It has always troubled me that, generally speaking, people are under enormous pressure to have the kind of wedding ceremony that our culture expects. Of course, I did too, and I enjoyed every moment of it.

But I am now in the business of preparing couples for marriage, and officiating on their 'big' day. I've been doing so for almost twenty years, and I'm seeing my children's friends preparing to get married. I am approaching significant milestones which I remember my parents reaching. I must be getting old.

Then I read of accounts of marriages in the past. Most seem to have taken place in the drawing room of the manse, not in church. Most also seem to have been celebrated in the local village, not in some posh mainland hotel.

Indeed, weddings were much more of a local affair than they are now. The wedding planners were local, the reception was in a village hall, the barn was done out for the dance afterward, and the night air resounded to dancing and the sound of the melodeon. Now the 'danns' an rathaid' is a showpiece. No-one does it for real anymore.

I think I would love to officiate at a plain, local wedding, in which the frills and paraphernalia of modern wedding rituals were stripped away, and couples were free of the pressure to meet current expectations.

Of course, no-one wants to break the mould, and some people do have eleven thousand pounds to spend on such rites of passage. But, quite apart from the financial consideration, there are more important issues at stake here.

Not least among these is our definition of what marriage is. It is not simply a social convention or institution. According to the Bible, it is an ordinance as old as creation, the one thing that could improve paradise. God simply gave Eve to Adam, and they were married. Their relationship was within the ordinance of God, and was to be the paradigm for marriage, which included leaving parents, cleaving to one another, and being one flesh.

There was no great ceremony, no expensive meal, no video, no rings, and, of course, no reception (obviously - who could they invite?). These elements evolved over time as social conventions. In themselves, these social conventions are neither necessary nor unnecessary - Jesus himself attended such a bash at Cana in Galilee and famously improved the alcohol.

But my point is simple: a lavish wedding is not necessary for a valid marriage. I conduct a marriage as part of a religious ceremony, reflecting the divine origin of the institution; a couple is then legally recognized as a unit, reflecting the social nature of the relationship.

And that is it. The bond of love is cemented and sealed by the formal commitment of one party to another. It's a good idea, which continues to defy the social mores to which we have become all too accustomed.

It defies the logic that says that it is enough for a couple to live together. Is marriage not just a piece of paper, after all? Well no - there is no obligation to commitment when a couple is merely co-habiting. Either party can walk out at any time. Marriage is opt-in. Living together is opt-out.

It also defies the logic that the affair is the norm. Too much of our media portrayal of relationships sells the lie either that marriage is unnecessary or that developing other relationships while being married is somehow acceptable.

And it defies the logic behind every effort to make divorce easy and quick. I know that marriages do break down, and sometimes cannot be rescued. Divorce, within certain clearly defined boundaries, is not in itself unbiblical or unchristian. It may well be that too many couples rush into marriage too quickly; but I certainly do not wish them to rush into divorce quickly.

Ultimately, too, a Christian view of marriage defies the logic that justifies civil partnerships between same-sex couples. By no interpretation of the Bible can marriage be anything other than the lifelong commitment of one man and one woman to one another.

This is precisely my point: when the wedding is over, the marriage has just begun. I would rather see couples investing time and energy into their marriages than spending thousands of pounds on a wedding ceremony simply to conform to social custom.

Given that it is far better to break the wedding than the marriage, perhaps we have a lot to learn from our forefathers and foremothers. For many of them there was no grand wedding, no lavish ceremony, no big reception. There was just a homely, village celebration, and a lifelong commitment afterwards. We need to get our priorities right.

Of course, I shall continue to encourage couples in whatever plans they make to mark their transition from single status to married life. I shall encourage them to stay married once they have been married. I shall help couples whose marriages dissolve, and continue to pastor those who find themselves, perhaps through no fault of their own, in difficult relationships where emotional costs are high, and personal rewards are few.

Sometimes, though, I would like to see the downgrading of the way we do weddings, and the upgrading of the way we view marriage. And, of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that I have a sixteen-year-old daughter whose wedding, no doubt, will set me back the best part of a poor preacher's stipend….