4 Comments

1. Kyle
   Posted September 15, 2006 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

   A few weeks ago, as you well know, Josh, a friend of ours had a wedding. It didn’t take place in a church, as tradition would have it, but in the grass. There’s was no priest, no rabbi, but instead, the brother of the bride, who just happened to be certified to marry people. The groom, while in a tuxedo, wore sandals.

   With that being said, it was a semi-traditional wedding. The bride walked down the aisle; there were vows, a bridal party, toasts from the best men, dances with parents, and, we’ll assume, a bit of drunken consumation at the end of the night.

   For my own part, whatever “wedding” I have will not be traditional, not because I dislike traditions, but because I respect them enough as meaningful traditions for some people to not follow them when they don’t mean anything to me.

   There’s a scene in Joyce’s “Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man,” when Stephen is having a rather intense discussion with a fellow he knows (he hesitates to call him a friend), and they start talking about why Stephen doesn’t take communion:

   - Do you believe in the eucharist? Cranly asked.
   - I do not, Stephen said.
   - Do you disbelieve then?
   - I neither believe in it nor disbelieve in it, Stephen answered.
   - Many persons have doubts, even religious persons, yet they overcome them or put them aside, Cranly said. Are your doubts on that point too strong?
   - I do not wish to overcome them, Stephen answered.
   …
   - And is that why you will not communicate, Cranly asked, because you feel that the host too may be the body and blood of the son of God and not a wafer of bread? And because you fear that it may be?
   - Yes, Stephen said quietly. I feel that and I also fear it.
   …
   - But why do you fear a bit of bread?
   - I imagine, Stephen said, that there is a malevolent reality behind those things I say I fear.
   - Do you fear then, Cranly asked, that the God of the Roman catholics would strike you dead and damn you if you made a sacrilegious communion?
   - The God of the Roman catholics could do that now, Stephen said. I fear more than that the chemical reaction which would be set up in my soul by a false homage to a symbol behind which are massed twenty centuries of authority and veneration.

   My point, I guess, is that nothing prevents us from not following traditions. I think you’re absolutely right, a richer life awaits us, but instead of saying “updating,” I suggest it would be better if we “recreated.” Because it’s not about bringing traditions into the modern time, but about creating new traditions that find their meanings in our lives, and not the lives of our forefathers and mothers.

2. jody
   Posted September 15, 2006 at 01:49 pm | Permalink

   I agree that it must be meaningful for the individual(s) and thats why Leigh and Deb chose different customs from different nationalities and religions that held meaning for them. I love how each wedding has a different feel and represents that couple {from Justin’s to Leigh’s to Babo’s to Lisa Op’s} not only the acutal ceremony but the choice of location, who is invited (kids or not) and the reception (trust me, I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately). I’ll be interested to see what your wedding will be like Kyle.

3. justin
   Posted September 15, 2006 at 05:02 pm | Permalink

   Thanks josh, for not inviting me to your wedding you big jerk. Kyle your mother is not going to like that one bit.

4. Kyle
   Posted September 16, 2006 at 03:23 pm | Permalink

   My mom said we could do anything we wanted, as long as she was there.