Tag Archive for 'marriage'

Valentine’s Day

Published on February 14, 2010 in liturgy. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , .

This is a repost of earlier material found on this site.

In 1752 England and the British colonies in America upgraded from the Julian to the Gregorian Calendar by removing 12 days from the year to bring it back to the way the seasons were in 325AD when Christians first agreed how to date Easter. There were riots in the streets: “give us our 12 days back!” Do the Maths: January 6 is now where December 25 used to be. January 6 is a much more likely date to have snow (Is “I’m dreaming of a white Christmas Just like the ones I used to know…” part of a folk-memory of times when snow at Christmas was more common?)

So why might Valentine’s Day be so popular, spreading especially from Britain and USA? Do the Maths: counting back 12 days from February 14…. February 2! Today is when one of the most significant festivals, Candlemas, used to be! Is the significance placed on today possibly, in part (he says tentatively) a folk-memory of when Candlemas was celebrated today? [If you write your doctorate on this - please don't forget to credit me - you read it here first!] … As well, of course, as the following:

Christian roots

There are a number of early church martyrs called Valentine or Valentinus. Hence, the origin of the celebration is confused and disputed.

One legend has it that Valentine was a third century priest in Rome. The Emperor Claudius II thought that single men made better soldiers than married ones who had their minds on their wives and children. So he outlawed marriage for young men from which he drew his army. Valentine, however, continued to marry young couples secretly. But Valentine was caught and ordered to be executed.

According to one legend, Valentine was the first to send a ‘valentine’ greeting. In prison he fell in love, maybe with the jailor’s daughter. Before his martyrdom he wrote her a letter, signing it ‘From your Valentine.’ As is so often the case, the most legendary saints end up being amongst the most popular – and Valentine is no exception. Because of the legendary nature of the saint, along with St Christopher, St Valentine was removed from the Roman Catholic calendar of saints for universal liturgical veneration as revised in 1969 after the Second Vatican Council.

In 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius set aside February 14 to honour St. Valentine.

Pagan roots

In the pagan days of the Roman Empire, February 14th was a festival in honour of Juno, Queen of the Roman Gods and Goddesses. She was also the Goddess of women and marriage. On February 15th the Feast of Lupercalia began. This was a fertility festival dedicated to Faunus, the Roman god of agriculture, and also to the Roman founders Romulus and Remus.

On the eve of Lupercalia the names of girls were written on paper and placed into an urn. The bachelors would draw a girl’s name from that jar. This lottery led them to being partners for Lupercalia. They might end up falling in love and later marrying.

Early Christianity often substituted Christian celebrations for pagan traditions. Around 496 A.D. Pope Gelasius fixed February 14 to be the feast day of St. Valentine. As with so many Christianisations of earlier festivals, it appears to have picked up traditions, understandings, and practices of its foundation.

In France and England there was the belief that February 14 was the beginning of birds’ mating season. The earliest “valentine” we still have (now in the British Library in London ) is a poem written by Charles, Duke of Orleans in 1415 to his wife while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London following his capture at the Battle of Agincourt.

Valentine’s Day became increasingly popular from the seventeenth century. Only at Christmas are more cards sent.

Anglican Covenant – strength of weak ties

Published on February 7, 2010 in liturgy. 17 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

Bible Alone

It continues to intrigue me that those who hold to a Bible-Alone, sola scriptura position regularly continue to clamour in favour of the proposed Anglican Covenant. This more protestant, “reformed” end of the Anglican spectrum on the one hand claims the Bible Alone is totally sufficient for all our Christian needs, that the Bible is totally self-explanatory, and that the Bible does not need to be supplemented by any other documents. Yet on the other hand: these same people feel that Anglicanism cannot survive without the Anglican Covenant. Ie. the Bible alone is not sufficient. Make up your mind people: is the Bible alone sufficient or isn’t it?!

Completing the Reformation

Some pro-Anglican-Covenant people speak about the need to “complete the Reformation”. Certainly, many at the Reformation created confessional denominations increasingly dividing over disagreements over interpretations of their lists of beliefs. The Anglican Covenant will either include everyone currently Anglican (and so will alter nothing, have only delayed discussion about the real issue, and wasted jet-engine fuel). Or it will complete the Reformation’s tendency towards ever-increasing fragmentation by splintering the frail bonds that bind Anglicans together.

The Anglican Communion and the strength of weak ties

Without using theological-babble (or “Rowanspeak”) it is very hard to ascertain what those who are pro-the Covenant concretely want and expect from a “Communion”. Certainly we would hope a communicant anywhere is a communicant everywhere in the Communion. Even that principle has been stretched to breaking with some provinces communicating all the baptised, some needing a rite of “admission to communion” at an age of “understanding”, and some needing episcopal confirmation before receiving communion. I am sure that toddlers from the first option may have difficulty receiving communion in provinces with the last option. Another principle is the mutual recognition of ordination, so that clergy in one province can function as clergy in another province. That principle has long been broken with women clergy, and male clergy ordained by women bishops, from one province unable to function as clergy in other provinces. Attitudes to divorce and remarriage vary from province to province, affecting communicant status and acceptability of remarried clergy. All this will not change one iota should the Anglican Covenant be accepted.

Sociologist Mark Granovetter, in the highly influential 1973 paper on social networking “The Strength of Weak Ties”, argues our close friends will be quite similar to us. Acquaintances differ more from us and will have their own networks of close friends. We have strong ties to our friends, and weak ties to acquaintances. Granovetter argues persuasively for the value of having both strong and weak ties – they have different functions, enhancing both our flourishing and theirs.

Strong ties (friends) are like an Anglican province. Weak ties (acquaintances) are like our inter-provincial ties across the Anglican Communion. Many who are pro-Covenant appear unable to articulate a difference between a diocese, a province, and a communion – these appear to be seeking that the communion function essentially in the way that most of us understand a diocese to function (or possibly a province).

A previous post: the Anglican Covenant will not do what it is meant to do

A helpful site for deeper reflection is the World Anglicanism Forum run by Bruce Kaye, an Anglican theologian, Foundation editor of the Journal of Anglican Studies. Currently a Visiting Research Fellow in History at the University of New South Wales and a Professorial Associate in Theology at Charles Sturt University.

be part of love – “Up in the Air”

Published on January 29, 2010 in liturgy. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , .

Up in the Air 2009 movie – some thoughts

UpInTheAir_posterCentral to this film (spoilers warning) is a scene with Jim Miller (Danny McBride) in a Sunday school classroom reading the classic The Velveteen Rabbit. The story of The Velveteen Rabbit is a story of a toy rabbit who becomes real by being loved – loved so much that his fur is rubbed off in the process.

In the scene I mention, Jim explains his thoughts about what his life is going to be like: house, children, jobs, losing his hair, and then dying. He wonders what the point of life is. IMO it is a key moment in the movie.

The film focuses on Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) who lives out of a suitcase, employed to travel around the country firing people. We see the reaction of people being “let go”. With a few exceptions of well-known actors, the scenes of people’s reactions are not with actors, but the reaction of actual people recently laid off. (And here’s an important movie-going rule: always stay through the credits. In one case a thriller’s conclusion changed completely after the credits. Often there is a humorous bit, or the hint of a sequel. This time there is a significant song).

Ryan Bingham is a commitment-phobe:

Ryan: How much does your life weigh? Imagine for a second that you’re carrying a backpack. … I want you to fill it with people. Start with casual acquaintances, friends of friends, folks around the office… and then you move into the people you trust with your most intimate secrets. Your brothers, your sisters, your children, your parents and finally your husband, your wife, your boyfriend, your girlfriend. You get them into that backpack, feel the weight of that bag. Make no mistake your relationships are the heaviest components in your life. All those negotiations and arguments and secrets, the compromises. The slower we move the faster we die. Make no mistake, moving is living. Some animals were meant to carry each other to live symbiotically over a lifetime. Star crossed lovers, monogamous swans. We are not swans. We are sharks.

Ryan’s one-night stands give way to a developing relationship with what he perceives to be a female version of himself, Alex (Vera Farmiga). There is an interesting reflection here on sex as sacrament. Some people may think that sex does not connect us as people – but here there is an argument that we can let that wall slip. Sex with Alex is where Ryan’s walls begin to crumble.

Ryan: I thought I was a part of your life.
Alex: I thought we signed up for the same thing… I thought our relationship was perfectly clear. You are an escape. You’re a break from our normal lives. You’re a parenthesis.
Ryan: I’m a parenthesis?

There is a memorable scene where Ryan is looking at the myriad of flight options on an airport screen. It is a metaphor of the commitment-phobe. In our culture in the past we used to tell lots of people we loved them, but only had sex with someone significant. Now our contemporary culture has reversed this totally to having sex with lots of people – and telling someone we love them is regarded as very significant (and saying “I love you” during the climax of sex doesn’t count!) Our culture has shifted, without much reflection, from focusing on the positive of marriage, allowing one to now “have and to hold”, to its negative – the realisation that in marriage one ends up “forsaking all others.” It is little wonder that divorce is so prevalent. With compassion towards those who have genuinely found their commitment impossible to maintain, one wonders at Christians, even clergy, moving through their third or more marriages. Anyway, when it comes to sex, Christianity has a pretty bad track record currently – riddled with scandals, obsessing about sex as a primary issue, and generally giving a negative impression about sex (why is the term “living in sin” associated with sex, and not, say, anger, or video piracy,…). It is understandable Christians cannot be heard about a positive attitude to sex. Maybe Christians need to be silent about sex for a generation. And after that slowly begin talking about sex again, but solely in a positive, encouraging way,… starting with the Song of Solomon. Visually illustrated…

At the start of the film Natalie (Anna Kendrick) looked like a younger version of Ryan. Turns out she is not:

Natalie: Don’t you think it’s worth giving it a chance?
Ryan: A chance to what?
Natalie: A chance to something real.
Ryan: You’re definition of real evolves as you get older.
Natalie: Can you stop being so condescending for one second or is that one of your principles of your bullshit philosophy? The isolation? Is that supposed to be charming?
Ryan: No, it’s simply a life choice.
Natalie: It’s a cocoon of self banishment.

There is a bit of a transformation for Ryan as he allows himself to make some real connections – but…

Relationships are messy. Love in real life isn’t neat, tidy, well-organised, in the way that Ryan’s flying life appears. Love is much more like the story of The Velveteen Rabbit. It wears our fur off. It also makes us real.

inexpensive wedding

Published on December 5, 2009 in liturgy. 17 Comments Tags: , .

Why do people equate a “church wedding” with lots of expense?

I was talking to someone who got married recently. She is a church-going Christian. Her wedding was a simple wedding in a registry office. They asked to have no presents, and friends present paid for their own meal afterwards at a restaurant. My question is: why do many people not think or realise this is possible in a church? I checked our diocesan website of about 150 churches: only three parishes and the cathedral mention that they do weddings!

I was talking to a priest yesterday and soon in his parish there will, in fact, be a simple wedding, with afternoon tea following in the parish hall. Why are more people not made aware of this option? The local newspaper regularly has a lift-out feature brochure about weddings – at most only one of our parishes will feature in an advertisement, and I have never seen an article explaining that you can have a simple, wonderful, meaningful wedding service at a church.

Churches, parishes, are expensive to run. If you are going to have an expensive wedding and you want to have the service in church it is appropriate that you give a donation to that church. Churches will regularly have a suggested list of donations. Including a donation to the priest. The 2,000 year tradition of the church, however, is that you cannot charge for a sacramental action such as a marriage. The money donated to the priest is placed in the parish’s Discretionary Account usually administered by the priest. I have known of the priest discretely paying for a struggling couple’s wedding rings from the Discretionary Account.

I have known of regulars at a Sunday morning service to get married during the regular Sunday morning service with the refreshments following being extra special to celebrate the wedding. The Christian community celebrates a baptism in its midst Sunday mornings – why not a marriage?

If you can afford to have an expensive wedding, and that’s what you really want – great. If you want a simple wedding, and would rather save the money towards a house deposit etc. or cannot afford an expensive wedding, or do not want to have an expensive wedding on principle – the Christian community should be supportive of you and encouraging you. As far as I know there is no correlation between the expense of the wedding and the “success” of the marriage.

Your church or parish needs to

  • Have a simple brochure explaining the Christian understanding of marriage and what your community can provide in terms of preparation, service options, and follow-up
  • Have this same information online and easy to find on your community website
  • Have this same information in an abbreviated form on your diocesan website or its equivalent in your denomination
  • Regularly advertise in suburban papers with a summary of this information, and regularly write articles about this in those papers – those papers are always hungry for attractive articles. Provide photos and news of such a recent wedding (with the couple’s permission of course)
  • Regularly advertise in the larger newspapers, in magazines, providing interesting articles.
  • Feature on Radio and Television. Get interviewed if you cannot afford advertising. They, too, are constantly seeking interesting stories. Club together with other communities to pay for a television spot. A diocese is large enough to feature regularly.

What do you think about this? What do you or your community do? Any other stories or ideas?

marriage and ordination

Published on October 24, 2009 in liturgy. 18 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Does the order matter?

In the Roman Catholic Church and in the Eastern Orthodox Church you can only get married before ordination. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can not get married after ordination. If the wife of a married Roman Catholic deacon dies, he cannot marry again. If the wife of an Anglican priest, re-ordained as a Roman Catholic priest, dies – he cannot marry again.

I have been involved in some discussions about this. The contention is that there is no evidence in the Tradition of marriage after ordination. None! There is, according to that position, not a single example of marriage after ordination until the Reformation. I find this an astonishing and fascinating claim. I would be fascinated if any reader could come up with a refutation. Or, of course, references to this being correct.

When I ask – what is the theology around this? What reflection do you have about this? What is the point of this? Why is it any different to be married before or after ordination? I get little more than, “Do they require post hoc justification? Is Sacred Tradition not enough?” Well I cannot quickly think of anything within Sacred Tradition that is not followed by some reflection, interpretation, theology, or explanation. Does anyone have such a reflection in this case – what is the difference between marriage before and marriage after ordination?

For reference I have been pointed to Celibacy in the Early Church: The Beginnings of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West and Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy and am grateful to have been pointed to the Google preview. But (other than the preview section) I do not yet have these two books and would take some time to obtain them and then absorb them. Meanwhile – please share your wisdom.

Please also tell me if there is an ongoing tradition of abstaining from sexual relations 24 hours prior to presiding at the Eucharist. (And one has also mentioned a tradition of abstaining after presiding – but no indication for how long).

And don’t tell me that as in the case of baptism, confirmation, eucharist – marriage and ordination are in that order because they are so alphabetically LOL

Virtual Eucharist?

Published on June 28, 2009 in liturgy. 37 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

Can sacraments work in the virtual world?

The Revd Professor Paul S. Fiddes, a Baptist minister and Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Oxford and Director of Research, Regent’s Park College, has just written a short paper arguing in favour of celebrating Eucharist in the virtual world.

Anglican Cathedral in Second Life

Anglican Cathedral in Second Life

Mark Brown, an Anglican priest and CEO of the NZ Bible Society is the founder of the Anglican Cathedral in Second Life. He has just placed Professor Fiddes’ paper on his blog and invited me to respond. Unfortunately Mark himself has to date not entered the discussion. Having just relinquished his position in the Anglican Cathedral in Second Life he may be giving the impression that he is in favour of expanding services in the virtual world to include “sacraments.”

Can bread and wine be consecrated via the internet?

When televised services first became possible, there was discussion whether bread and wine, placed before a television screen, would be consecrated by a priest presiding at a service being televised. Now serious discussions are beginning to take place about sacraments in cyberspace.

Professor Fiddes contends “Theologically we should develop a notion of ‘virtual sacraments’ rather than an ‘extension’ of the consecration of elements over a distance, and their direct reception by the person employing the avatar.” He makes this statement, however, without any substantiation why avatars administering and receiving sacraments within a virtual world is OK but extending this into real life via the internet is not. In general, however, this is in the context of a church that is often struggling to catch up with the potential offered by the internet.

Baptism, immersion into the Christian community, the body of Christ, and hence into the nature of God the Holy Trinity may have some internet equivalents – for example, being welcomed into a moderated group. But my own current position would be to shy away from, for example, having a virtual baptism of a second life avatar. Nor would I celebrate Eucharist and other sacraments in the virtual world. Sacraments are outward and visible signs – the virtual world is still very much at the inner and invisible level. Similarly, in my opinion, placing unconsecrated bread and wine before a computer or television screen and understanding this to result in consecration tends away from the liturgical understanding of the Eucharist (liturgy = work of the people/ something done by a community) towards a magical understanding of the Eucharist (magic = something done to or for an individual or community).

Sacraments 2.0

Professor Fiddes summarises

An avatar can receive the bread and wine of the Eucharist within the logic of the virtual world and it will still be a means of grace, since God is present in a virtual world in a way that is suitable for its inhabitants. We may expect that the grace received by the avatar will be shared in some way by the person behind the avatar, because the person in our everyday world has a complex relationship with his or her persona.

I strongly disagree with this argument. Professor Fiddes contends that God is present in a virtual world providing grace for its inhabitants. In Fiddes’ theology God gives grace to the avatar. This grace, Fiddes’ expects, will then be “shared in some way by the person behind the avatar.” The concept of an avatar being the receiver of God’s grace is astonishing from an Oxford Professor of Systematic Theology, let alone a Baptist minister, who normally would not allow God’s grace to be present in an inanimate object, not to mention a virtual one. Yet, surprisingly, he presents no justification for his startling assertions. In Fiddes’ perspective does all of the grace received by the avatar automatically get transferred to the person behind the avatar in a sort of ex opere operato mechanism? Or in some (many, most) cases is only some of the grace transferred, with the avatar retaining grace that was originally given by God to the avatar? What in Fiddes’ theology is the use of God’s grace to this avatar? What happens to this grace when the computers fail and the virtual world ceases?

Following Fiddes’ approach one would logically hold that God gives grace to a cartoon character like Mickey Mouse with whom an observer (or cartoonist) identifies – and that Mickey Mouse passes this grace on to the observer or cartoonist. Similarly God, according to Fiddes’, would give grace to a character in a computer/video game and that grace is then passed on to the person playing that character.

Mark Brown in Second Life

Mark Brown in Second Life

Although Fiddes claims that grace is not some sort of liquid, some sort of “substance”, there is nothing in his thesis that supports this claim. Putting to one side the comment that celebrating Eucharist in Second Life parodies Real Life church (and so would tend towards sacrilege), and the complexities of who might preside at a Second Life Eucharist (only an ordained person behind an avatar? only an avatar ordained within the virtual world?), I think it is better to examine the sacramental theology underlying Fiddes’ contention.

The majority Christian position (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran,…- but, it is to be noted for this response, not Baptist) holds that Christ is truly present in a distinctive way in the Eucharistic species of bread and wine. A sacrament requires particular “matter”. Baptism uses water, Eucharist uses bread and wine. We cannot pour a jar of jelly-beans over someone and say they are baptised. We cannot consecrate a bicycle and say this is the Eucharist. Such sacramental theology is also clear on whom we might confer the sacrament. We cannot baptise a pram. We cannot give communion to a letterbox.

Hence, we cannot baptise an avatar in the virtual world – as there is no water there, nor is an avatar a person on whom we can confer baptism.

There is within Christianity a minority position that regards sacraments as primarily something happening in one’s mind, or metaphorical heart. This position holds that the bread and wine are reminders to the faithful person receiving them. Fiddes, an ordained Baptist minister, is faithful to the Baptist foundations of Regent’s Park College in his sacramental ideas about an individual receiving grace by being mentally involved in a computer simulation. In the Eucharist, bread and wine are the medium by which one makes oneself present to the death of Christ. One wonders why Fiddes would continue this in the virtual world when there one could simulate the death of Christ directly. Communion in his view of the virtual world adds another now-unnecessary layer between Christ’s death and the person on the keyboard.

There is no denying Fiddes’ statement “There is a mysterious and complex interaction between the person and the persona projected (avatar).” This relationship is, in my opinion, akin to identifying with a character in a novel, play, or movie, or with a string puppet one is controlling in a puppet theatre. A baptism, marriage, or celebration of communion in such a novel, movie, or puppet show may deeply move the person identifying with the character. Such a person may very well be graced and transformed by God at such a time. But there is no sense in which the person identifying with the character is thereby baptised, married, or receiving the Eucharist.

The gothic architecture of the Anglican Cathedral in Second Life may mimic the gothic architecture of many cathedrals in Real Life and encourage a sloppy translation into Second Life of everything from Real Life. But, in fact, any architectural construct can be designed in a virtual world in a way that it cannot in Real Life. What we need is not a parodying in the virtual world of that which is particular to Real Life – we need to discern appropriate ways of mission and ministry in and through the virtual world that may very well be significantly different to what we can do in the Real World. It is that which is its blessing and its challenge.

Update: check here for a funny and thought-provoking video on the church’s use of new technology! :-)

Pope not giving Charles awkward gift

Published on April 22, 2009 in liturgy. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , .

Yesterday our local newspaper reproduced word for word the article from the Times that when Prince Charles meets the pope next week, Benedict XVI will give him a bad-taste “luxury facsimile of the 1530 appeal by English peers to Pope Clement VII asking for the annulment of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon”. The author, Richard Owen, could hardly contain himself at having uncovered yet another pontifical faux-pas.

The story lacks factual basis and the Vatican has asked for a retraction.

lombardi2

(image source)

Richard Own used some careful footwork in his subsequent article in which, rather than acknowledge he had got it wrong, he has “The Vatican distanced the Pope from plans to give the Prince of Wales a copy of an historic document relating to the divorce of Henry VIII when the pair meet on Monday.” I cannot spot our local newspaper’s retraction – but it could be in very small print somewhere.

Reflect with me on the readings for February 8

Published on January 24, 2009 in lectionary and liturgy. 18 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Previously I have provided a brief introduction to the Sunday readings, with context and background (example). I am experimentally trying something new here: You can add your insights, reflections, sermon suggestions, hymn suggestions – anything positive and useful (even layout and web organisational ideas) – in the comments box. I will choose to publish from what is sent here. Do not send anonymous comments. This is in the nature of community lectio divina. If you know anywhere else on the internet where the Sunday readings are being discussed, please send that URL as a resource. I think we will look about two weeks ahead. Hence we begin with

5th Sunday in Ordinary Time – 5th Sunday after Epiphany – 3rd Sunday before Lent

Text of the readings

Isaiah 40:21-31

“Second Isaiah” Chapters 40-55 addresses those living in exile in Babylon towards the end of the Babylonian exile (597-539 BCE). “Deutero-Isaiah” builds on the eighth century prophet Isaiah’s message of holiness, with words of consolation. Whilst some Judean exiles would have thought their God had been defeated by Babylonia’s gods, the argument from 40:12 highlights the LORD is the only true God, leading to the conclusion in today’s text.
(Roman Catholics use Job 7:1-4, 6-7)

Psalm 147:1-11, 20c

1 Corinthians 9:16-23

The Macedonians were in fact supporting Paul as he wrote this (2 Corinthians 11:7-9), so his claim that the gospel is free is primarily to make a point. In this early Mediterranean world people understood there to be a limited total amount of goods. So if I give you something – then I have less. Furthermore, my giving to you would demand that you give something to me. This text cuts across this cultural expectation.

Mark 1:29-39

Simon’s mother-in-law would be expected to be with her husband, or if she is a widow, with her sons. This story is suggesting that within her culture she is suffering far more than a physical illness. Jesus, as so often in his healing stories, is not merely healing her physically, the story indicates he restores her to her meaningful place within the community.

St Peter's HouseThe floor-plan of the first century house of St Peter in Capernaum (illustrated from The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide (Oxford Archaeological Guides)

“The city’s basalt houses are grouped around two large courtyards, one to the north and the other to the south. One large room in particular, near the east side and joining both courtyards, was especially large (sides about 7.5 meters long) and roughly square. An open space on the eastern side contained a brick oven. A threshold which allowed crossing between the two courtyards remains well-preserved to this day.” Wikipedia (link off this site) In such a complex lived Jonah, his sons Andrew and Simon (Peter), Simon’s wife, possible children, and today’s mother-inlaw. The patrilocal practice of marriage meant that the bride moved in to the home prepared by the groom in or adjacent to that of his father.

Reconstruction and excavation

The image (left) shows a reconstruction of this house as it may have appeared in Jesus’ day, and the excavations. This is drawn from this Bible Encyclopaedia.

Richard Bauckham Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony argues (following Cuthbert Turner’s 1925 suggestion) that the plural-to-singular narrative device seen here (”they…they…they…he…) characteristic in Mark (and turned to singulars in Matthew and Luke’s parallels!) indicate Peter’s telling of this story behind Mark’s account. The awkward Markan phrasing could be a reworking of “We left the synagogue and came into our house with our fellow-disciples James and John. My mother-in-law was in bed with fever, and he is told about her” (page 159 – quoting Turner).

Don’t forget: each week I also publish a reflection on the collect/opening prayer.

Proposition 8

Published on November 15, 2008 in liturgy. Closed Tags: , , , , , , , , .

For those unsure of what “Proposition 8″ refers to, The Times provides a summary:

Californians didn’t vote solely to elect a commander-in-chief on November 4. They also voted on a handful of proposed laws written and placed on the ballot by citizens themselves. One of them was Proposition 8, to amend the state’s constitution so as to overturn a ruling that recognised gay marriages.

Against all the odds, and most of the opinion polls, Proposition 8 was passed into law, thanks in large part to a massive get-out-the-vote campaign by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).

So now, after 18,000 legal gay weddings over nearly five months … providing gay couples with the same legal recognition and protection as straight couples – same-sex unions are once again as illicit as crack.

It has since been suggested that the LDS (aka, the Mormons) spent an incredible $20 million pushing Proposition 8. Its leaders even composed a letter to be read to every congregation, declaring that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His Children”. This from the same organisation that brought us elderly prophets with broods of under-age brides, before the polygamists defected and escaped to fortified Texas compounds….

From what I understand, same-sex civil unions have no effect whatsoever on churches: they are free to impose whatever conditions they like on their own wedding ceremonies; so why the massive effort to deny other people the protection of the law?

Equal rites

Many of the most vociferous opponents of blessing and giving of equal legal rights to committed same-sex couples are themselves on their second or more heterosexual “marriage”. They quote vigorously from a half dozen verses which are variously interpreted (and not one from the mouth of Jesus) but regularly studiously avoid the clear biblical teaching, including from our Lord himself, that divorce is grave sin. With the concept of committed same-sex relationships being absent from the culture and times of the biblical authors, one should not be surprised that there is no biblical teaching on this. One needs, hence, to construct such ethics on the understanding of sex, sexuality, relationships, and so on. The trajectory has been clear: the acceptance of artificial birth-control (the reversal of traditional teaching at Lambeth 1930), through the diminishing of the centrality of procreation in revised marriage rites, to the acceptance of non-procreative sex between homosexual partners. Roman Catholic official teaching has seen the inevitability of progressing through this trajectory, but its teaching on contraception is almost totally ignored, and its practice of annulments makes its teachings on divorce farcical.

Mixed up on marriage

To attempt to draw a consistent, reasonable Christian teaching about marriage from churches and their practice appears nigh on impossible. Here are just a few of the current conundrums:

  • The (NZ) Anglican position currently needs a marriage to have the intention to be life-long and exclusive. Yet I know of many, including clergy, who have a pre-nuptial agreement. Is that not like crossing your fingers while you take the vows? Is making a pre-nuptial agreement grounds for an annulment in the Roman Catholic Church?
  • The (New Zealand) state law says nothing about either life-long or exclusive – and does not require this in any “marriage” vows. Yet the church appears to call people married by the state “married”. Anglican and other clergy will happily bless such state marriages – are they blessing a “marriage”?
  • Roman Catholic marriage celebrants regularly marry couples they know, in the eyes of their church, cannot get married, nor is their marriage recognised by their church. They are clearly making a farce and mockery of the marriage sacrament. Yet the marriage celebrants continue to officiate at such ceremonies, are not excommunicated, and, in fact, I am unaware of any Roman Catholic official comment on such practices.
  • The Church of England has one of the most stringent anti-divorce positions in Christianity (interesting – with Henry VIII in its lineage!) Hence Prince Charles and Camilla could not be married in church. But the Archbishop of Canterbury blessed their state marriage immediately following that ceremony. Are they married? In the eyes of the CofE? Is the Christian marriage rite not the exchanging of vows followed by a blessing – how does this differ in the case of Prince Charles and Camilla?
  • Roman Catholics can, on a number of grounds, have their marriage annulled. This declares that a marriage never existed. Magically, the legitimacy of the children is unaffected. But have the couple been committing the sin of fornication throughout their (non-married) relationship? How does a couple know they are actually married? If they want to be certain, should they apply rigorously for an annulment and then know they are actually married when (as would be rare!) they are repeatedly refused an annulment? Does a couple know they are actually married if they stay together until one of them dies? Or have they been living in sin all their lives and now it is too late to check?
  • A couple where the woman is post-menopausal may marry in the Roman Catholic Church, but not the impotent or paraplegics. If they marry outside the church, are they married? If you have a “Josephite marriage” (where the marriage is not consummated, and the couple agrees to abstain from sex) this is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, but may be grounds either for canonisation, or for an annulment!
  • In some Anglican provinces baptism is not a requirement for sacramental Christian marriage. In the Church of England a priest could be required to perform a marriage ceremony for (eg.) a Hindu couple living with the parish boundaries. S/he would be obligated to use the Christian Marriage rite. Is it then a Christian marriage?
  • An Anglican priest known but quietly living in a same-sex relationship would have little concern, but if publicly committing to this relationship will lose his/her licence as a breach of the formularies. An unmarried couple presenting a child for baptism are required to declare their renunciation of evil and turning to Christ. I have yet to hear of a refusal of such a baptism on the basis that it is incompatible with the formularies.