🧪 Case Study 10.3: The Couple Says, “Marriage Means Whatever We Decide It Means”
🧪 Case Study 10.3: The Couple Says, “Marriage Means Whatever We Decide It Means”
Scenario
Jordan and Mia meet with a Christian Wedding Officiant to plan their ceremony. They are friendly, intelligent, and excited. They have been together for four years and describe themselves as “spiritual but not really church people.”
Mia grew up in a Christian home but has not attended church regularly since college. Jordan says he respects Christianity but does not want the ceremony to feel “old-fashioned or doctrinal.”
They ask the officiant for a Christian wedding because Mia’s grandmother is deeply Christian, and because they like the beauty of Scripture, prayer, and blessing. They also want the ceremony to feel personal.
During the conversation, the officiant asks, “What do you believe marriage is?”
Jordan smiles and says, “Honestly, marriage means whatever we decide it means. We don’t want anyone else defining it for us.”
Mia adds, “Exactly. We want the ceremony to reflect our truth. We want it to be about our journey, our love, and the life we are creating together.”
The officiant listens carefully. Jordan and Mia are not being hostile. They are not trying to mock Christian marriage. They sound sincere. But their language reveals a serious worldview issue.
They want Christian beauty, but not necessarily Christian authority.
They want blessing, but not necessarily covenant definition.
They want Scripture as atmosphere, but not necessarily Scripture as truth.
They want the ceremony to affirm their story, but they are not yet ready to place their story under God’s larger story.
The officiant must decide how to respond.
Beneath-the-Surface Analysis
On the surface, Jordan and Mia are asking for personalization.
That is not wrong. A Christian wedding can include the couple’s story. It can mention how they met, what they admire in one another, what challenges they have faced, and what hopes they carry into marriage.
But beneath the surface, the phrase “marriage means whatever we decide it means” signals something deeper.
It suggests that marriage is self-defined rather than received.
It suggests that the couple’s private meaning is higher than Scripture, creation, covenant, and Christ.
It suggests that the officiant’s role may be reduced to affirming the couple’s chosen narrative.
This is where Christian Philosophy and Ministry Sciences become very practical.
The officiant must not overreact. Jordan and Mia may simply be using cultural language without understanding its implications.
But the officiant must also not surrender Christian marriage.
The couple’s story is real, but not sovereign.
Christian marriage is received, not invented.
What the Officiant Notices
The officiant notices several patterns.
First, Jordan and Mia want a meaningful ceremony, not a shallow one. That is good.
Second, they are open to Christian elements, but they may want those elements for emotional or aesthetic value more than covenant truth.
Third, they are using expressive individualist language: “our truth,” “our journey,” “the life we are creating,” and “whatever we decide it means.”
Fourth, they may be reacting against cold, rigid, or impersonal forms of religion. Their desire for authenticity may come from real wounds or disappointments.
Fifth, Mia’s grandmother’s faith matters to them socially and emotionally, but the couple has not yet embraced the Christian meaning of marriage for themselves.
Sixth, if the officiant proceeds without clarification, the ceremony could become Christian-looking but not Christian-rooted.
This case does not call for immediate condemnation. It calls for careful teaching.
What Is Happening Spiritually and Relationally
Spiritually, Jordan and Mia are standing between two stories.
One story is the Christian story:
Marriage is given by God, rooted in creation, affirmed by Christ, publicly vowed, and lived as covenant faithfulness.
The other story is the expressive individualist story:
Marriage is defined by the couple’s inner meaning, feelings, identity, and shared narrative.
Relationally, Jordan and Mia appear bonded and sincere. They want their relationship to be honored. They may fear that traditional Christian language will erase their uniqueness or force them into a formula.
That fear should be heard.
But Christian marriage does not erase personal story. It gives personal story a covenant home.
The officiant can say:
“Your story matters. The Christian question is not whether your story matters. The question is whether your story defines marriage, or whether your story is being gathered into God’s design for marriage.”
That is the central issue.
What Is Happening Philosophically
This case study is a clear example of postmodern ceremony drift and expressive individualism.
Jordan and Mia assume that meaning comes from within the couple and is expressed outwardly in the ceremony.
The officiant must recognize the philosophical shift:
From received truth to created meaning.
From covenant before God to personal narrative.
From Scripture as authority to Scripture as atmosphere.
From vows as binding promises to vows as self-expression.
From the officiant as ministerial witness to the officiant as ceremony facilitator.
Christian Philosophy helps the officiant resist reductionism.
Marriage is not reducible to the couple’s story.
Marriage includes story, but it is more than story.
Marriage includes emotion, but it is more than emotion.
Marriage includes personal meaning, but it is more than personal meaning.
Marriage is a many-sided created reality ordered under God.
Ministry Sciences Observation
A Ministry Sciences observer asks:
What am I observing?
The officiant observes a couple who desires a Christian-flavored ceremony while assuming marriage is self-defined.
What pattern appears?
The couple values authenticity, story, and personal meaning, but is uncertain about Christian authority, covenant structure, and received truth.
What biblical truth interprets the situation?
Genesis 2:24 teaches that marriage is rooted in creation:
Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother, and will join with his wife, and they will be one flesh.
— Genesis 2:24, WEB
Jesus affirms this creation pattern in Matthew 19:6:
So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, don’t let man tear apart.
— Matthew 19:6, WEB
Marriage is not merely what the couple decides. Marriage is what God joins.
What wise ministry response follows?
The officiant should gently clarify what a Christian wedding can and cannot say.
The officiant should invite Jordan and Mia into a better story, not simply reject their desire for personalization.
What Is Happening Theologically
The theological issue is authority.
Who defines marriage?
The couple?
The culture?
The family?
The state?
The wedding industry?
The church?
Or God?
A Christian wedding begins with the conviction that God defines marriage. The church does not invent marriage. The officiant does not invent marriage. The couple does not invent marriage. The ceremony does not invent marriage.
God gives marriage its meaning.
The bride and groom enter that meaning through public vows before God and witnesses.
This does not mean Jordan and Mia’s story is unimportant. It means their story must be brought under God’s story.
The officiant must help them see that Christian marriage is not cold tradition. It is a living covenant.
It is personal, but not self-invented.
It is beautiful, but not merely aesthetic.
It is emotional, but not emotion-governed.
It is public, but not crowd-defined.
It is spiritual, but not vague.
It is covenant before God.
Wise First Response
The officiant should respond calmly and warmly.
A wise first response might sound like this:
“Jordan and Mia, I appreciate that you want the ceremony to be personal and honest. I do not want your wedding to feel generic. Your story matters. At the same time, because you are asking for a Christian wedding, I need to be clear that Christian marriage is not something we invent. It is something we receive from God. My role is to help your story be honored within God’s larger story of creation, covenant, Christ, and faithful love.”
This response does several things.
It affirms personalization.
It avoids shaming the couple.
It clarifies Christian authority.
It names the officiant’s role.
It creates room for further conversation.
Questions the Officiant Should Ask
The officiant can ask:
“When you say marriage means whatever you decide it means, what are you hoping to protect?”
“Are you concerned that traditional marriage language will feel impersonal or controlling?”
“Why do you want a Christian wedding specifically?”
“What role do you want Scripture and prayer to have in the ceremony?”
“Do you believe marriage is a covenant before God?”
“Are you willing for the ceremony to clearly say that marriage is received from God?”
“What do vows mean to you?”
“Are your vows mainly emotional expressions, or are they binding promises?”
“How do you understand lifelong faithfulness?”
“How will your marriage be shaped by forgiveness, sacrifice, sexual faithfulness, prayer, and truth?”
These questions are not traps. They are shepherding tools.
What Not to Do
The officiant should not say:
“You are just postmodern, and that is the problem.”
That may be accurate philosophically, but it is not pastorally helpful.
The officiant should not say:
“Fine, we can make marriage mean whatever you want.”
That surrenders Christian marriage.
The officiant should not say:
“Your story does not matter.”
That is untrue and needlessly cold.
The officiant should not say:
“As long as your grandmother is happy, we can include a little God language.”
That reduces Christian marriage to family sentiment.
The officiant should not say:
“I will keep the Christian parts vague.”
That confuses hospitality with theological fog.
The officiant must be warm, but not vague.
Stronger Conversation Example
Officiant: “Jordan, when you say marriage means whatever you decide it means, tell me more about that.”
Jordan: “We just do not want a cookie-cutter ceremony. We want it to be ours.”
Officiant: “That makes sense. A Christian wedding should not feel like a form letter. Mia, what does ‘our truth’ mean to you?”
Mia: “I guess I mean our real story. Not just something traditional that does not fit us.”
Officiant: “I hear that. Your real story should be honored. But here is the distinction I want to make. In a Christian wedding, your story is not ignored, but it is also not the highest authority. Christian marriage is received from God. So I can help make the ceremony personal, but I cannot say marriage means whatever we decide it means.”
Jordan: “So what would you say instead?”
Officiant: “I would say something like: ‘Today, your story is gathered into God’s larger story of creation, covenant, Christ, and faithful love.’ That lets the ceremony be personal and Christian at the same time.”
Mia: “That actually sounds good.”
Officiant: “Wonderful. Then our next step is to talk about the vows. Personal vows can be beautiful, but they must still be covenant promises before God.”
This conversation protects truth without closing the door.
Sample Phrases to Say
“A Christian wedding can be personal without being self-invented.”
“Your story matters, but Christian marriage is larger than your story.”
“The ceremony should reflect your real journey, but it should also witness to God’s design for marriage.”
“Marriage is not something you create from scratch. It is a covenant you receive before God.”
“Your vows are not merely expressions of feeling. They are promises before God and witnesses.”
“We can make the ceremony warm, personal, and meaningful while still keeping Christian covenant clear.”
“Scripture is not just atmosphere. Scripture reveals the truth of marriage.”
Sample Phrases Not to Say
“Marriage means whatever the two of you decide.”
“Your love creates its own truth.”
“This day is only about your story.”
“We can keep God vague so everyone is comfortable.”
“The Christian part can just be symbolic.”
“Your vows only need to express how you feel today.”
“Tradition does not matter; only authenticity matters.”
These phrases may sound gracious, but they quietly move away from Christian marriage.
Role-Specific Guidance
1. The One-Wedding Officiant
The one-wedding officiant may be serving a friend or family member and may feel pressure to simply say yes.
Do not panic. But do not copy vague internet language.
Use a simple covenant-centered framework:
“Today, before God and these witnesses, you enter Christian marriage as a covenant of faithful love.”
That one sentence can protect the ceremony.
2. The Ordained Wedding Officiant
The ordained wedding officiant will encounter this language often.
Create a standard preparation question:
“When you say you want the ceremony to be personal, how do you understand Christian marriage as covenant before God?”
This helps you distinguish healthy personalization from self-invention.
3. The Church Staff Minister
The church staff minister should help the church create wedding policies that are warm and clear.
A good church policy can say:
“We gladly personalize Christian weddings to honor the bride and groom’s real story. However, all weddings conducted under this ministry must clearly witness to marriage as a covenant before God.”
That policy prevents confusion.
4. The Chaplain
The chaplain may face urgent wedding requests with little time for preparation.
Even then, do not use vague phrases like “your truth” or “whatever marriage means to you.”
Use brief, clear covenant language:
“Today you enter marriage before God as a covenant of faithful love.”
Short can still be faithful.
5. The Life Coach Minister or Romance Officiant
The Life Coach Minister or Romance Officiant can help couples explore the difference between personal expression and covenant formation.
Ask:
“How will your marriage be more than self-expression?”
“How will your vows shape you when feelings change?”
“How will Christ form your love?”
“How will your personal story be submitted to God’s story?”
These questions move couples from self-expression to discipleship.
Organic Humans Reflection
Jordan and Mia are not isolated selves inventing marriage.
They are embodied souls before God.
Mia is an organic female image-bearer. Jordan is an organic male image-bearer. Their bodies, emotions, histories, sexuality, family stories, wounds, hopes, and spiritual questions all matter.
But they do not interpret these things by private narrative alone.
They are called to bring their embodied lives under Christ.
The Organic Humans framework helps the officiant honor the couple deeply without giving them authority to redefine marriage.
It also guards against crude stereotypes. Jordan is not called to domination. Mia is not called to self-erasure. Both are called to covenant faithfulness as image-bearers before God.
Christian Philosophy Reflection
This case reveals several philosophical tensions.
Lingual aspect: Words like “our truth” and “whatever we decide” shape public meaning.
Historical aspect: Jordan and Mia are tempted to detach marriage from its received biblical and Christian history.
Ethical aspect: Love must rejoice with truth, not merely personal preference.
Pistical / faith aspect: The deepest question is what is ultimate: the couple’s story or God’s design?
Analytical aspect: The officiant must distinguish personalization from self-invention.
Christian Philosophy helps the officiant see that the issue is not merely wording. It is worship.
What is being treated as ultimate?
If the couple’s self-definition is ultimate, the ceremony cannot remain faithfully Christian.
If God is ultimate, the couple’s story can be honored in its proper place.
Final Pastoral Recommendation
The officiant should not immediately refuse to serve Jordan and Mia. Their language may reflect cultural formation more than hardened rejection.
The officiant should continue only if they are willing to receive Christian marriage as covenant before God.
The officiant should require a deeper conversation about:
Marriage as received, not invented
Scripture as authority, not atmosphere
Vows as promises, not merely emotional expression
The couple’s story under God’s larger story
Personalization serving covenant
Prayer, blessing, and public witness
The bride and groom as embodied souls before God
If Jordan and Mia are willing to learn, the officiant may proceed with joy.
If they insist that Christian marriage must be redefined by their private meaning, the officiant should graciously decline.
A Christian Wedding Officiant must not perform a Christian-looking ceremony that denies the Christian meaning of marriage.
Reflection and Application Questions
What does Jordan’s phrase “marriage means whatever we decide it means” reveal?
Why should the officiant avoid overreacting to Jordan and Mia’s language?
What is the difference between personalization and self-invention?
Why is “our truth” language risky in Christian wedding ministry?
How can the officiant honor the couple’s story without making it sovereign?
What does it mean to say Scripture is not merely atmosphere?
How should personal vows be shaped in a Christian ceremony?
What would be a vague response to Jordan and Mia?
What would be a harsh response?
What would be a warm and clear covenant response?
How does the Organic Humans framework help the officiant see Jordan and Mia?
Under what condition should the officiant proceed?
Key Takeaway
When a couple says, “Marriage means whatever we decide it means,” the Christian Wedding Officiant should not panic or surrender. The officiant should lovingly clarify that a Christian wedding can be personal without being self-invented. The couple’s story is real, but not sovereign. Christian marriage is received from God, publicly vowed before witnesses, and lived as covenant faithfulness under Scripture, creation, covenant, and Christ.