|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Sacrament of Marriage
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I have always regarded marriage as a sacrament in the Anglican Church, but I was recently informed by an Anglican minister that this is not so. In his view marriage is 'nice' if it is performed in the church but but can happen anywhere as it isn't a sacrament. He just won't go outside the church to take weddings as it is inconvenient, but suggests to enquirers that they get a civil celebrant. I am confused by this as I was always taught to see marriage as a sacrament to be blessed in church during the marriage service. My own marriage occurred in church and I certainly made promises before God as did my partner. Is marriage a sacrament in others' eyes?
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Technically, the Anglican view is fuzzy. Short explanation: It depends on your definition of sacrament.
According to Article 15 of the Articles of Religion, Matrimony is "not to be counted as Sacraments of the Gospel." My understanding is that only Baptism and Holy Eucharist are sacraments in the sense of being explicitly mandated by Our Lord and "necessary for salvation." If you define sacrament in this narrow way, then No, marriage is not a sacrament.
If however, you define sacrament according to the broader understanding as simply a visible sign with an invisible grace, you could argue that matrimony indeed is a sacrament.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
FWIW, the catechism of the Episcopal Church (US), as found in the 1979 BCP, makes a distinction between the "Sacraments of the Gospel"—Holy Baptism and Holy Eucharist—and other "sacramental rites" "evolved in the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
In the British case, if there ever was a time to stress the 'sacrament of marriage', I don't think it's now. The popularity of civil over religious marriage, the high divorce rate, the normativity of cohabitation, births out of wedlock and general family breakdown suggest that such an emphasis would be meaningless to the vast majority of people.
In fact, as a Christian I think there's something to be said for the non-religious marriage. It avoids the problem of standing 'before God' and making vows that we frequently feel at liberty to break. I feel uneasy that churches are willing to facilitate this behaviour, although I understand why they do.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In fact, as a Christian I think there's something to be said for the non-religious marriage. It avoids the problem of standing 'before God' and making vows that we frequently feel at liberty to break. I feel uneasy that churches are willing to facilitate this behaviour, although I understand why they do.
To be fair to officiating clergy, I don't think they are facilitating such behaviour. They are saying 'yes' when approached by couples who say they want to be married in church. And unless a clergyperson has a reason for saying no, why shouldn't they.
As for the problem of standing before God to make vows that are evidently not to be kept etc. I've yet to hear that the psychic gift of mind-reading has been added to the grace of ordination. Until one finds oneself in the position of being able to say 'clearly you won't mean what you will be promising', I don't see how it's possible to deny a church wedding to an applicant couple. (With the usual reservations which may apply to Bishop's say-so, divorce etc.)
I suppose one could create a policy of attendance being necessary before the ceremony (if that's allowed? I know some clergy who did this). But I'd be intrigued to know by which criteria one judges which couples should be welcomed into church for God's blessing, and which should be denied it, because they've been assessed as being most likely to feel at liberty to break their promises, and we don't facilitate that kind of behaviour here, you know!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In fact, as a Christian I think there's something to be said for the non-religious marriage. It avoids the problem of standing 'before God' and making vows that we frequently feel at liberty to break.
I don't think there's any support at all for this idea that a "non-religious marriage" is somehow less binding on Christians. You shouldn't be making any kind of vow or promise "that you feel at liberty to break".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Unlike some other communions, the CofE regards all marriages, whether in church or before a Registrar as marriages, equally binding and creating the same commitments. Getting married in a Registry Office, does not mean you are free to commit adultery.
It is better to get married before God, because you are seeking his blessing, and his help in keeping the vows. But the vows don't represent something extra on top of just being married. They are a statement of what marriage involves. By saying them, one is overtly committing oneself to them, but those who enter into a marriage without them are not somehow letting themselves off with a lower standard.
Some people get very hung up on whether marriage is a sacrament or not. Most of the argument one way or the other is cross purposes since it is conducted by people who are pretending not to notice either that they mean different things by sacrament - or more usually, that they have never really thought through what they do mean by the word, or what difference (if any) how one understand the word might make.
Whether people think that marriage is a 'sacrament' I don't think there is any group of Christians who do not think that marriage creates a bond that is in some way sacred. Indeed, some of the people I've known who have had the highest view of marriage, its importance and the highest quality of family life, have been members of ecclesial communities that tend to avoid using the word 'sacrament' even to describe their baptisms and communion services.
Well, that's what I think, anyway.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
To follow on from Enoch's post, it is my understanding that the Church of England understanding of marriage is that it is enacted by the public exchange of vows by the man and the woman. No ministerial or priestly function is required. The BCP 'Solemnization of Matrimony' starts:
quote:
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;
This might imply that the joining is being done by 'We' and not just the minister. However, after the exchange of vows, the minister says:
quote:
Forasmuch as M. and N. have consented together in holy wedlock, an have witnessed the same before God and this company, and thereto have given and pledged their troth either to other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving of a Ring, and by the joining of hands; I pronounce that they be Man and Wife together, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen
There is no action of God in this, and the minister says that the couple are Man and Wife, i.e. that the actions described have already made them so.
Another factor in relation to sacramentality is that holy Matrimony is "an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency" whereas the dominical sacraments are means of grace needed because of our loss of innocency.
According to Wikipedia, even prior to the 1753 marriage act, for a marriage to be legally recognised it had to be enacted before a clerk in holy orders, but this was a legal not a theological requirement.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I do not know. I have always been troubled by Matthew 5:33-37. It worries me to deliberately invoke God's presence for an event when making vows particularly if there grounds for wondering at the seriousness with which those vows are taken. I am also aware of Hebrews 10:31 and I wonder how much we forget that when people come into church for ceremonies such as this they declare their act part of the sacred realm and not only ask God's blessing and Grace but also God's judgement. They are saying that they are happy for God to keep them accountable for their vows.
Jengie
[ 07. February 2018, 09:40: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I do not know. I have always been troubled by Matthew 5:33-37.
The promise that is made in the standard C of E marriage service (and in most others) is a simple "I will". There's no invoking the Holy Name as a testament to your truthfulness, no "cross my heart and hope to die", and nothing else that could trouble this passage from Matthew. Just a simple "I promise to do these things."
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The promise that is made in the standard C of E marriage service (and in most others) is a simple "I will". There's no invoking the Holy Name as a testament to your truthfulness, no "cross my heart and hope to die", and nothing else that could trouble this passage from Matthew. Just a simple "I promise to do these things."
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
That’s the answer to the question on whether it is the intent of the bride and groom to enter into a marriage with each other.
The vow or promise (per the 1662 BCP) is:
“I,____, take thee,_____, to be my wedded Wife/Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.”
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The promises are not made to God, they're made before God. As pointed out above, the promise is answered by a straight I will and the name of God only comes about in the second set of vows in relation to God determining length of life (till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance;).
It was always my understanding that the "sacrament" of marriage was the living together faithfully, day-by-day after the ceremony had taken place; put another way, it isn't possible to go to someone's "marriage", you can only go to a wedding.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Or more usually these days (IME) quote:
I, N, take you, N,
to be my wife/husband,
to have and to hold
from this day forward;
for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
till death us do part,
according to God’s holy law.
In the presence of God I make this vow.
TBH nobody in my experience takes he promise lightly, and the final line is only a reminder of something that is true, wherever the vow is made.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I do not know. I have always been troubled by Matthew 5:33-37.
The promise that is made in the standard C of E marriage service (and in most others) is a simple "I will". There's no invoking the Holy Name as a testament to your truthfulness, no "cross my heart and hope to die", and nothing else that could trouble this passage from Matthew. Just a simple "I promise to do these things."
I would maintain that deliberately doing something in a church particular with a cleric presiding is at least equivalent to doing those.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Until one finds oneself in the position of being able to say 'clearly you won't mean what you will be promising', I don't see how it's possible to deny a church wedding to an applicant couple.
I'm not saying that any random bridal couple is likely to get divorced. It's more the case that most modern, ration, tolerant people, believe divorce to be acceptable in a wide variety of situations, regardless of whatever vows they take.
Saying the vows has therefore become a celebration of tradition rather than an expression of what we actually believe about marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think there's any support at all for this idea that a "non-religious marriage" is somehow less binding on Christians. You shouldn't be making any kind of vow or promise "that you feel at liberty to break".
But we all believe that divorce is acceptable, so why do we pretend in God's presence that we don't? Humility should make us stop and reflect on what we're doing.
It would certainly be wise for us to pray for God's blessing on our marriages, but the vows don't reflect the reality of our theological position.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As pointed out above, the promise is answered by a straight I will and the name of God only comes about in the second set of vows in relation to God determining length of life (till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance;).
No, the promise of marriage is not answered by "I will." That is not the marriage vow; it’s a remnant of the betrothal vow. It's a statement of intent to enter into marriage, and the answer is given to the officiant, not the marriage partner. It's basically asking "okay, do you really intend to go through with this?" The marriage vow is spoken, in full, directly to the person one is marrying.
As for the name of God, at least in the 1662 BCP, it also included in the question of intent, and there it seems to apply to more than the length of marriage.
_____, wilt thou have this woman/man to thy wedded wife/husband, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her/him, comfort her/him, honour, and keep her/him, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her/him, so long as ye both shall live?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But we all believe that divorce is acceptable,
Do we? I certainly do not.
I class divorce as a sin for which one must repent. Now, sometimes it is the best solution to a bad situation, but that doesn't make it acceptable.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Well, put another way, we do seem to 'accept' it, even if we find it very unfortunate. I think most Protestant denominations in the West now re-marry divorcees (although the theology around this isn't very well enunciated, ISTM). Divorce and re-marriage are culturally normative to us, and they even occur in church leadership. It's the environment we live in.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
That is so, and AFAIK very few members of the little community of faith at Our Place are happily married in the way our dear Father F**kwit would have liked (he of the departed Dear Wife, and the recently-married Lovely Wife).
Many are celibate (some through conscious choice), single, widowed, divorced, asexual, bisexual, Living-In-Sin (i.e. not officially married to their partner), or whatever.
Not that Father F**kwit ever showed any sign of pastoral sensitivity towards these varied - but IMHO equally valid - states.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
... According to Wikipedia, even prior to the 1753 marriage act, for a marriage to be legally recognised it had to be enacted before a clerk in holy orders, but this was a legal not a theological requirement.
Wikipedia may not be right on this. The position is ambiguous.
Before the Reformation, and there is quite a lot of evidence for this from diocesan court records, the simple exchange of 'I take you as my wife/husband' (as the case may be), before witnesses, married them. Even a future exchange 'I will take you etc' followed by sexual intercourse, could have that effect.
However, if not done before a priest at the door of a church, some of the property consequences didn't follow. The wife, for example, did not get her right to dower. Even with a church marriage though, it is the couple who are marrying each other. The priest merely witnessed and blessed it. He didn't actually make them married.
What isn't clear, is how far that was still the law in 1753.
Roman Catholic canon law on this changed with the Council of Trent, which, of course, has never become part of English law or CofE canon law.
To this day, though, it is the exchange of "I, N, take you, N, to be my wife/husband" that is what marries them, not the vows that accompany it. That's one of many reasons why it's important that they both have to say the words separately. It's also important to note that they are saying the words to each other, not to the priest.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But we all believe that divorce is acceptable, so why do we pretend in God's presence that we don't? Humility should make us stop and reflect on what we're doing.
Speak for yourself. Like sharkshooter, I'm happy to accept that divorce might be the least bad option, and should be permissible, but that's not the same as "acceptable".
I'm not pretending anything. The marriage vows are a permanent, lifetime promise.
Yes, sometimes we don't keep our promises, because we're people, and people suck. But that's quite different from what you're describing.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The vow or promise (per the 1662 BCP) is:
“I,____, take thee,_____, to be my wedded Wife/Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.”
Aka "I promise to do these things".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Vow wording are irrelevant as to whether the couple are asking God to witness it. The fact it is happening in a Church in front of a cleric signifies that.
Imagine you were the sole Black family on a street and a small British First group decided to set up a demo in front of your house against immigrants. Are they not doing it to make sure you see it and intimidate you?
Jengie
[ 08. February 2018, 07:55: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The vow or promise (per the 1662 BCP) is:
“I,____, take thee,_____, to be my wedded Wife/Husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth.”
Aka "I promise to do these things".
Right. That was my point, which is I why I said “this is the vow or promise.” This, not “I will” is the promise to the person one is marrying.
But aside from the mention of God in the vow, the words of the service that surround it make very clear, as Jengie jon says, that God is being asked to witness the vow.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But we all believe that divorce is acceptable, so why do we pretend in God's presence that we don't? Humility should make us stop and reflect on what we're doing.
Speak for yourself. Like sharkshooter, I'm happy to accept that divorce might be the least bad option, and should be permissible, but that's not the same as "acceptable".
I'm not pretending anything. The marriage vows are a permanent, lifetime promise.
Yes, sometimes we don't keep our promises, because we're people, and people suck. But that's quite different from what you're describing.
We are indeed humans, and we all suffer our unhappiness as individuals. But divorce is nevertheless a societal phenomenon, and has become commonplace. Our churches tolerate it at all levels. Yet for some reason we've neglected to develop a theology of divorce that takes marriage into account. And we take this muddle right to the altar. This is what seems strange to me.
Of course, it could be argued that liturgy - including marriage liturgy - and real life are meant to be distinct. What we promise in all our liturgies is not what we necessarily believe or do, but what we would believe and do if we and our world were perfect.
Without this implicit acceptance of the distinction I suppose we'd have to abolish liturgy itself, because otherwise we'd have to admit that any number of people would be mouthing the words hypocritically. Any denomination that tolerates theological diversity needs to be able to reject this accusation.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... Yet for some reason we've neglected to develop a theology of divorce that takes marriage into account. ...
I don't agree. We have two theologies which agree on virtually every point except one.
Everybody agrees that marriage is an honourable estate, that it's a good thing, that it is between one man and one woman for as long as they both live, that we should not commit adultery etc. and that it is the best setting for the bringing up of children. Everybody also agrees that it's hard work, things can go wrong, not everybody keeps their vows, but we would be better if we did.
Everybody with a respectable theology also believes that divorce is a very bad thing, a breaking of covenant and traumatic for all those affected.
The only point of difference is whether divorce is impossible or not. Some say marriage is indissoluble, it creates a bubble and once the couple are in it, whatever they do, the bubble cannot be burst, not even by the courts. Any subsequent marriage is just legalised adultery connived at by the state.
Others say that although it would be better if marriages were not dissolved, in the interests of pragmatics and theological economy, we have to live with the fact that divorces do happen, the bond and covenant does get broken. Then the question arises, how do we enable people to go forward with what's left of their lives without making it too easy, and having our approach interpreted by other people minded to break their vows as condoning what they want an excuse to do.
It's only an awareness that difference of opinion exists on the invisible bubble point, how one deals with human imperfection, whether one prefers to proceed as though it doesn't exist, which enables anyone to say or to think we've neglected to develop a theology on the subject.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Sorry about this. For some reason the board seems to have posted my last post twice. The I found out, I tried to delete the second one but was out of time. Please could somebody with the power to do so, delete the second one and then this one.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
<snip>But divorce is nevertheless a societal phenomenon, and has become commonplace. Our churches tolerate it at all levels. Yet for some reason we've neglected to develop a theology of divorce that takes marriage into account.<snip>
I find the idea of having or not having "a theology of divorce that takes marriage into account" an odd concept since divorce cannot exist without the prior assumption of marriage. I think it is fair to say that the Church at large has not got a unified theology of marriage and divorce.
On the other hand the Church of England (to limit myself to what I know about) has done a fair amount of thinking about it. There was a General Synod Marriage Commission which produced a report in 1978 entitled "Marriage and the Church's Task". In 1999 House of Bishops issued a teaching document "Marriage" (PDF) in which explored the issue, and in 2000 a discussion document called "marriage in church after divorce", and in 2002, General Synod decided that it was permissible, and the House of Bishops issued guidelines accordingly.
The Church of England's position is that marriage is made when a couple make promises of lifelong commitment and fidelity (and nearly six out of ten couples remain married). It recognises that people are fallible and the marriages break down. The CofE also recognises, that there are circumstances in which it is right that a person, with a former marriage partner still living, can marry again in church. (I'm not claiming that it is unique in this respect - I'm just limiting myself to speaking of what I know.)
Of course the CofE is not alone in grappling with this issue. I am aware, for example, of the work of Dr. David Instone Brewer in examining this from the perspective of New Testament studies.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Everybody agrees that marriage is an honourable estate, that it's a good thing, that it is between one man and one woman for as long as they both live,
Ahem!! I hear the neighing of spectral horses.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
By a 'theology of divorce' I don't mean just accepting that divorce is a regrettable but necessary ending for many marriages.
Rather, I'm asking in what sense do we invite God into divorce the way we invite him into marriage? If marriage is sacramental does that make divorce anti-sacramental, and if so how do we mark that? Is marriage now a different theological entity now that divorce is routine in a way that our ancestors wouldn't have recognised?
It could be argued that in our culture marriage vows are frequently closer to being hopes rather than promises. Does this point us towards passivity rather than agency? And what does that mean for our theology?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
There have been developed rites for the ending of a marriage, I was vaguely involved* in one that made headlines in 1990s. That service, and I expect others were, partially penitential rites. There was thanksgiving for the good things in the marriage but also an acknowledgement that the couple had failed to live up to the vows they had made.
Jengie
*Alright I typed the order of worship for it but was elsewhere on the actual day.
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I remember reading about one of those in the USA maybe a couple of decades ago. I wonder why they haven't really caught on?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
A revision of the Presbyterian Church (USA)’s Book of Common Worship is set to be published in a few months, and my understanding is that it will include such a rite, or at least prayers for that purpose.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I remember reading about one of those in the USA maybe a couple of decades ago. I wonder why they haven't really caught on?
Possibly because - regrettable though it is - many divorcing couples want to see as little of each other as possible...
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
It needn't involve both though I agree at least an invitation should be made to the other partner. Indeed that was the case with the one I mention above.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry about this. For some reason the board seems to have posted my last post twice. The I found out, I tried to delete the second one but was out of time. Please could somebody with the power to do so, delete the second one and then this one.
Done.
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Enoch -- don't be too sure that we all agree that marriage is between one man and one woman. I dare say we all agree that it can be, but at least some of us would suggest it can also be between two men or two women.
I realise this is a minor point in your argument and, as a Host in both Eccles and Dead Horses, I would ask that this go no further here.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Everybody agrees that marriage is an honourable estate, that it's a good thing, that it is between one man and one woman for as long as they both live, that we should not commit adultery etc. and that it is the best setting for the bringing up of children. Everybody also agrees that it's hard work, things can go wrong, not everybody keeps their vows, but we would be better if we did.
Others say that although it would be better if marriages were not dissolved, in the interests of pragmatics and theological economy, we have to live with the fact that divorces do happen, the bond and covenant does get broken. Then the question arises, how do we enable people to go forward with what's left of their lives without making it too easy, and having our approach interpreted by other people minded to break their vows as condoning what they want an excuse to do.
Very largely right, and even more so when slightly more than 75% of marriages are secular and not religious (as is the case here). Let's assume a failed secular marriage - what should be a church's response to a request for a second marriage but this time in a church?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Let's assume a failed secular marriage - what should be a church's response to a request for a second marriage but this time in a church?
For my money, the same as the church's response should be to a request for a second marriage in church following a first marriage in church: yes, following a serious discussion about the causes of the failure of the first marriage and a convincing commitment that this time will be different.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In fact, as a Christian I think there's something to be said for the non-religious marriage. It avoids the problem of standing 'before God' and making vows that we frequently feel at liberty to break. I feel uneasy that churches are willing to facilitate this behaviour, although I understand why they do.
I agree, though not for the reason you put forward. My problem is that people come to church for a wedding with, quite possibly, no real belief in the God before whom they are making their vows. (And yes, obviously one cannot know the depths of belief in individuals' hearts).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Let's assume a failed secular marriage - what should be a church's response to a request for a second marriage but this time in a church?
For my money, the same as the church's response should be to a request for a second marriage in church following a first marriage in church: yes, following a serious discussion about the causes of the failure of the first marriage and a convincing commitment that this time will be different.
In the church of England the response is the same wherever the wedding took place.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry about this. For some reason the board seems to have posted my last post twice. The I found out, I tried to delete the second one but was out of time. Please could somebody with the power to do so, delete the second one and then this one.
Done.
Thank you.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Enoch -- don't be too sure that we all agree that marriage is between one man and one woman. I dare say we all agree that it can be, but at least some of us would suggest it can also be between two men or two women.
I realise this is a minor point in your argument and, as a Host in both Eccles and Dead Horses, I would ask that this go no further here.
John
Oh dear. I hadn't thought of that until you've pointed it out to me. It was the one partner and one at a time which was what I was thinking of.
I'm not sure I'd actually want to change what I said though. The whole concept of the 'dead horse sort of marriage', which is very recent, is either extending to other sorts of couples the same monogamous and permanent relationship as has applied to men and women over the centuries, or it is nothing.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... My problem is that people come to church for a wedding with, quite possibly, no real belief in the God before whom they are making their vows. ....
Our pastor, and others I know, insist on a pre-nuptial counseling session, and an agreement that he can refuse to perform the wedding for any or no reason. A couple with no belief in God would not be married in our church.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I may be wrong, but I suspect that would not be the position of the CofE where people who live in the parish have a legal right to be married in church.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... My problem is that people come to church for a wedding with, quite possibly, no real belief in the God before whom they are making their vows. ....
Our pastor, and others I know, insist on a pre-nuptial counseling session, and an agreement that he can refuse to perform the wedding for any or no reason. A couple with no belief in God would not be married in our church.
I don't know if the "Presbyterian" reference in your profile is PC(USA), or if the pastor you’re referring to is PC(USA), but the Book of Order (our equivalent of canon law) both mandates pre-nuptial instruction/counseling and provides that minister may "may agree to the couple’s request [to conduct the service] only if, in [his or her] judgment . . . , the couple demonstrate sufficient understanding of the nature of the marriage covenant and commitment to living their lives together according to its values."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I may be wrong, but I suspect that would not be the position of the CofE where people who live in the parish have a legal right to be married in church.
They do - but they don't have the right to demand a time of their own convenience, a service altered to suit their fantasies or a sermon that agrees with them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
@ Nick Tamen: That's interesting. But the bit you've quoted only says that the couple need to have sufficient understanding of marriage, not that they need to have any belief in God. The Book of Order probably presumed that that exists already!
[ 11. February 2018, 06:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
@ Nick Tamen: That's interesting. But the bit you've quoted only says that the couple need to have sufficient understanding of marriage, not that they need to have any belief in God. The Book of Order probably presumed that that exists already!
Not so much presumes, as covered, at least implicitly, by bits I didn't quote. The section I quoted is preceded by reference to a couple requesting that the minister conduct a service of "Christian marriage." The preceding paragraph describes marriage, and along with other references to God's provision of marriage, says "In the Reformed tradition, marriage is also a covenant in which God has an active part, and which the community of faith publicly witnesses and acknowledges." So implicit in the understanding of marriage is understanding the role of God in marriage. That said, I imagine that some wiggle-room is provided for the minister to exercise discretion, such as in cases where one partner is a believer and the other isn't.
FWIW, this is all from the Directory for Worship in the Book of Order.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Actually I sort of knew that by the fact the word 'covenant' was used. It is not used lightly in Reformed circles.
What surprised me was that Baptist Trainfan did not catch onto the language as easily. I thought it was part of the shared heritage with English Baptists.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
