John Richardson has brought to my attention one of the most extraordinary stories I have seen, even in the whole saga of discussion about homosexuality in the Anglican churches. Bishop Marc Handley Andrus of the Diocese of California (which in fact only “covers the immediate San Francisco Bay Area”), in the Episcopal (Anglican) church, is effectively banning church weddings in his diocese! He writes:
I therefore provide you with the following pastoral guidelines:
- I urge you to encourage all couples, regardless of orientation, to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service and then being blessed in The Episcopal Church. I will publicly urge all couples to follow this pattern.
- For now, the three rites approved for trial use under the pastoral direction of the bishop, adopted by resolution at the 2007 Diocesan Convention (see appendix), should be commended to all couples (again, regardless of orientation) to bless secular marriages.
- All marriages should be performed by someone in one of the secular categories set forth in California Family Code, section 400 (see appendix), noting that any person in the state of California can be deputized to perform civil marriages. The proper sphere for Episcopal clergy is the blessing portion of the marriage. …
In other words, he is instructing his clergy not to perform weddings, but only to bless secular marriages.
The sub-text here is of course that the bishop, in defiance of internationally agreed Anglican guidelines, is promoting complete equality of same-sex “marriage” with proper marriage between man and woman. Because the Anglican Communion rightly does not allow clergy to perform same-sex “weddings”, the only way this bishop can produce the equality he desires is to forbid his clergy from performing any weddings. Instead he only allows them to bless marriages, and according to a form of service of his diocese’s devising (and still against international rules) which treats same-sex and opposite-sex blessings identically.
The Anglican church has always performed marriages. “Solemnization of Matrimony” is a form of service in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which is the official doctrinal standard of the Anglican churches. Here is the opening part of this service (taken from here as surprisingly it is not on the Church of England’s website):
Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprized, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men’s carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.
But it seems that the Bishop of California no longer considers “holy Matrimony” between “this Man and this Woman” to be “an honourable estate”. One wonders how he can continue to consider himself an Anglican.
Peter that is at once horrifying and not not at all surprising…
sad that i can say that though.
it’s truly amazing some of the turns our society has made in the last few decades… I wish being curious about where it will lead was all the action required…
Whatever one thinks of this particular decision, I see the trend toward separating the institutions of secular marriage and religious marriage as unquestionably a good thing. The main problem I see here is that the bishop has it backwards. He’s basically asserting that secular marriage is not only chronologically but also logically prior to a religious “blessing” of that union; basically he is ceding a sacramental activity to the state, i.e., let them do the actual marrying while we in the church will just do our own facile celebration of the church’s rite. Rather, I think we should consider the two as radically separate from each other, but my reasoning is that mingling religious and secular marriage with one another brings unwarranted and unwelcome expectations and requirements from the state into the arena of the church (and yes, I know that in Britain you don’t have nearly the same lines of distinction between church and state, which I think is a pity). Religious and secular marriage are two different acts that have two different and only partially overlapping justifications and ends, and the blending of the two has warped our collective sense of what Christian marriage is. This is nowhere more apparent than when you hear the preacher say during a church wedding, “and now, by the power vested in me by [fill in the blank denomination] and the state of Illinois, I now pronounce you man and wife.” I’m not married, but if I ever do get married, I would feel extremely uncomfortable getting a secular marriage at the same time as a religious marriage. So I’d say that the bishop here is half right, but utterly and horribly wrong in the complete opposite direction on the other half.
That should read “let them do the actual marrying while we in the church will just do our own facile celebration of the state’s rite.”
Thank you, Indecisive. I see your point. Indeed there is an issue here of whether marriage is a matter for the church, the state, or both. The bishop is effectively saying it is a matter for the state alone. I would tend to feel that it should be a matter for the church alone, especially because the state is no longer upholding its essential nature, first by allowing divorce more or less on demand and now in many places by allowing same-sex partnerships. So I might suggest having church marriages only based on traditional church rules, and state recognised partnerships not called marriages, for which it is up to the state to make the rules e.g. about ending them and whether they can be same-sex.
No problem, Peter, no matter what the situation that the Christian churches find themselves in, you can always join our team and have a kosher marriage (assuming you don’t mind a little operation first.)
The Brethren taught that a civil wedding was the only way, since they did not have licensed clergy. Marriage, although insoluble, was not a sacrament.
Later they would invite clergy of other denominations to officiate and have the wedding in the Brethren hall. The one thing I remember that was truly painful about some of the Brethren weddings I attended when I was little, is that instrumental music was not allowed. The bride had to lock step up the aisle to some dreadfully slow hymn sung off key.
My guess is that he probably thinks that heterosexual marriage is great and wonderful and all that jazz, BUT, he also thinks the same for same-sex marriage. If he sees them on equal footing, he’s probably going to want to make sure that his church treats them equally, which is my guess as to why he’s doing what he’s doing.
The Anglican church in America has become very divided on this issue: you either think that homosexuality is “a-okay” or you think that it’s an abomination. If it’s the latter, you probably move to separate yourself from the Episcopal Church in the USA and try to align yourself with other like-minded Anglicans from South America or Africa.
The Church should only marry Christians and preferably only where one of the parties at least is a member of that congregation.
Neither Church nor state should even entertain the concept of homosexual unions of any sort. Such a union is meaningless as a concept.
Glenn:
How are homosexual unions meaningless as a concept for the state?
If we take a look at what ‘services’ are offered to the wider public in church [buildings] today, this latest oddity is only another in a line of such oddities.
Baptism of children is offered to parents who a) don’t know God, b) don’t want to, c) don’t really want to bring their kids up in ‘the fear of the Lord’ and such. Yet we do it? Is this wrong/should we stop? No easy answer.
Marriage is a spiritual as well as physical union. It’s origin is in God and is built upon surrender of self in a beautiful way between a man and a woman (or a woman and a man, depending upon which way you see it). The state solemnizes it for legal reasons etc. because of what it entails, but the state should not have the final say on things like this.
We must keep vigilant so that we don’t, through ignorance or otherwise, begin to agree with the worlds view rather than God’s.
Iyov, I thought you weren’t supposed to proselytise!
Sue and Rhea, thanks for your comments.
Glenn, I agree with you that the church should only marry Christians. But, a question for you and Jamie, what would you do if non-Christians come for a church wedding or baptism? My vicar treats it as an evangelism opportunity, insists on proper preparation, and more or less won’t perform the ceremony unless he has seen some kind of Christian commitment. In practice many of the people don’t stick in church afterwards, but we don’t know their hearts, and I don’t think we should refuse people who call themselves Christians.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Priests go ahead with gay wedding
Peter,
Interesting question. For people who want to get a church wedding that is a fantastic opportunity! I’ve seen some good marriage preparation stuff around, which could certainly be adapted for non-Christians.
Some people might just want an ‘old-fashioned’ (ie. church) wedding, some for family reasons or such, but if people are volunteering to come into contact with the Body of Christ who are we to turn them away. People making a commitment to each other is a deep and profound thing and ways should be sought to help engaged people to think through issues that might/will crop up in married life.
The essence of ‘who to marry’ etc. runs alongside the issue of what we believe. When people come to get married in any church, it should be made clear precisely what marriage is about and means. What people do with it is their business, but we cannot back down in the face of adversity/possible adversity and go with ‘public opinion’ or such or we end up with the church as just another secular institution ruled by men and women and not God.