 |
| Source: WalesOnline (Image: Caroline McCredie/Getty Images) |
The Christmas present to the Church in Wales from their bishops:
A BILL TO AUTHORISE EXPERIMENTAL USE OF PROPOSED REVISIONS OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER (service of Blessing following a Civil Partnership or Marriage between two people of the same sex)
WHEREAS the Order of Clergy and Order of Laity of the Governing Body of the Church in Wales indicated their view by informal poll on 12 September 2018 ‘that it is pastorally unsustainable for the Church to make no formal provision for those in same-gender relationships’.
AND WHEREAS the Bench of Bishops believes that it is desirable that, before a bill for the revision of a part of the Book of Common Prayer is submitted by the Bishops for the consideration of the Governing Body, a proposed form of service be used experimentally in the churches of the Church in Wales for a limited period.
BE IT HEREBY ENACTED that:
1. A Diocesan Bishop shall have power to authorise for experimental use in the churches within their diocese the form set out in the Appendix for a service of Blessing following a Civil Partnership or Marriage between two people of the same sex for a period of five years from 1 October 2021, subject to the conditions set out below.
2. No Cleric shall be obliged to officiate at such a service.
3. The Parochial Fees for a ‘Marriage Blessing (following a Civil Marriage)’ may be charged by the officiating minister and Parochial Church Council for such a service.
Backers:
+John Cambrensis
+Andrew Bangor
+Gregory Llanelwy
+Joanna Tyddewi
+June Landav
+Cherry Monmouth
From Church Times:
In an explanatory memorandum, the Bishops acknowledge that scripture and Christian tradition have previously understood unions of one man and one woman as the only context for sexual relationships.
“However, with new social, scientific and psychological understandings of sexuality in the last one and a half centuries, we believe that same-sex relationships can be understood in a radically different way, and that the teaching of Scripture should therefore be re-interrogated,” the Bishops write.
Postscript [02.01.2021]
From Coalition for Marriage (C4M):
Legalising gay marriage has caused a surge in divorce rates among lesbians, says same-sex fertility chief. - Mail Online
Meanwhile in Wales, Kirsty Williams’s Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill was debated last month. The current legal requirement for pupils to “learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children” has been ditched. The parental right of withdrawal is also thrown out.
More from C4M here.
re-interrogated; that made me chuckle; keep attacking it until it submits
ReplyDeleteNo Cleric shall be obliged to officiate at such a service.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that assurance. Other assurances have previously come to nothing eg ongoing episcopal provision for those who do not accept ordination of women. That went by the board once David Thomas retired. Anyway five years on from 2021, what will remain of the Church in Wales?
Cymraes yn Lloegr
The Church has to accept that rules in society change. Marriage is a very ancient institution and probably predates Christianity by 2000 years . Marriage as adopted by many societies has evolved . Historically it was an alliance between families who chose the partners.
ReplyDeleteChristianity also developed an interest in marriage and S.Paul compared the relationship between man and woman to that of Christ and His church.
But the concept of marriage has changed again to one of mutual comfort allied with responsibilities which are legally bonded. One’s trusted partner may not be governed by XX and XY genes.
The Church does not own marriage. But does not the Church have a responsibility to respond to the needs of its family members, however they understand their way to express love.
Is it not an error on the part of the Church to send forth the message that love can fit only the definition evolved within the Church.
Of course the Church has a responsibility to respond to the needs of its family members but where does it end if scripture and tradition are ignored to satisfy every desire?
DeleteMarriage is the union between a man and a woman. Marriage does not have to be redefined to show that the Church cares.
The Bill is a stepping stone towards same sex marriage in Church. Why stop there? Should the Church bless Polyamory?
"Drawing on the teaching of the Bible, and of the Church down through the centuries, the Church in Wales Marriage Service talks about marriage as a gift of God. Marriage is described as the lifelong, faithful union between a man and a woman, and married love is compared with the love Jesus has for his people – a love expressed in his willing sacrifice of himself on the cross." - Church in Wales - before bishops became social workers.
My point is that historically the church does not own marriage. Yes,it is a gift from God, just as everything is a gift from God.
ReplyDeleteGod loves all his creatures and creation, and we are destined to receive God’s infinite love. It is in this context that the church should approach the individual person and his/ her dignity.
The church must decide if she wants to truly embrace all souls who seek to belong or will the church continue to marginalise.
Pope Francis said “if a person is gay and seeks out the Lord and is willing,who am I to judge”.
There should be no opposition between mercy and law.
Jesus criticised the Pharisees for their strict adherence to the laws and preventing people from finding salvation.
As Pope Francis has said “The name of God is mercy”.
Simple Soul, are you saying that Christ's Church should, in the the name of love, endorse every practice? Marriage with a minor,for instance? or paederasty or paedophilia or bestiality? It looks like it.Christ loved everyone without approving of all their actions. Some ways of behaving he condemned in the strongest terms.
ReplyDeleteRob
The conversation which AB posted is about same sex marriage and I seek to discuss in terms of the many genuine loyal long term unions. It is rather silly and infantile to align good people with pedophiles and promiscuous activity. We should not forget that there is a number of male priests in long term loving relationships with another man. There are also secular same sex families with children. So at what point in their lives will these children be welcome in the church community? Perhaps you might say the children are welcome as innocent parties? Then how do you explain to the children,or *do*you explain to the children that their parents are ostracised?
ReplyDeleteSociety is changing and unless the church finds a way to accommodate the reality that same sex union exists ,it will be portraying a bigoted love of Christ.
Rob: may I just add that I have no tolerance for pedophilia.However,I am fully aware that there are priests who surreptitiously welcome back pedophiliac offending brother priests into the church fold; there is no consistency in the church.
Yet, I maintain that this is the logical direction of your original argument about love accepting and approving what the Church has traditionally condemned.
ReplyDeleteRob
Why do you persist in trying to distort what I write with your outrageous extrapolations expressing your Pharisaic statements referring to ‘traditional condemnation’?.
DeleteThe Anglican Church has not ‘traditionally condemned’ same sex relationships, as exemplified by the presence of a number of priests in same sex relationships. I further drew your attention to the matter of pedophile priests who are not ‘traditionally condemned’ either.
Luke 6:42
Matthew 7:5
Rob clearly explains why the Anglican Church in Wales is declining and possibly expiring.
AB - If the accusations from ‘Rob’, in which he accuses me of supporting and favouring pedophilia and bestiality, had been written on Twitter, then I would have reported the post and the person as abusive and harmful.
ReplyDeleteOn this forum we are dependent upon you to censure offensive entries.
The person is clearly out of his depth in this discussion in having to resort to personal insults.
#justsaying
Dear Simple Soul, abuse me if you must, but do you think the fact that God loves his creatures, implies that he approves, endorses or blesses all their actions?
ReplyDeleteDoes he never condemn some of our them?
It won't do to aver that divine love approves of everything we do. That is not taught by the Church or the Bible.
If it is argued that something the Bible and the Church have condemned is now acceptable, it is legitimate to ask how much further this principle may be taken - as far as AB and I have intimated, for example.
Rob
The error is that we attempt to ascribe to God human emotions of ‘approving’ ‘endorsing’.
DeleteGod is ‘Love’. Love creates -it does not destroy.
Since my last, I notice SS's latest. I fear he fails to distinguish between my post which, gently, tries to direct him to what his argument could be used to justify, and making personal accusations (which I did not make or mean). Sadly, he attempts to shut down the argument, a familiar ploy by the woke brigade today. Orwell had lots to say about this.
ReplyDeleteRob
I find this position utterly farcical! It's just a make believe sacrament in the make believe world these make believe these people who have donned roman collars abide.
ReplyDeleteWell Ancient Briton....
ReplyDeleteI am told that as author of this anonymous page, you are a retired priest.
I find it absolutely unbelievable that an ordained minister is prepared to sanction unorthodox irreligious contributions.
This blog which consistently seeks to undermine The Church in Wales is dangerous and not ‘of God’.
Thomas.
Exp!ain, please.
DeleteJimmy
There is nothing and no-one that undermines the Church in Wales more than the Church in Wales itself.
DeleteThe stinking swamp continues to widen and deepen.
Goodbye Church in Wales and its self serving, salaried and pensioned Bishops.
ReplyDeleteLw
Amen!
DeleteGoodbye and good riddance.
DeleteI, too, don't understand Thomas's post - surely AB is constantly arguing for traditional understandings to be maintained?
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, can I go back to the Bishops' letter? They say that "the teaching of Scripture should therefore be re-interrogated". That surely is that hermeneutic task of every preacher and theologian as they seek to apply the teachings of an ancient book, written in a hugely different cultural milieu to our own, to the present-day situation. It is a difficult task as we all come to Scripture with presuppositions that have been shaped by our culture, our church traditions, our personalities, our understandings of how Scripture "works". It is therefore inevitable that we will come to different conclusions and, at times, need to change what we may have firmly believed for years. To take a few examples, there has always been dispute about whether it's right for Christians to engage in warfare; slavery was considered unremarkable (and even, by some, God's will) for many centuries; some of my Baptist forebears averred that foreign mission should not be carried out as "God would convert the heathen by himself". The task ahead of us is surely to listen graciously, disagree nicely (even though we feel strongly) and learn from each other.
That said, are there not divinely approved, divinely occasioned, ways of behaving and others which are not? And in thus case, does not the way that male and female bodies complement each other provide a clue to God's purpose?
ReplyDeleteRob
Ancient Briton said - marriage is ‘a union between a man and a woman’.
ReplyDeleteThis is the definition of marriage according to the church. But as has been said above by Simple Soul marriage existed long long before the Christian church was born. Marriage happens in many societies even tribes .The world and history is more accessible and understood . The tiny Church in Wales needs to open its eyes and cease being so insular. The CinW must learn to consider other ways of looking at things in this world.
To so many people marriage means a legal contract with responsibility through love and support for one another.
I appreciate that procreation is quoted in the marriage service, but here again the world has changed-as it says in the post above.
We have science !
Even a man and woman in a marriage resort to IVF. And same sex couples can adopt a child (parents very much needed) and a woman can become pregnant by donor insemination under the NHS ; there are thousands of babies born in the U.K. by this means which is regulated by the HFEA.
Simple Soul has quite reasonably asked about the attitude of the church to these children who have been created by means other than normal intercourse. Do not these children belong to God? Will they be ostracised by the church together with their same sex parents?
I suspect the Bishops realise that their influence in the world is very minor when considering what to do about marriage within the rules of the Church-in- Wales.
Christian doctor.
I think that there's an inherent and fundamental difference between same-sex marriage and some of the comparisons which you make. In Christian teaching, a child, however conceived, is 'the inage of God'. God has given humankind rationality, and with rationality comes the capacity to discover - and discovery makes possible things which were previously not possible. Once childless couples who longed to have children only had the option of adoption. Now IVF provides the possibility - however laborious at times - of conceiving a child of their own. I see no Christian justification for any other reaction to that discovery than to celebrate it.
DeleteAnd I see no reason in a pluralist and very largely secular society such as our own for the Church to attempt to 'call the shots' on issues such as same sex marriage. In such a society the Church can claim no right to demand that its traditional ethical norms should be the rule for everybody.
But from the Church's very beginnings it has drawn a distinction between the Church and the world: 'do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - his good, pleasing and perfect will'. Beginning towards the end of the fourth century AD, when Christianity became the dominant faith in Europe, the distinction between 'the Church' and 'the world' inevitably became blurred. But gradually during the last century and a half the distinction has returned. If the society is overwhelmingly Christian, Christian norms will broadly prevail. If it ceases to be broadly Christian, as our society has, that is likely to be no longer the case. In observing that 'marriage is a union between a man and a woman', AB simply states traditional Christian teaching and belief. And if the Church simply and normatively moulds to 'the world', what would be the point of it?!
Contributions from non-homosexuals are needed.
ReplyDeleteDominic
Dominic: surely we have no idea of the sexuality of those who comment on this post. It's quite possible to be straight oneself yet support sane-sex marriage. Conversely I knew a gay Christian man who didn't support it (he was in favour of civil partnership but felt that marriage itself was by definition heterosexual).
ReplyDeleteAnd in that respect he was quite right.
ReplyDeleteDom
An even more fundamental difficulty arises from any 'service of blessing following a civil partnership or (civil) marriage', in that in traditional sacramental theology - or so the Anglican communion once taught me - the priest or bishop isn't in any sense the 'minister of the sacrament' at a church marriage: s/he's merely the principal witness to a sacrament of which the parties to the marriage themselves are the ministers, one to the other, and when that has taken place s/he solemnly pronounces the blessing of God upon the newly married couple.
ReplyDeleteThat being the case, how precisely does a blessing following a civil partnership or marriage differ from the blessing pronounced at a traditional marriage? Unless the Church in Wales is now implying two sorts or classes of blessing, an entirely novel concept which I struggle to grasp!
I can't answer your question. However one must remember that, in many countries, church weddings have no legal validity and a "civil wedding + church ceremony" is (or has been) the norm. This raises questions as to precisely when the couple are married in the sight of God, and indeed the purpose of the church ceremony at all. Even in Britain there are Nonconformist chapels which are not licensed for weddings; couple desiring to be married in them must perforce go to the Register Office first.
ReplyDelete"... a "civil wedding + church ceremony" is (or has been) the norm."
DeleteI believe it still is across much of Europe; primarily a consequence of the 'Code Napoléon' of 1804, which sought to systematize the maze of customary local laws of pre-revolutionary France into a single legislative corpus. Inevitably the new code was strongly influenced by the revolutionary doctrine of laïcité, which sharply differentiated between what was the 'public' sphere and what was 'private'
As marriage was seen to have a public significance, a marriage needed to be validated and registered by the state. But as religion was deemed to be a wholly private affair, a religious ceremony couldn't replace or even be combined with the state's validation and registration of a marriage. Hence "civil wedding + (optional) church ceremony" as two separate events.
As the new Code was swiftly followed by the establishment of Bonaparte's empire and client states across much of western Europe, its provisions were widely imitated, eventually even far beyond Napoleon's realms and after his deposition - in the emerging newly independent states of Latin America a few years after Boney's time, for instance.
The developed mediaeval western theology around marriage, if I remember rightly, was that 'the couple are married in the sight of God' when they've made and exchanged their vows to one another. By the time that 'nuptual theology' was developed, it was of course time out of mind since marriages had taken place anywhere other than in a church before a cleric. But evidence suggests that the Church's pivotal involvement in marriage came quite late - not, I think, before the early mediaeval period.
The Church ultimately came to view marriage as a sacrament; but it differs from every other sacrament in that marriage unambiguously exists outside the household of faith, and existed before the Church came to be. By no possible flexibility of thought could it be argued that it's a dominical institution! Perhaps your puritan independent forebears in the faith had a point when they preferred to term marriage 'a creation ordinance'.
Thanks, that's helpful. I've not come across the exact phrase "creation ordinance" although I've certainly read that sort of view expressed in books.
DeleteI think, though, that the "civil wedding + church blessing" predates Napoleon, as I believe it's been the Dutch norm since the Reformation.
I'd still like some clarification as to when, in this context, you believe the couple are married in God's sight. "When they've exchanged vows" is clearly the right answer: but in the Registry Office or later on when they say them in church?
@ Baptist Trainfan:
DeleteYou may be right about the norm in the Netherlands: I happened to hear Roy Jenkins, sometime of Ararat in Whitchurch, interviewing the secretary of the European Baptist Federation on the radio this morning, and in the course of the interview he mentioned that the Baptist movement in the Netherlands was formed in - I think - 1609. Pluriformity of religious allegiances might well have prompted what you suggest.
My take on the matter which you raise was always that in marriage the mutual exchange of vows was 'the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace' - in short, 'what does it'! Just as in baptism, immersion in water or at least the pouring of water over a part of the body - and not mere sprinkling and less still a moist daub with a damp finger - was the outward and visible sign of the inward spiritual grace of incorporation into the mystical Body of Christ which is the Church.
I was always cautious about venturing 'beyond the evidence' in speculating on matters such as what God's view might be over entirely secular marriage ceremonies or those between adherents of non-Christian faiths. As far as I know there's been no attempt to think and pray that through, whether in ancient or in modern times. So I remained agnostic; the Church could, and necessarily must from time to time, define within the household of faith, but lacks, and shouldn't presume, any authority beyond that. How God might view the marriages of disciples of other faiths and of non-believers hasn't been revealed and is therefore none of the Church's business.
There is arguably the odd exception, such as the now fortunately near-defunct Hindu tradition of 'suttee', whereby a widow was expected to throw herself on to her husband's funeral pyre if he died before her, and thus die with him. But that exception is grounded in aspects of Christian moral teaching entirely distinct from, and other than, matters matrimonial, and thus doesn't really affect the argument.
As to the liturgy for blessing a civil marriage, its original context was to pronounce God's blessing on marriages previously contracted in a purely secular context. As I understand it, this liturgy was originally authorized to enable partners who had come to faith in later life to seek divine blessing on their union, or couples who for some particular other reason - dislocation of ordinary life in wartime or unusual family complications, for example - had need to resort to civil marriage. The absence of any fresh making of vows in these liturgies always suggested to me that the Church was ready to accept the original vows exchanged at the civil ceremony as sufficient.
So I'd say that 'in the Registry Office' is your answer, because the couple don't make the vows again, but just affirm that they have previously made them.
Thank you for your considered reply. One would presume that my questions has been discussed in non-British contexts, but (not speaking German, French, Dutch etc) I'm not aware of them! It would be interesting to ask couples getting married how they view the two-stage process: I suspect that many may think in terms of "the legal bit, followed by the 'real' wedding in church" rather than "the wedding, followed by a blessing in church". And, in non-Anglican settings where there is no requirement to follow a set liturgy, they may even include (restated) wedding vows in the church service. (I see that the Common Worship service nearly does this, but recognises that the vows have already been made).
DeleteT'm not especially clued up on the psychology of how couples in other parts of Europe view their two-stage process, but I do have some sense that those who opt for a subsequent marriage in a church - legally superfluous, of course - usually do so because they see that as the 'real' wedding.
DeleteDisappointing that some here seem to accept gay marriage. Marriage even before Christianity has always been a man and woman union, for obvious reasons. What right do these Bishops, so called, have to take the Church in this direction. Do they condone same sex activity? Perhaps they think God didn't really intend his design after all.
DeleteThe responsibility of the Church is to love each person, END. This does not mean it has to go along with individual desires. It must be distinct and different, authoritative and other-worldly. In all these respects it fails, led by its Bishops behaving like poorly performing social workers. The consequences for the Church are clear.
Lw
Condone same sex activity?
DeleteSome are probably engaged in it.
@ Lw:
DeleteIn one sense I think we all have no alternative other than 'to accept gay marriage' in that it's now legal and recognized in the society in which we live.
But the issue as to whether the Church should follow suit is another matter entirely. To do so would involve a wholesale about-turn in respect of church teaching which has hitherto been universal both in time and place. Even a generation ago I recall that the first rubric of the Church in Wales's revised marriage liturgy - the red booklet in use at least until the 1980s - defined marriage as the union of a baptized man and a baptized woman. As I no longer have a copy my recollection of the actual words used may be inaccurate, but the meaning was unambiguous.
Thank Christ for divorce.
ReplyDeleteThere are many sound arguments against this bill. Firstly, this is a halfway house and if the bench believe these relationships to be recognised by God, why are they not going the whole way with full blown, legal weddings? Surely, to propose and enact such a bill is an insult to the very people it seeks to 'pastorally' support? If the case is so clear to them, why are they denying them full, legal marriage with all the trimmings?
ReplyDeleteSecondly, where is all this evidence that compels me to reject the traditional position? I eagerly await some direction on where to look, but forgive me for not taking our bishops' word for it.
Thirdly, is an argument from unity. It is sheer hubris that CiW thinks it can change something so fundamental as one province. A super majority of the world's anglicans remain resolutely opposed to such a thing.
Finally, where do boundaries finally lie on sexual relationships? All the arguments used to claim this novel position could be applied to other consensual relationships. Namely, polygamy, polyamory, incest between consenting adults. If the reasons given for change are true, then how dare we deny others a blessing in these categories?
No the bible is clear and if not we've been wrong for 2000 years, what are the implications for a true faith if that is the case?
WHAMAB
SS have you abandoned belief in divine justice? And the Bible speaks, inconveniently for your position, about God's wrath! John Stott is very good in explaining this.
ReplyDeleteRob
Off topic but would anyone know how "many millions" the Cathedral Road offices were sold for?
ReplyDeleteDear Father. What on earth makes you think that we ordinary pewsitters would be allowed to know? 😂
DeleteWell when I asked why the Church was paying so many people MORE than the stipend of a Deacon and why such posh offices were being rented at our MA Roadshow (yeah, I know) I was told by Mrs O that the building went for "many millions" but I can't find any reference anywhere M.O. Perhaps it was an honest mistake
DeleteA marriage is considered legal when it has been consummated. If it has not been consummated (no matter what happened Before the ceremony) it can be annulled. And, by the way, Henry the Eighth did not seek a divorce from his first wife, he sought an annullmemt, but not for reason of non - consummation.
ReplyDeleteI thought someone asked on this thread how much did the Representative Body gain from the sale of the Offices at 39 Cathedral Road. £2.5m
ReplyDelete