddle such falsehood that the couple is committing fornication? If not to keep the attendants of their churches perpetually held in bondage of colonialism. For legitimacy, it is the court marriage that gives constitutional legitimacy to every marriage, and not the church.
In conclusion, somewhat I am not against the churchs seemingly innocuous ideology behind their actionto get the blessing of God, even though I do not buy into it because the real blessing of God is the one both parents of the couple graciously and wholeheartedly give the couple, but what totally should be against at is the cultural bastardization evoked by the priests when they demonize African traditional marriage over the British traditional marriage, thus sustaining the cultural inferiority complex started by the British colonial rule. If the church really want to be Christly and righteous about this marriage issue, and not sustaining the colonial rule on the Africans, they should “legitimize” the traditional marriage from their pulpit and from the bible also, they should further solidify this by officiating the marriage in the traditional marriage, after the traditional rites has been fulfilled during the course of the marriage, they should then take few minutes, or any minutes they deem fit to bless the marriage, and put the ring, and other things, then the celebration aspect of eating and drinking, dancing, and bringing gifts to the couple follows suite. By this they would consciously and psychological starts mending the cultural inferiority propagated by the colonial rule, and make a race start finding their roots again, and taking pride in their identity.
Comments
Post a Comment