Church Services after a Civil Partnership Registration:
What is and is not permitted?
By Gavin Foster
I ntroduction
What is a member of the clergy permitted to do when asked by a same-sex couple to provide a church service in recognition of their Civil Partnership? On the face of it the answer would seem to be clear. In 2005 The House of Bishops issued a “Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships;” a House of Bishops statement is not, directly at least, Canon law, but it is a document of high authority, indicative of the doctrine of the church, and not to be readily dismissed. It stated:
the House of Bishops affirms that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership. (para.17)
Yet for some time now there have been those who have argued that this statement is not as clear as it first appears. They have encouraged clergy to respond pastorally to same-sex couples by providing church services which, they claim, do not contravene the Bishops’ guidance. Inclusive Church has even published a sample order of service for just such occasions.
This discussion has come to prominence again in the last few months. In July 2011 the House of Bishops announced that it intended to review the Pastoral Statement. The working group will have much to consider: the law has continued to develop, with the removal of the prohibition on Civil Partnership registrations taking place on religious premises, and the Government’s announcement that it intends to move towards “equal civil marriage” for same-sex couples.1 A number of senior figures in the Church of England have spoken out in favour of committed same-sex relationships, and the new Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral, the Rev’d David Ison, has called on the Church to embrace gay marriage, revealing that he has previously held services of blessing for same sex couples at Bradford Cathedral and would consider doing the same at St Paul’s (The Times, 8 March 2012). Such services rely on an argument recently repeated by Giles Fraser in the Church Times (Comment, 10 February 2012) that clergy are entitled to offer church service to couples who have already entered into a Civil Partnership at the registry office:
[T]he clergy are perfectly entitled to conduct a service along the lines of that provided for those who have entered into a civil marriage; for this is not a service of blessing, but one of “dedication and thanksgiving.”
But is this argument right? I would argue that it is plainly not right – and indeed that this is a conclusion which can only be reached by quoting one or two sentences from the House of Bishops’ statement out of context. Indeed, a service for a same-sex couple along the lines of that provided for those who have entered into a civil marriage would be a very clear breach of the House of Bishops’ guidance and it is simply incorrect to suggest otherwise.
The Permissive Argument
The Rev’d Brian Lewis’ article, “What services are Clergy permitted to offer couple in same sex relationships in the Church of England?” (published on the Inclusive Church website, alongside a sample order of service) sets out the argument in favour of offering church services to same-sex couples. The case is elegantly and simply made: The House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement is clear that clergy are not authorised to offer “Services of Blessing.” But the service offered to opposite-sex couples after a civil wedding is not a “Service of Blessing,” it is a “Service of Prayer and Dedication.” Even though the Common Worship Order for Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Wedding includes prayers for God’s blessing and words of blessing spoken over the couple, Brian Lewis argues, the service is “explicitly declared not to be a Service of Blessing.” There is therefore nothing to prevent a similar service being offered to a same-sex couple after a Civil Partnership registration; it would not contravene the House of Bishops’ guidance because it is not a “Service of Blessing”.
The argument is taken on further by others. In a letter to the Church Times (2 March 2012) referring back to legal advice which he gave to clergy in 2008, the Chancellor of London, Nigel Seed QC, highlighted the fact that the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement actually encourages clergy to engage positively with same-sex couples who request a blessing:
Where clergy are approached by people asking for prayer in relation to entering into a civil partnership they should respond pastorally and sensitively in the light of the circumstances of each case. (para. 18)
The statement is noticeably ambiguous about whether such pastorally sensitive prayer should be offered privately with the couple, or in public - perhaps even in the form of a service. But how would such a service be framed, given that the Bishops themselves have declined to produce “an authorised public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships” (para.17)? The answer, Nigel Seed suggests, is that Canon B5 permits clergy “on occasions for which no provision is made... to use forms of service considered suitable by him for those occasions,” provided that “all variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.” Thus, Mr Seed concludes, “Unless and until the House of Bishops expressly forbids any form of prayers or church service at all after a civil-partnership ceremony, anything conforming to the above [Canon B5] is allowed.”
So the permissive argument is made. Not only is it possible to offer a church service to same-sex couples after a Civil Partnership registration, it is to be encouraged – and pretty much anything (as long as it avoids calling itself a “Service of Blessing”) is permissible.
Why the Permissive Argument is Simply Wrong
The permissive argument may be elegant and simply made, but it is also simply wrong, relying on selective quotations and sentences taken out of context. It is wrong both in the details and in the broad sweep.
Wrong in the details
The permissive argument begins to break down with Brian Lewis’ remarkable claim that the service of Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Marriage has been “explicitly declared not to be a Service of Blessing.” He is rather vague about who exactly made this explicit declaration, and when. In the end it is an assertion which seems to rest entirely on the fact that the service is entitled “An Order for Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Marriage.” He bolsters this flimsy argument by consistently referring to “Services of Blessing” with capital letters in his article as if this, too, were a title for a service – yet the House of Bishops’ statement always has the phrase in lower case. This is plainly because it is not the title of a service, but simply a description of the sort of service the Bishops are talking about: one which involves blessing being sought and given. There are many ways to describe the service for Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Marriage – it is a public service, it is a pastoral service, and it is certainly a service of blessing, as the couple kneel before the priest and words of blessing are spoken over them. None of these descriptions are inaccurate simply because of the title of the service.
Put it another way: if the Bishops did not intend to advise against services of blessing in the broad, descriptive sense of any service including a blessing, what did they intend to advise against? There is no service entitled “a service of blessing” (with or without capital letters) in the published liturgies.
What, then, of the exhortation to clergy to pray with the couple “pastorally and sensitively”? What this prayer should look like – whether private or public – is certainly ambiguous. It would seem that the Pastoral Statement does not, at the very least, rule out a public service of prayer. But the sentence quoted by Mr Seed comes at the end of a paragraph of careful context-setting, which Mr Seed seems (surprisingly) to have overlooked:
18. It will be important, however, to bear in mind that registered partnerships do allow for a range of different situations- including those where the relationship is simply one of friendship. Hence, clergy need to have regard to the teaching of the church on sexual morality, celibacy, and the positive value of committed friendships in the Christian tradition. Where clergy are approached by people asking for prayer in relation to entering into a civil partnership they should respond pastorally and sensitively in the light of the circumstances of each case.
Placed back into its original context, the exhortation to clergy looks very different. It is not (as Mr Seed would have us believe) an invitation to use Canon B5 to side-step the Bishops’ guidance and produce liturgies which the Bishops have inexplicably failed to produce and authorise themselves. It is a recognition of the possibility that a Civil Partnerships may not be sexual and that – perhaps rarely, but perfectly properly - there may be occasions on which it is right for the Church to recognise and pray for such a friendship.
We must take our argument a little further, however. If “a service of blessing” is clearly a description rather than a title for a service, it is nonetheless (as Nigel Seed highlights) an undefined phrase. If it is read to mean “a service which includes words of blessing spoken over the couple,” is it nonetheless possible to devise an affirming service in connection with a Civil Partnership registration which carefully avoids using words of blessing? Would such a service be compatible with the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement?
As all good lawyers know (and many lay people, too, for it is a matter of common sense) if a phrase is undefined we must look first to the context to understand it. To answer these questions, therefore, we must look at the broad sweep of the House of Bishops’ statement.
Wrong in the broad sweep
The House of Bishops’ guidance is not a parliamentary statute, nor a set of codified regulations to be pored over and deconstructed by lawyers. It is a pastoral statement, intended to be read and understood by everyone. It carefully builds an argument, setting itself in a specific context and reaching a clear conclusion. If it is to be understood properly it should be read as a whole, not sentence by sentence. It is clearly written and easy to read, and I would encourage everyone reading this article to read it for themselves here.
The Bishops’ statement sets itself very clearly in a context. The following quotations give a flavour of that context:
2. It has always been the position of the Church of England that marriage is a creation ordinance, a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace. Marriage, defined as a faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman, is central to the stability and health of human society. It continues to provide the best context for the raising of children…
4. In the light of this understanding the Church of England teaches that “sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively" (Marriage: a teaching document of the House of Bishops, 1999). Sexual relationships outside marriage, whether heterosexual or between people of the same sex, are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings...
6. The key Church statements, each with their own distinctive status, are rehearsed at more length in paragraphs 1.3.16-33 of Some Issues in Human Sexuality. In summary they are:
- The General Synod motion of November 1987 which affirms that ‘homosexual genital acts’ fall short of the Christian ideal and are to be met ‘with a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion’;
- The House of Bishops’ statement of December 1991 – Issues in Human Sexuality – which states that ‘heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally congruous with the observed order of Creation or with the insights of revelation as the Church engages with these in the light of her pastoral ministry’, that the conscientious decision of those who enter into homophile relationships must be respected and that the Church must not ‘reject those who sincerely believe it is God’s call to them’. Nevertheless, because of ‘the distinctive nature of their calling, status and consecration’ the clergy ‘cannot claim the liberty to enter into sexually active homophile relationships’;
- The 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which drew a clear distinction between homosexual orientation and practice, rejecting the latter as ‘incompatible with Scripture’ while calling on ‘all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all’. It also recorded that the Conference ‘cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same-sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions’. This resolution, like Issues in Human Sexuality, called for continued listening to the experiences of gay and lesbian people...
16. The House believes that the practice of the Church of England needs to reflect the pastoral letter from the Primates of the Anglican Communion in Pentecost 2003 which said:
‘The question of public rites for the blessing of same sex unions is still a cause of potentially divisive controversy. The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites’.
17. One consequence of the ambiguity contained within the new legislation is that people in a variety of relationships will be eligible to register as civil partners, some living consistently with the teaching of the Church, others not. In these circumstances it would not be right to produce an authorised public liturgy in connection with the registering of civil partnerships. In addition, the House of Bishops affirms that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership.
The carefully set out context and the final conclusion of the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement may, I suggest, be summarised as follows:
1. These matters are sensitive and “still a cause of potentially divisive controversy” (para.16); they need to be handled carefully.
2. Nonetheless, the Church’s teaching (drawn from the Book of Common Prayer, the House of Bishops, General Synod, the Lambeth Conference and the Primates) is clear: “sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively” (para.4).
3. “The Church’s teaching on sexual ethics remains unchanged” by this Pastoral Statement (para.27). Consistent with that wider teaching – that the legitimising or blessing of same-sex unions cannot be advised (para.6) – the House of Bishops affirms that clergy of the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership (para.17).
4. This Pastoral Statement nonetheless confirms the importance of ministering to all people pastorally and sensitively; of listening to the experiences of gay and lesbian people, and avoiding rejecting those who sincerely believe it is God’s call to them (para.6).
So, in the light of the Bishops’ statement read as a whole, is it possible to offer an affirmative service in connection with a Civil Partnership registration which carefully avoids using words of blessing? I would argue that (apart from the very specific situation of a non-sexual relationship of friendship, addressed in paragraph 18) it is not. It is not an oversight which caused the Bishops to fail to produce an authorised public liturgy in connection with Civil Partnerships (para.17). The advice that clergy “should not provide services of blessing for those who register a civil partnership” comes very clearly in the context of the Church’s teaching that sexual same-sex relationships fall short of God’s purposes for humanity. The phrase “services of blessing” should therefore be understood in a way which is consistent with that context – namely, that clergy should not provide any service which suggests that the Church, acting on Christ’s authority, blesses (in the broad sense of affirming, commending or legitimising) that relationship.
Conclusion
Finally, then, let us summarise what is and is not permitted by the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement.
What is not permitted
- It is quite plain, then, that Giles Fraser’s suggestion that “clergy are perfectly entitled to conduct a service along the lines of that provided for those who have entered into a civil marriage” is simply incorrect. A service along the lines of the “Order for Prayer and Dedication after a Civil Wedding” would include words of blessing spoken over the couple, and would undoubtedly be a “service of blessing,” contrary to the House of Bishops’ statement.
- Likewise, the sample Order of Service published by Inclusive Church on its website is clearly a service of blessing. The introductory sentences invoke “God’s blessing on their lives” while the Questions of Intent invite the couple to “offer [their] lives together for God’s blessing.” Furthermore, it is clearly contrary to the general sweep of the House of Bishops’ advice, inviting the congregation to “celebrate and affirm the commitment of N & M to each other.”
- In short, any service which seeks to bless a same-sex relationship - in the broad sense of affirming, commending or legitimising it, contrary to the teachings of the Church – fails to comply with the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement.
What is permitted
- Paragraph 18 of the Pastoral Statement considers situations “where the relationship is simply one of friendship.” Such relationships are not contrary to the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics; indeed, they may be affirmed as demonstrating “the positive value of committed friendships in the Christian tradition.” Where such people approach the clergy asking for prayer in relation to their Civil Partnership – whether privately, or in a public rite – clergy should respond pastorally and sensitively, perhaps using Canon B5 to devise a suitable service.
- Is it possible to envisage a public service relating to a sexually active Civil Partnership which avoids affirming, commending, legitimising or blessing that relationship? Perhaps – although it is hard to imagine what such a service would contain, or why anyone would want it.
As we have seen, those who have encouraged services for Civil Partners have built a strong claim on some very weak foundations. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they have wilfully taken one or two sentences from the Pastoral Statement out of context in order to manipulate its meaning and to promote their own cause.
There is a real debate to be had about whether the Church ought to modify the position which it has repeatedly and consistently stated. It is a debate worth having, and I agree with the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Salisbury that such a debate needs to take place openly and honestly. I, for my part, remain open minded about where that debate might take us. But the position of the Church has been plainly stated numerous times through a whole range of instruments of the Church – including the Lambeth Conference, the Primates, the House of Bishops and General Synod - and it is not right to manipulate and misrepresent the Church’s existing position in order to short-circuit that debate.
Footnotes
1 Government Equalities Office, “Summary of Responses. Civil Partnerships on Religious Premises: A Consulation.”, November 2011, para. 1.17
Rev'd Gavin Foster is the Curate of St Mary's Church, Weymouth in the Radipole & Melcombe Regis team. He is a former barrister and a student of Canon Law at the University of Cardiff.
Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum
Forum Posts About This Article:
Posted by: DavidW
Wednesday 21 March 2012 - 05:35pm
Hi Another David,
Thank you for your response, though it isnt directly addressing what I wrote
Jesus didnt write any of the books of the Bible, the author of Romans, the apostle Paul preached what he received, not of what he received from man, but directly from the risen Lord. (Galatians 1); probably a main reason why the epistle is in the Bible.
Thus his teaching from Christ, counts to believers followers and disciples of Christ.
Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus
Wednesday 21 March 2012 - 02:57pm
pace DavidW-
those naughty, naughty homosexuals
- so narrow-minded, prujudiced and giving the poor right thinking majority such a very , very hard time !
Posted by: Another David
Wednesday 21 March 2012 - 01:33pm
DavidW,
I was not aware that Jesus made any direct reference (which we can find in the Gospels) to same-sex sexual relationships. Any reference to general 'sexual immorality' does not count, as the moral status of some same sex activity is precisely the matter at issue.
What are you thinking of in this connection?
Posted by: DavidW
Wednesday 21 March 2012 - 10:50am
In a age of plurality, the LGBT movement seems to treat all disagreement with its ideals as bigotry. Not sure there is any other movement doing that.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/03/lgbt-an-open-minded-movement
Deception is where something seems to be the truth but isnt. Same sex relations isnt a deception, it is simply an obvious lie, it is only condemned and excluded in scripture. But its presentation can often be a deception.
Take for example the inlcusivechurch’s suggested service after a civil partnership. It declares something that is a blessing, not a blessing.
Take this...
N & M the covenant that you have made with one another and that you re-affirm today in the presence of God and this congregation is a union in body, mind and spirit.
Is that ok? No because it doesn’t specify the participants. If it were the man ‘N’ and his Son ‘M’ then they would be committing an incestuous act. Sure its same sex, but both incest and same sex relations are condemned in scripture. But it is made to seem like it is correct, especially when it refers to the assistance of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit reminds the believer of what Christ taught. (John 14-16) As Christ’s NT teaching condemns same sex relations, how could it be the Holy Spirit.
The inclusivechurch once came out with the idea that the gospel of Jesus Christ couldn’t be the good news to LGBT people if it condemned same-sex sexual relationships. As the gospel of Jesus Christ is good news and same-sex sexual relations are error according to Christ’s teaching, it suggests the inclusivechurch doesn’t know the gospel or rejects it. And of course this movement is as equally out to claim it is Christian as it is to justify same sex relations.
Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus
Wednesday 14 March 2012 - 05:17pm
Hello all,
Brian Lewis, below, refers to Nigel Seed's argument; so I thought folks might be interested in this link to Peter Ould's blog,
Very interesting and useful Blair.
many thanks.
In Ffriendship
where he gives the text of a letter from Nigel Seed to the Church Times. See http://www.peter-ould.net/2012/03/02/same-sex-services-in-the-church-of-england/
in friendship, Blair
Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus
Wednesday 14 March 2012 - 05:14pm
I see your point Brian but canon law in ordinary C of E pratice is as you know a wste of time and a joke. Progress has always been made by ignoring, circumventing or diverting it !
Think - advanced Anglo-Cathoic eucharistic pratice including vesture, rite (often RC or English Missal etc), ritual, bells and smells, Tabernacles, holy water etc.
Think - advanced evangelical eucharistic pratice including vesture - jeans and T-shirt, ritual, rites ( Trinity college's latest, Baptist formulas etc), disposal of elelements following the serice.
Can law always catches up --eventually !
Main thing is integrity and authenticity of thought and action. We won't get (much of) that from the 'house of bishops'.
Posted by: Deleted user 4356
Tuesday 13 March 2012 - 04:54pm
In response to User 3644 and Jason of course all of us including clergy are accountable to God before bishops but clergy take an oath of Canonical obedience to their bishops so it is important to reiterate that all this paper (and more importantly the advice of Chancellor Nigel Seed) attempts to do is demonstrate that services of prayer and dedication following a civil partnership do not contravene canon law and the clergy’s oath of obedience. Like “Jason” and “Origen Adam” I believe the service should be more, but it is still worth making the point that even now, divided on this as the church is, there can still be a joyful celebration of the couples love and commitment - and there is no reason why clergy or parishes should feel inhibited in that celebration - any more than St George’s Windsor felt inhibited when it celebrated a “Service of Prayer and Dedication” for the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall (though they may not necessarily have the resources or the guest list!) And Martin - thank you for that.
Brian Lewis
Posted by: Martin Reynolds
Tuesday 13 March 2012 - 02:19pm
Brian, I was always taught that when lawyers described a colleagues argument as "elegant" it was cipher for bovine ordure.
Posted by: Martin Reynolds
Tuesday 13 March 2012 - 10:52am
Hmmm I can support Brian in his view of the English service, it was very much as he says at the time.
When we came to our Prayer Book revision in the early 80's I can remember the gathered liturgists rejecting this approach and going for the while enchilada which prominently and deliberately said something different.
http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/publications/downloads/sharedassets/marriage/new/mar5-en.pdf
But just a minute! This is not yet another example of the Norman Doe's attempted take over of the Church?
If I win big on Euro Millions I plan to make a large gift to Cardiff University - on the basis that they shut down this LLM course - there will be a nice waterfront property in the Bahamas with a generous pension for my confrere Norman and a flat in Tonga for Mark Hill.
Posted by: Deleted user 2383
Tuesday 13 March 2012 - 02:01am
Unfortunately my post had to be edited by Fulcrum to remove various ad hominems but even I couldn't have compared the author to Humpty Dumpty. Thanks for the link Blair. Very funny!
Posted by: Deleted user 2383
Tuesday 13 March 2012 - 01:33am
What is it with you people? Any gay couple with a modicum of self-respect is hardly going to ask a homophobic vicar to conduct their civil-partnership! The argument is a non-sequitur. They are going to ask a gay-friendly vicar to do it which is why Inclusive Church have helpfully provided an order of service.
What you seem to want is for gay couples to be refused to have our relationships blessed in church. Is this really what Jesus would be doing? Have you not got better things to exercise your mind and body? What about the state of the world today? Wouldn't it be better for you to be caring for the orphan or widow rather than getting upset about two people in-love?
Rather than short-circuiting the debate, gay people just want to get on doing the fundamentals of the Gospel. If Fulcrum wish to continue arguing for the debasement of gay people I guess that is up to them. But we want to continue to work out our salvation and live a godly life with the blessing of God and our church.
Posted by: Jason
Monday 12 March 2012 - 05:42pm
Permitted by whom? Bishops or God?
If bishops well I don't know but as all are equal before God then the question shouldn't be what bishops beleive as much as what do we in the churh believe. Of course I respect a bishop's opinion as I respect another fellow beleivers opinion- she or he may have much experience and we should respect that but that does not make her or his opinion of greater wieght.
If we are talking of God or Christ then what is important is the love and commitment between two people. As Christians we should be at the forefront of challenging oppression and homophobia still sadly prevalent in society and even the church.
Brian Lewis of course I agree about it is perectly possible to have serice of dedication clebrating the friendhsip and love between two people. But why tngle yourself in knots baout whether this is a blessing of the union? If we are serious about challenging social oppression then why make this somewhat tortuous disticntion?
Wholeheartedly agree with the quote from Dr Ison, "“a commitment to lifelong chastity and being together is actually the best pattern for how to flourish if you’re going to be in a relationship… whether you’re gay or straight” and that “... the Church has had gay bishops... It’s about learning to live in openness with the reality of who people are"
To quote John, quoting Jesus, let us love another and abide in His love"
Posted by: Phil Almond
Monday 12 March 2012 - 03:52pm
User 4272
Peter’s vision is part of the Bible. The disagreement is whether there is anything in the Bible to support your view.
Phil Almond
Posted by: Blair
Monday 12 March 2012 - 03:21pm
Hello all,
Brian Lewis, below, refers to Nigel Seed's argument; so I thought folks might be interested in this link to Peter Ould's blog, where he gives the text of a letter from Nigel Seed to the Church Times. See http://www.peter-ould.net/2012/03/02/same-sex-services-in-the-church-of-england/
in friendship, Blair
Posted by: Ambrose StJohn redivivus
Monday 12 March 2012 - 03:05pm
'a House of Bishops statement is not, directly at least, Canon law, but it is a document of high authority, indicative of the doctrine of the church, and not to be readily dismissed.'
Hardly a protestant view of bishops' role and authority.
I certainly do not view Church of England bishops in this elevated manner. However, apart from doctrinal considerations, it has to be said that these men as a body do not inspire great confidence as truth tellers and agents of integrity.
I certainly will not let myself be diverted from the truth by them, or turn my back on those seeking pastoral care under the Gospel
.
Posted by: Deleted user 4356
Monday 12 March 2012 - 02:53pm
Gavin,
It’s very kind of you to describe my paper on what constitutes a permissible pastoral response to Civil partnerships as simple and elegant. I suspect what follows may not appear simple or elegant! I can understand your perplexity at the claim that the Service of Prayer and Dedication is not a service of blessing - with or without capitals. But I suggest the claim and therefore the fault is not mine. The Service of Prayer and Dedication after Civil Marriage was introduced by the House of Bishops nearly thirty years ago and we (the parish clergy of the time) were told this was to be used with couples where one or both had been previously divorced. The rational as I remember it was that since the church was not of one mind as to the “rightness’ of such marriages it was therefore inappropriate to use the marriage service where the vows are made and the union blessed. (The service of prayer and dedication very carefully does not use the nuptial blessing). I suppose one might say that a wedding itself is simply witnessing the couple’s vows and pronouncing God’s blessing on the union - the wedding service is the church’s liturgy of blessing of a marriage and as the official liturgy of the church it makes a public statement of the view of the church on the wedding and marriage in general. That’s why it was (at that time) not to be used following divorce. Of course all this was before internet and google and so I can’t provide you with a handy link but I think my recollection is supported by the notes in Services of Prayer and Dedication - and the content itself.
The thrust of my paper (and I believe the advice of Chancellor Nigel Seed) is that provided services of prayer and dedication do not purport to make the union (as with civil marriage that happens elsewhere) or make a declaration of, or by means of the liturgy make a declaration that claims to be a statement of the doctrine of the church relating to the “blessedness” of civil partnerships then such services are a permitted pastoral response.
The Service of Prayer and Dedication after Civil Marriage is an example of what such a pastoral response looks like. That the Service of Prayer and Dedication after Civil Marriage is not a service of blessing even though it contains a blessing may be confusing but I suggest that confusion rests with the House of Bishops not our arguement.
Brian Lewis
Posted by: Robbie Jex
Monday 12 March 2012 - 01:26pm
I think that the church is unwise to stick to views which relate to tradition and scriptures which are not weighed up in the light of the era and social context in which it was written, and no longer applies today.
There is a slowly growing body of evidence for some people having genetic or hormonal factors affecting their sexuality (see http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html). But whether this scientific reason is the case for everybody, should not affect our thinking.
People who are gay - are gay! People who are seeking to sanctifying their union by marriage in the church, obtaining God's blessing so that they can commit their lives to one another before God and celebrating God is of far far more importance than the social acceptability of their gender.
I wholeheartedly agree with the words of Dr Ison, Dean of St Pauls that “a commitment to lifelong chastity and being together is actually the best pattern for how to flourish if you’re going to be in a relationship… whether you’re gay or straight” and that “... the Church has had gay bishops... It’s about learning to live in openness with the reality of who people are.”
Look back to the New Testament, when Peter had his vision of not sticking to eating kosher foods... that would have been a huge thing, and had the church not moved on we would still be following that strict food regime. Times move on – God does not! All of the laws are summed up in the first two commandments! This comes on good authority!
Posted by: User 4217
Monday 12 March 2012 - 12:31pm
Thanks, that's a really helpful and very clear article.
Posted by: Jody
Monday 12 March 2012 - 12:14pm
Dear Friends
we have just published 'Church Services after a Civil Partnership Registration: What is, and What is Not, Permitted'
please use this thread for discussion.
blessings, Jody
Add your comments on the Fulcrum Forum
|
|
Top public schools have put it in their curricula and David Cameron has even set out to measure it, now churches are embarking on a drive to teach happiness to the nation. Telegraph 18 May 2013
18 May 2013
Top public schools have put it in their curricula and David Cameron has even set out to measure it, now churches are embarking on a drive to teach happiness to the nation. Telegraph 18 May 2013
18 May 2013
The Church of England inquiry into alleged child sex abuse by former Dean of Manchester Cathedral Robert Waddington is expected to crossover with the police inquiry into historical sexual abuse at Chetham's School of Music after it has emerged that Waddington was a governor at the school between 1984 and 1993. Independent 14 May 2013
18 May 2013
Daniel's exegetical outline below makes more sense of Ephesians 5:21-23 than anything else I've seen posted here. The proposed rings make obvious intuitive sense, though I am still pondering the question what algorithm, if any, could (dis)confirm these intuitions. The rings lead one to see intimacy ...
Daniel-- I was hoping for new light on kephale, but did not expect it so soon! Your "B" ring lends support to the view of Secret Villager 4976 below who sees St Paul emphasising the unity of head and body in Ephesians 5. And as I myself note below, the coinherence of the members of the pairs {God : ...
I understand what you are saying Dave. On the issue of Bishops having day jobs, and the time constraints on attending debates, I wonder with my admitted lack of experience whether there is not a way in which a better rotation system can be worked. But also a lot of valuable people who are fully trai...
John Martin reviews Andrew Goddard's timely memoire of the Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams
Andrew Goddard offers a positive assessment of the recent FAOC document
A comment on the most controversial funeral of the century.......
|
