|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: French protestant church votes in favour of blessing same-sex couples
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The Eglise Protestante Unie de France (EPUdF) is a historic protestant denomination resulting from the recent merger of the Lutheran church and the Eglise Réformée de France. It has a presbyterian/synodal structure and tends to be theologically and sociologically liberal. Its influence is declining compared to various evangelical movements, but it is well-established institutionally and forms the backbone of the similarly well-established French Protestant Federation (FPF), of which some more evangelical denominations are part.
In its synod this weekend it voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing the liturgical blessing of same-sex marriages (all marriages in France are first and foremost civil marriages; there is no such thing as a church-only marriage).
A measure of the EPUdF's enduring influence is that this was the top story on the lunchtime news here yesterday.
The full text of the synod declaration (in French) can be found here.
A particularity of the text (in my experience) resides in its understanding of the term "blessing".
Thus (translation mine): quote:
Blessing involves offering a sign and a declaration expressing the love of God and his presence; it is not a magical act that somehow requires God to look on us with favour; nor does it automatically mean he approves of our undertakings... Blessing is a true source of peace and hope, opening up the future and establishing a dyanmic of renewed life... Blessing bears witness ot the presence of God with us in our successes, in our confident progress forward as well as in our wanderings. It does not grant us immunity from the uncertainties of human life, or the risks of our projects, but supports our trust in the benevolence of God.
It seems to me that the text has commanded a large majority (94-3) by presenting "blessing" in terms of inclusion and acceptance rather than in terms of endorsement of a principle.
It goes on to say quote:
We all receive the testimony of Scripture which presents the faithful love of a man and a woman as a parabole of the faithfulness of God towards his people, but we do not all draw the same conclusions: some believe only such couples may be blessed liturgically, while for others, God's blessing cannot be bound up with sexual orientation
The upshot is that local presbyteral councils will be asked to decide policy on a case-by-case basis, with an opt-out possible.
I'd be interested to hear what denizens of DH have to say about this declaration and particularly this understanding of "blessing".
(The con-evos blogosphere here, as might be expected, is vituperative).
[ 22. May 2015, 00:24: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Fine by me! This conclusion (i.e. delegating decisions on this matter locally) seems to be a generally-emerging theme in more Reformed churches.
However I'd prefer it to be on a congregation-by-congregation basis, not a presbytery-by-presbytery one - assuming that this means that every church in a presbytery must reach the same decision.
[ 18. May 2015, 09:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Maybe that was the wrong word. Each church has its own conseil presbyteral.
I'm particularly interested on this take on what "blessing" a marriage means, and how acceptable it is to various parties.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Sorry, I meant each congregation has its own "presbyteral council" who are to decide on the issue.
[ 18. May 2015, 10:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Ah, that's much clearer - thank you. In that case, I am very much in agreement with what has been agreed.
Personally I like the definition of "blessing" although it is new to me; I certainly prefer it to the idea of blessing as magically conferring some indefinable spiritual benefit on the person, object or union being "blessed".
Perhaps you should ask Jengie Jon, who seems to be our resident Shipmate with knowledge of things Reformed. (Or you could look up to see if Calvin says anything in his "Institutes").
[ 18. May 2015, 10:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
But what do you think about this take on "blessing"?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
(Cross-posted with above).
To add: if one is being cynical (which I'm not), one could suggest that the definition of blessing has been written in such a way as to please parties of varying views on this DH issue.
To add further: my view of Ordination is essentially the functionalist one of "recognising", "setting apart" or "publicly consecrating" a person for ministry, rather than "effecting an ontological change" in said person. This view of blessing seems somewhat similar in its approach.
[ 18. May 2015, 10:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To add: if one is being cynical (which I'm not), one could suggest that the definition of blessing has been written in such a way as to please parties of varying views on this DH issue.
Oh I'm sure it has. What I'm wondering is whether it will please anybody as a result.
It seems to fall quite a long way short of the ringing endorsement I think some SSM proponents would seek, but it goes a lot further than opponents would like (comments read include "so, the EPUdF has just left the church of Jesus Christ"...).
To my mind it looks like as welcoming an accommodation as they feel they can manage in good conscience and with a large consensus. Taken thus, then I personally quite like it too.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
So the EPUdF now has a very topical 'unique selling point' in its favour. That surely makes strategic sense.
I understand that French conservative Christians in other denominations have never been very keen on this organisation (perhaps the feeling has been mutual?), so their opinion is hardly a big deal.
Liberal French Protestants might be underwhelmed by the wording, but perhaps the real issue is whether 'ordinary' French gay couples will begin to approach the churches for these blessings. Otherwise it's just a theological game for the (very small number of) initiated, surely?
(BTW, the link doesn't work for me.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I understand that French conservative Christians in other denominations have never been very keen on this organisation (perhaps the feeling has been mutual?), so their opinion is hardly a big deal.
It's a big deal in France because it could, potentially, mark an unbridgeable semantic gap between 'protestant' and 'evangelical', all the more so in that the media take has basically been "French pastors allowed to bless SSM".
One neo-pentecostal denomination has already rushed out a statement to the effect that they won't be doing any such blessing thank you very much.
My position has long been that French evos ignore their protestant older brothers and their heritage at their (long-term) peril.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I understand that French conservative Christians in other denominations have never been very keen on this organisation (perhaps the feeling has been mutual?), so their opinion is hardly a big deal.
It's a big deal in France because it could, potentially, mark an unbridgeable semantic gap between 'protestant' and 'evangelical', all the more so in that the media take has basically been "French pastors allowed to bless SSM".
One neo-pentecostal denomination has already rushed out a statement to the effect that they won't be doing any such blessing thank you very much.
My position has long been that French evos ignore their protestant older brothers and their heritage at their (long-term) peril.
It must be hard for the growing evangelical churches to be expected to pay ongoing obeisance to the historical groups when these groups are, as you say, declining in numerical strength and presumably in presence.
I do realise that the French media sees Protestants in a rather single-noted way, but I'm not sure why French evangelicals should try to dance to the same tune just to avoid media confusion. The secular French media is probably always going to misunderstand the diversity within Protestantism, and it'll never be particularly friendly to evangelicalism.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
To me it's not so much about paying obeisance as recognising that the Gospel was present in France prior to 1945 and drawing some lessons from past experience. If the evos turn their backs on historic protestantism solely because of SSM, they will be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in my view.
The baby being the ability to listen to and recognise brethren with opposing views and deal with this state of affairs in a mature fashion that is more in keeping with the Gospel than knee-jerk reactions.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
That's not a problem unique to French evangelical churches. Far too many evangelical churches around the world barely recognise the presence of other protestant churches.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I suspect that many French evangelicals, like other evangelicals elsewhere, fear that the only 'lessons' to be learned from the more mainstream Christian groups is that when you start (and continue) to liberalise your teachings and practice, decline is sure to follow. SSM doesn't have to be read as liberalisation, but few theologians and public Christians figures seem willing or able to argue that point convincingly.
Regarding the evangelical arrogance you mention, maybe that's partly the outcome of youth, and also of cultural isolation; after all, French evangelicals have had to fight their corner in the shadow of both the historical Protestants churches and the RCC.
OTOH, French evangelicals are regularly faced with the the dominant RCC, which they see sticking firmly to its guns on SSM; perhaps this gives them courage to maintain their own position on this issue? By contrast, British evangelicals have the ever-shifting CofE as the dominant national religious presence, which will obviously lead to a less clear-cut flow of influences.
I don't know. In any case, you say that the historical Protestants have a higher profile than the evangelicals in France, so it's not as if evangelicals are controlling things.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
French evangelicals are regularly faced with the the dominant RCC, which they see sticking firmly to its guns on SSM; perhaps this gives them courage to maintain their own position on this issue?
Most evangelicals see the RCC as anathema, but not a few top thinkers actually feel closer to it than to liberal protestantism, largely on issues of ethics.
My take is that French conservative evangelicals are functionally more sacramentalist than protestants.
quote:
you say that the historical Protestants have a higher profile than the evangelicals in France, so it's not as if evangelicals are controlling things.
They are far more numerous and vociferous.
The CNEF (National Council of Evangelicals in France), which claims to represent 70% of French evangelicals, has rushed out a declaration which embodies everything I can't stand about it in terms of kneejerkness. Flat-out, thoughtless rejection followed by an open threat of conflict. Idiots.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My take is that French conservative evangelicals are functionally more sacramentalist than protestants.
Which may well reflect how they think about the definition of 'bleessing' that you translated for us. If you're a died in the wool memorialist then you're used to symbolic acts that don't actually have any ontological effect. So, a blessing as defined in your OP would make perfect sense. However, a blessing that effects ontological change would be a more 'sacramentalist' view.
For what it's worth I find some parts of UK evangelicalism very sacramentalist on this point, even as they deny any sacramental understanding of Communion or Baptism. They will pray for Gods blessing on something, meaning that the prayer actually results in Gods approval on it - and because God approves therefore the venture will be a success. Some would also be very concerned about curses being effective too, which is the same thinking it seems to me.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think you're on to something.
I also think I've found something that might catch out these particular con-evos. Many of them, as ardent proponents of believers' baptism, will nevertheless perform dedications of the infant children of believers.
Which one of my former colleagues described, with disarming frankness, as "infant baptism without the water"*.
I suspect most evangelicals (including me!) would be hard put to come up with a firm theological explanation of this act, but practice it fairly happily, as an accommodation to the expectations and aspirations of the parents. In some ways, what the EPUdF is proposing for blessing SSM couples amounts to scarcely more than that.
(I have now translated the full text of the EPUdF declaration, but I'm trying to get it reviewed by someone actually in the EPUdF before releasing it. I think "blessing" might make a Purg. thread).
==
*I recently turned this round to defend believers' baptism, to paedobaptists, as "confirmation with water" ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I recently turned this round to defend believers' baptism, to paedobaptists, as "confirmation with water"
Fair enough ... but we Baptists would regard confirmation as something like "The way that baptism ought to be done, but sadly lacking the water, which really shouldn't have been used all those years ago" ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
The ide of Infant Dedication is an interesting one; you are right both to say that it has grown up without too much theological basis and that it is often seen as "ensuring God's blessing" on the child in a somewhat superstitious way.
I could be unkind and suggest that it represents the echo of Infant Baptism among Christians who have rejected it, a desire for "something" to be done to the child. More theologically, parallels have, I'm sure, been drawn with Old Testament "blessings" offered to new-born children, and such stories as that of Samuel.
You do mention the fact that Dedication is (usually) offered only to children of parents within the Church community rather than to all-comers. This, I think, is crucial and it goes back not just to the question of "whether the child can make the baptismal promises themselves" but also to one's concept of the Church. If you regard the Church as part of "Christian society" and largely co-terminous with the Nation, then you can without compunction baptise children. But if you regard the Church as a group of believers who have intentionally covenanted together, then you can only Dedicated the children of its members. (FWIW there are some Evangelical Paedobaptists who would only baptise the children of professing Christians).
In our church we do - yes! - offer dedication to such parents. But we also offer the possibility of Thanksgiving and Blessing (whatever that may mean!) for any young children. See [url= http://www.rpc.ox.ac.uk/downloadlibrary/Regent's%20Reviews%204.2%20May.pdf ]p.40 of this publication[/url] for details and a review of a recent Baptist academic work on the subject.
{Note to host: can you fix the link neatly, please? I tried twice!}
[ 19. May 2015, 07:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But if you regard the Church as a group of believers who have intentionally covenanted together, then you can only Dedicated the children of its members.
You are a closet covenant theologian and I claim my £5.
As far as I know, in baptist circles this practice is covered by hand-waving about "sphere of influence of the Church", but it really doesn't have any support in (ana)baptist theology that I'm aware of (no time to read the academic paper right now I'm afraid!).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You are a closet covenant theologian and I claim my £5.
5 Euros, surely, in this context ... better make it 10, the exchange rate's not too hot these days, and that will cover the commission. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ 19. May 2015, 08:08: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Most evangelicals see the RCC as anathema, but not a few top thinkers actually feel closer to it than to liberal protestantism, largely on issues of ethics.
Ecumenicalism in practice, then! You should be pleased about that at least.
quote:
The CNEF (National Council of Evangelicals in France), which claims to represent 70% of French evangelicals, has rushed out a declaration which embodies everything I can't stand about it in terms of kneejerkness. Flat-out, thoughtless rejection followed by an open threat of conflict. Idiots.
I read French, and it didn't look all that 'threatening' to me. I think it's always for the best if conservative churches clarify their position; at least noone can then claim to have been misled. Moderate Protestant Christians will now know to avoid them, if this is an issue they judge to be of key importance.
It might also be wise for moderate French Protestants to avoid adopting the American practice of whining about the vociferousness of evangelicals. Complaining about the overbearing confidence of other churches always strikes me as a sign of weakness in those who are doing the complaining. The moderate churches need to develop their own way of making themselves heard.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
"Promoting cheap grace"... "will definitely have a negative impact on relations"... "will complicate relations with other churches"... There are more nuanced ways of expressing disagreement.
I don't think the established protestants are whining publicly, particularly. I'm ranting here, is all. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
I think this comes out of a very French understanding of marriage. And I think it’s a fudge.
In advance of our recent nuptials, various GLE friends of ours would ask who was going to marry us (i.e. which pastor was going officiate at the wedding). Just to annoy them, husband en rouge, who is Very Naughty™ would look nonplussed and reply: “the Mayor” ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) . This (a) is utterly correct and true and (b) exploded the heads of the GLEs. Apparently our church also has some sort of certificate for us to sign for our wedding – we take the view that we don’t mind signing if it makes them happy but it’s basically palpable nonsense because the religious ceremony doesn’t make you married in any meaningful sense and said “we celebrated your wedding” certificate isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. If they give us one to take home, I may have to come up with some creative use for it ‘cause I sure ain’t going to be using to prove that I’m married ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) . A minister of religion never marries anyone in France.
A religious wedding ceremony in France is only *ever* a blessing. Sensible ministers of religion know this, and can get in a lot of trouble if they don’t check that the couple are already legally married before carrying out a religious ceremony. For example, a Catholic priest who celebrated a nuptial mass without having checked the civil marriage certificate first would be in serious hot water in Rome.
On the other hand, I’m not so sure that Jean Dupont (Joe Public’s French cousin) has really understood the niceties of all this. Our GLE friends’ question comes from a view that the stop-off at the Mairie is just a bit of a perfunctory formality and the religious wedding is the real one. I know people who would probably consider themselves not really married if they had only had the civil ceremony. (I personally disagree, strongly.) The message has not filtered down to the bum in the pew that you are very much married in all respects once you leave the Mairie and all the religious ceremony does is blesses a marriage that already exists.
Which is why I think it’s a fudge. It’s all very well to say “this is a blessing” but that’s all a religious marriage ceremony ever is in France. If the conservative evangelicals are up in arms about this, I think it’s because they equate “carry out a blessing ceremony” with “marry someone before God”. And I think the Protestant Federation knows that. “We are going to bless gay couples” pretty much amounts to “we are going to celebrate gay weddings” in a lot of minds. Or so it seems to me.
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'm sure you're right. Yet the situation you describe is common in many countries - e.g. Holland or Portugal.
It can produce some strange problems though. When I lived in West Africa a young man was going to get wed in church (well, a young couple, obviously, but it's the man I'm thinking of).
On Friday they duly presented themselves at the Town Hall and did the legal deed. That evening the young man went out with his friends and got riotously drunk. News of this got back to the church Elders who immediately met together and decided to "put him under church discipline". This meant that he could not carry out any ministry in his church, could not take Communion and - crucially - could not be married in church.
So the church ceremony (which was regarded by most of the Christians as the "proper wedding") was cancelled. And the Church was left with an unintended conundrum: were they married or not? Could they move in together and enjoy conjugal bliss? Legally there was nothing to discuss - but how did they stand before God? No-one was quite sure, it was a mess.
The situation was only resolved finally when Jacinto "came out of discipline" a few months later and the church "wedding" finally took place. I'm afraid I don't know what the living arrangements were during the interim period. If nothing else, this shows the effect of a somewhat legalistic Church taking too-rapid action.
[ 19. May 2015, 17:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
And I think the Protestant Federation knows that. “We are going to bless gay couples” pretty much amounts to “we are going to celebrate gay weddings” in a lot of minds. Or so it seems to me.
I agree broadly with much of what you say, but note it's the EPUdF, not the whole French Protestant Federation, that is going to do the blessing.
According to my intel at present, it may well cause some (but not all) of the evo denominations that are members of the FPF to leave, which I think the CNEF would love.
If there's opportunism in the air, it's from the CNEF, trying to put one over the FPF using this as leverage.
(And FYI, the catholic marriage certificate is even more likely to create confusion. The similarity is the functionally sacramentalist view of marriage).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Apparently our church also has some sort of certificate for us to sign for our wedding – we take the view that we don’t mind signing if it makes them happy but it’s basically palpable nonsense because the religious ceremony doesn’t make you married in any meaningful sense and said “we celebrated your wedding” certificate isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Not 'married in any meaningful sense'? I'm sure this is not what you mean, but you make it sound as if your religious ceremony was fairly pointless, as if you could have simply thrown a party and done without the meaningless religious words. This is a strange thing for a Christian to imply.... Most people, religious or otherwise, surely see a marriage as more than simply a legal arrangement.
I've heard it said that many French Muslims don't bother with the legal ceremony at all, but just go with the religious one. They may not be legally married according to the French state but in their minds they presumably are married. I suppose the concept of Sharia law, being much stronger than any Christian equivalent, concentrates the mind far more than a mere Christian blessing would do.
quote:
A Catholic priest who celebrated a nuptial mass without having checked the civil marriage certificate first would be in serious hot water in Rome.
Apparently there was a case in the USA where a RC priest, perhaps a bishop, was given the authority to carry out a religious marriage ceremony for a disadvantaged RC cohabiting couple who discovered that they'd lose some of their benefits if they entered into a legal marriage. I don't know if such a situation would ever arise in France, or indeed anywhere else.
[ 19. May 2015, 21:53: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
I mean it more than you realise. Our religious ceremony didn’t make us married, for the simple reason that we were already married, and I don’t think we could get any “more” married. I personally don’t buy the idea that you can be “half married”. You either are or you aren’t, and for my money the civil ceremony is valid. That’s certainly the one we’ll be relying on for the purposes of filing our taxes together. Granted this is all worldly affairs, but the New Testament says that believers are supposed to submit to authorities, which is why I strongly disagree with the position that you aren’t married before God if you’ve only had a civil ceremony.
I don’t quite grok how God wouldn’t be listening to “do you, Mademoiselle Firstname Middlename la vie en rouge, take Monsieur Firstname Middlename Supplementary Catholic Middlename Camembert for husband?” “Yes” just because you weren’t in a church and it wasn’t a minister of religion asking the question.
AIUI, the Mayor’s power to marry you ultimately comes from God in any case, since it is God who sets up worldly authorities. I personally think some religious people don’t take this bit seriously enough. It’s not just a formality IMO. Admittedly I am not a sacramentalist.
This doesn’t mean that our religious ceremony had no value – far from it. I would definitely have felt I was missing something if there hadn’t been one. However, it didn’t “make us married”. It blessed the marriage that had already been performed, which is what this thread was all about. Like I said, I think talking about the meaning of blessing in ceremonies for same-sex couples is a bit of a fudge. This arises precisely from the confusion about what part of the process results in a couple being married. I say it’s the legal bit at the Mairie. Religious believers often view the question differently.
Off topic slightly (if we want to keep talking about the religious status of civil marriages, I suppose we need to go to Purgatory), but I can’t see why anyone would only have a religious ceremony. The French State still offers rather a lot of advantages to married couples in the tax and inheritance stakes, and it doesn’t make any sense to me to bypass them.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
One could take the position that your were separating yourself as far as possible from the state. Therefore, you could have the church ceremony and consider yourself married and get on with living together. Then by not having the legal civil marriage you forego some financial benefits, but do so from a principled position of separation from the state as far as possible. A principled stand that doesn't cost you anything isn't worth anything either.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Off topic slightly (if we want to keep talking about the religious status of civil marriages, I suppose we need to go to Purgatory), but I can’t see why anyone would only have a religious ceremony. The French State still offers rather a lot of advantages to married couples in the tax and inheritance stakes, and it doesn’t make any sense to me to bypass them.
Gens du voyage (historic travellers) were formerly unable to marry legally because they were not allowed to remain in a municipality long enough for the banns to go through.
Changing this was one of the many social advances Gypsy revival instigator Clément Le Cossec achieved.
These days, many still don't marry so the wives can get single-parent family allowance, it being easier in a bunch of caravans to conceal who is sharing the same bed with who
Back on topic...
quote:
Like I said, I think talking about the meaning of blessing in ceremonies for same-sex couples is a bit of a fudge.
I'm beginning to think of fudge as yummy rather than messy.
I think the EPudF declaration does have an air of fudge about it - but then again so does the declaration of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Like that declaration, the EPudF one is in response to a practical, contemporary and potentially divisive problem. As in Acts 15, it pragmatically allows for an accommodation to an overarching principle. As in Acts 15, it does so with a view to removing hindrances to access to the Gospel. With all this I can fully identify.
quote:
This arises precisely from the confusion about what part of the process results in a couple being married. I say it’s the legal bit at the Mairie. Religious believers often view the question differently.
To clarify my thinking on this point, Catholics are sacramentalists as regards marriage, and I think some Lutherans tend that way too (my local EPudF colleague is a Lutheran and was one of those who signed the petition pleading for no vote in the synod).
Thinking protestants and evos are in my experience quite clear about the fact that it's the civil wedding that counts, but some do indeed have a rather superstitious, functionally sacramental view of wedding - sometimes even of believer's baptism.
[ 20. May 2015, 12:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thus (translation mine): quote:
Blessing involves offering a sign and a declaration expressing the love of God and his presence; it is not a magical act that somehow requires God to look on us with favour; nor does it automatically mean he approves of our undertakings... Blessing is a true source of peace and hope, opening up the future and establishing a dyanmic of renewed life... Blessing bears witness ot the presence of God with us in our successes, in our confident progress forward as well as in our wanderings. It does not grant us immunity from the uncertainties of human life, or the risks of our projects, but supports our trust in the benevolence of God.
I'd be interested to hear what denizens of DH have to say about this declaration and particularly this understanding of "blessing".
What I think about the declaration: Gay marriage is something about which Christians disagree. It is a good thing that those Christians who are gay, and wish to marry, and make that decision in good faith are able to do so in churches that believe that this is right and proper, and its right that those churches should exercise that ministry with awareness that large parts of the Church disagree. So I'm fully in favour.
The idea of blessing: I'd like to see how that works out in more circumstances that same sex marriage. Suppose you (generic "you") endorse this idea of blessing: would you therefore bless:
A second marriage?
A cohabitation?
A divorce?
A decision to convert a conventional marriage into an "open" one?
A decision to have an abortion?
A person standing for election as a part of a mainstream political party?
A person standing for election as a part of an extremist political party?
An act of non-violent political protest?
An act of violent political protest?
A decision to undergo voluntary euthanasia?
A decision to undertake involuntary euthanasia?
For the avoidance of doubt, the only thing I am saying those things have in common with same-sex marriage (or each other) is that they are controversial. For any particular instance, some Christians might say the action is good, or at least, permitted, and others that it is sinful. It seems to me that they could all be "blessed" in the sense of expressing God's love and presence, if "blessing" in that sense carries absolutely no implication of approval.
And yet there are some (not all) items on my list that I'd have qualms about a church "blessing". I'd have no problem "praying for" any of those people and circumstances - including praying for God's presence, help, guidance and comfort even if I couldn't honestly pray for their success. "Blessing" suggests a slightly higher threshold than that for me. "Blessing" suggests some sort of offering of the thing to God with a request that he sanctify it and make it his. A priest (or other believer) probably ought not to bless something that she is pretty sure that God disapproves of. A public blessing therefore seems to me to carry at least some measure of endorsement. Most of us could probably think of things that we consider that it would be inappropriate for the Church to bless.
Even if they don't want to say it explicitly, I think this church is necessarily saying "We do not consider homosexuality so outrageously and obviously sinful that it is beyond the pale for formal Christian celebration". That's a rather weak endorsement, but it is at least a sort of endorsement. It moves same-sex marriage from the category of "wrong" to the category of "we can disagree about this". It is an endorsement I'm happy to see a church give, but I do not think that "blessing" would make much sense without a degree of conviction that the thing being blessed was within the reasonable scope of Christian disagreement on controversial matters (and such a declaration is, of course, itself controversial).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Great post with much food for thought. I wonder what the relationship between "blessing" "accommodation" and "endorsement" might be?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I strongly disagree with the position that you aren’t married before God if you’ve only had a civil ceremony.
So would you say that those who've only had a religious ceremony aren't really married in the sight of God? Or just not married in the sight of the almighty French state?
Lots of French couples don't bother to marry at all, I understand, so perhaps legal marriage is not all that well-regarded there in any case. I can imagine that the popular indifference to the legal state of marriage might be mirrored, paradoxically, by various religious groups - although not by supporters of SSM, of course.
As it happens, I think it's quite a good idea to separate legal marriage ceremonies and religious ceremonies. But from my point of view, that doesn't make the religious ceremonies less than marriages; it just makes them legally invalid according to a secular jurisdiction. Some countries, after all, recognise the concept of the common-law marriage, which involves no legal ceremony.
However, to get back on topic, I suppose that viewing all religious ceremonies as mere blessings makes it harder for gay couples to argue that churches are discriminating against them by not engaging in same-sex 'marriage language'. After all, who cares what kind of liturgical language churches use if these ceremonies aren't considered to be weddings in the first place?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I can imagine that the popular indifference to the legal state of marriage might be mirrored, paradoxically, by various religious groups - although not by supporters of SSM, of course.
Why 'of course'? One of the puzzles of this issue for me is that the pro-SSM camp is so keen to achieve something so many others, especially less conservative people, allegedly deem irrelevant. I can't believe that tax reasons alone are responsible for this passion, and suspect it shows legal marriage may indeed have some kind of higher, ill-defined importance in supporters' minds.
quote:
However, to get back on topic, I suppose that viewing all religious ceremonies as mere blessings makes it harder for gay couples to argue that churches are discriminating against them by not engaging in same-sex 'marriage language'. After all, who cares what kind of liturgical language churches use if these ceremonies aren't considered to be weddings in the first place?
As I understand it the States of Guernsey are or were hoping to do the opposite: remove the word "marriage" from civil unions of all kinds; those wanting "marriage" would have to find a church willing to do a religious ceremony.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
By the way, I've realised my thread title is inaccurate. The vote is in favour of blessing same-sex couples, not the marriage.
Maybe a host could edit the title accordingly?
This emerged during the more careful translation process. The translation is still being reviewed, but I hope to upload it soonish.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Blessing the couple makes it even more fudge-like. Who wouldn't be able to offer a blessing to people? Especially if you take seriously words about "blessing those who curse you", even the people with whom you have the most profound disagreements should still have a blessing, right? Even if it's "May the Lord bless you with a conviction of your sin, and the strength to repent of your wicked lifestyle"
They could have at least gone for blessing the relationship which would still allow those who wish to reserve the word "marriage" for the subset of opposite-sex formalised relationships some wriggle-room.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
As I understand it the States of Guernsey are or were hoping to do the opposite: remove the word "marriage" from civil unions of all kinds; those wanting "marriage" would have to find a church willing to do a religious ceremony.
That's interesting, as before the 2014 Parliamentary debate my local MP who is, I believe, a Catholic wrote to all religious leaders in the constituency and made the same distinction between "civil union" and "marriage". For him, it was a "no-brainer" that he should support the proposed legislation but this did not impinge on his religious beliefs.
What I think he forgot, however, is that in many churches the "legal" and the "religious" ceremonies are conflated. Clearly this will not happen in the Catholic or Anglican churches, but some other churches are working (?struggling) towards a decision on SSM and a few (the Quakers and Unitarians, I believe) have already registered buildings for it. In such circumstances the distinction between "legal" and "spiritual" is an impractical one.
[ 21. May 2015, 07:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why 'of course'? One of the puzzles of this issue for me is that the pro-SSM camp is so keen to achieve something so many others, especially less conservative people, allegedly deem irrelevant. I can't believe that tax reasons alone are responsible for this passion, and suspect it shows legal marriage may indeed have some kind of higher, ill-defined importance in supporters' minds.
It is not just taxes but probably more importantly automatic legal rights and responsibilities. There are cases of the legal next-of-kin removing the partner from the hospital or the funeral (some times not even saying where the body is buried). Note that if a person dies the body is under the control of the next-of-kin unless the courts rule otherwise; a will does not change this (though it could say that those that failed to follow the decedent's wishes don't inherit anything). Now one can make legal arrangements now to emulate most of these but that costs money and time and are easier to challenge in court. However nothing can replace marriage in a variety of laws including international law (e.g., immigration) unless each law or treaty is modified (in which case it is probably easier just to extend legal marriage).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yes, I understand all that, and I'm not trying to minimise those aspects. Indeed, things like pension reversion rights are one of the things that changed my mind on the issue of civil SSM in France.
But those issues were not portrayed as the core issue in the public debate. I found out about them by a) conducting a funeral b) cross-examining the speaker in a really boring pension insurance presentation!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In case anyone's interested, here is a fairly final unofficial translation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
"Promoting cheap grace"... "will definitely have a negative impact on relations"... "will complicate relations with other churches"... There are more nuanced ways of expressing disagreement.
One of the reasons why these admittedly negative comments don't disturb me very much is that I'm not sure what 'conflict' looks like in a French Protestant setting. Is it about not attending another church's fundraising do? Fisticuffs at the ministers' meeting? Smaller congregations at ecumenical services?
Good relations with local churches are desirable, but it's hard to imagine that a great relationship between two very different churches would completely collapse as a result of this vote. If it did, then it couldn't have been such a great relationship to start with. But perhaps the ministers might get a bit frosty with each other? I suppose that counts as 'conflict'.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I can imagine that the popular indifference to the legal state of marriage might be mirrored, paradoxically, by various religious groups - although not by supporters of SSM, of course.
Why 'of course'? One of the puzzles of this issue for me is that the pro-SSM camp is so keen to achieve something so many others, especially less conservative people, allegedly deem irrelevant. I can't believe that tax reasons alone are responsible for this passion, and suspect it shows legal marriage may indeed have some kind of higher, ill-defined importance in supporters' minds.
My sense is that supporters of SSM don't have a higher regard for marriage than anyone else; what they have is a high regard for equality. Access to marriage represents social acceptance and equality.
Moreover, some websites, both for and against, imply that marriage is just a staging post on the road towards a much more thorough and radical re-working of our attitudes towards the family. Such expectations are probably not normative, but they do exist.
[ 23. May 2015, 10:29: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
To be clear:
quote:
some websites, both for and against, imply that SSM is just a staging post ...
[ 23. May 2015, 10:32: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not sure what 'conflict' looks like in a French Protestant setting. Is it about not attending another church's fundraising do? Fisticuffs at the ministers' meeting? Smaller congregations at ecumenical services?
On Facebook, it looks like evos saying things about the EPUdF like "let them be cursed", "they are anathema".
It means people writing off others who declare Jesus is Lord as thoroughly evil.
And it means up-and-coming evo middle managers making a grab for power and influence on the back of what is, for most people, a marginal issue, but in a way that's terribly exploitative of genuine human anguish and emotional suffering.
French protestantism is fragmented enough as it is without adding grist to the mill. And as I said earlier, wilful ignorance of the protestant heritage runs the risk of undoing the evos. There is no C of E where the twain meet.
CNEF evangelicalism defines itself in terms of exclusion; FPF protestantism (including some evangelicals) defines itself in terms of inclusion, and I'm much more at home in that environment.
quote:
My sense is that supporters of SSM don't have a higher regard for marriage than anyone else; what they have is a high regard for equality. Access to marriage represents social acceptance and equality.
Moreover, some websites, both for and against, imply that marriage is just a staging post on the road towards a much more thorough and radical re-working of our attitudes towards the family. Such expectations are probably not normative, but they do exist.
So I think there are at least two opposite strands at work in the issue of SSM. There is a strand, in which there are probably more believers, that seeks acceptance within the context of the institution of marriage; there is another which is promoting a far more radical remodelling of social relations.
While SSM may have been an aim for both strands, I'm not sure it's going to satisfy either in the long term - which is one of the reservations I have about it. I'm broadly in favour of SSM as an accommodation, but much less so as part of an ideological agenda.
[ 23. May 2015, 11:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm broadly in favour of SSM as an accommodation, but much less so as part of an ideological agenda.
The thought of Marriage Equality as an ideological agenda makes me shudder. Ideological agendas and the personal life of individuals make extremely poor bedfellows.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And as I said earlier, wilful ignorance of the protestant heritage runs the risk of undoing the evos.
You did say this earlier, but I'm not sure what you mean. In what sense will they be undone? And if they're such an unpleasant bunch, wouldn't that outcome be for the best?
What you said about the CofE is interesting. Some sociologists might say that the very lack of a culturally dominant moderate Protestant group in France is exactly what has allowed some of the independent conservative elements to become so noisy and noncompliant.
Judging from other denominations elsewhere, these groups may eventually begin to feel less confident about their growth in France and their doctrinal identity. At that point they'll become more temperate and ecumenical. Until that happens you'll just have to build up strong relations with the most congenial groups, and leave the rest to follow their own destiny, whatever it is.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In what sense will they be undone? And if they're such an unpleasant bunch, wouldn't that outcome be for the best?
By disconnecting themselves from the heritage that preserved the Scriptures and got them into the vernacular, they run the risk of shallow theological thinking, isolationism, sectarianism and millenialism; organisationally, they are likely to waste a generation or three reinventing the wheel; the heritage of the declining EPUdF runs the risk of being lost altogether.
There are some fine evangelical minds out there, but in my experience people in historic protestant denominations actually take engaging with Scripture more seriously than many self-professing evos.
But all this is a tangent...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In its synod this weekend it voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing the liturgical blessing of same-sex marriages (all marriages in France are first and foremost civil marriages; there is no such thing as a church-only marriage).
Presumably there is nothing in the law to stop a couple from getting a church marriage and not a civil marriage, though, is there?
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In its synod this weekend it voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing the liturgical blessing of same-sex marriages (all marriages in France are first and foremost civil marriages; there is no such thing as a church-only marriage).
Presumably there is nothing in the law to stop a couple from getting a church marriage and not a civil marriage, though, is there?
No. But has been pointed out above, they would not be married in the eyes of the law, and would be regarded as two single people living together, not as a couple with the rights of those who are married.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
Presumably there is nothing in the law to stop a couple from getting a church marriage and not a civil marriage, though, is there?
In the Church I served in West Africa, you could only get a "church" marriage (= blessing) if you had first had a civil (= legal) ceremony. That didn't seem at all strange, but logical.
However, no-one put forward the idea that "civil marriage was meaningless" or anything similar. In fact, the Church was very keen on it as women's rights in the country had a tradition of being poor, and being civilly married considerably strengthen them.
Also, at an earlier stage, the Church had perforce recognised the validity of "traditional marriage" (the African equivalent of "jumping the broomstick"), as only people with certain educational qualifications could get legally married in the colonial period up to 1974. It therefore supported the new Government's position that "civil marriage" should be available to all.
[ 24. May 2015, 07:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[Conservative evangelicals] run the risk of shallow theological thinking, isolationism, sectarianism and millenialism; organisationally, they are likely to waste a generation or three reinventing the wheel; the heritage of the declining EPUdF runs the risk of being lost altogether.
There are some fine evangelical minds out there, but in my experience people in historic protestant denominations actually take engaging with Scripture more seriously than many self-professing evos.
But all this is a tangent...
It's relevant in the sense that the issue of SSM and/or blessings highlights the general pattern of things quite well.
'Reinventing the wheel' is what almost all young Christian movements do. They begin in a flurry of world-denying unintellectual (self-)righteousness, but after a century or four they're more accommodating to the world and are ready to debate, for example, how blessings and/or marriage can biblically be extended to SS couples. It all fits in with church-sect theory, as far as I understand it.
IOW, it's always the job of historical churches to engage in high-minded, serious critique of the Scriptures, because that's where social progress naturally leads them. But conservative evangelicals, by definition, haven't reached that stage. The French ones, living as they do in the modern interconnected world and not in some cultural backwater, are well aware of the trajectory that probably awaits them, I'm sure. And SSM represents the most topical and visible staging post on the route away from their current identity. It's hardly surprising that as a young movement they want to fight against it.
Social success in the French context will encourage some of them to take on the cerebral and tolerant Protestant mantle. Other groups, though, will always have more urgent priorities than deciding to conduct SS blessings.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Eutychus asked my thoughts on this, so here are my thoughts...
I'm pretty much in agreement with La vie en rouge about the whole thing.
As far as French law is concerned, being blessed by your church has exactly the same amount of significance as being blessed by your tennis club.
One can make some conclusions fairly readily as to why there is so much interest in the former and not the latter, but it's a point worth making because it draws attention to the central question: what is a blessing actually for?
And I think it draws attention to the fudge. Again, I agree with La vie en rouge, and I also agree with Alan that describing it as a blessing of the couple rather that a blessing of the marriage only makes it more fudgy. Despite the attempts to say that blessing is not 'approval', it's rather hard to avoid noticing that this is based on (1) blessing 2 people as a couple, not as 2 separate members of the church, and (2) blessing them when they are getting married.
Surely, the definition of 'blessing' they're putting forward is something that is equally applicable to all individual members of the church, at any time? I thought God's presence was supposed to be promised to us all the time. Linking that kind of blessing to a wedding makes it sound like God is a friend who turns up at our parties.
The reality is that same sex couples ARE seeking blessings as a sign of approval and welcome - in pretty much the same way that they would hope for signs of approval and welcome from their tennis club. It's just that churches achieve this by talking about God and laying hands on people, whereas tennis clubs achieve it by including people in social events and smiling.
[ 26. May 2015, 03:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
