|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Second to the Quakers
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I expect that shipmates will want to debate this news item here.
It is, in my opinion, a triumph of Congregational Polity. The decision is, really, that those churches, where both the congregation and the minister agree, may conduct same-sex marriages within their premises. This is permission to have different practices at a local level. It does not mean that your local URC will allow same-sex marriages tomorrow. The fact was that many who were theologically against same-sex marriages, were even more strongly against telling congregations from the centre how they should behave on this topic.
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I thought the voting numbers looked remarkably decisive, but that does explain things.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I wonder how this will work in Local Ecumenical Partnerships.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
It could be a triumph of kicking the decision into the long grass, where local refusals to accommodate same-sex weddings won't be seen beyond their immediate local context.
Of course, it remains perfectly possible that I will be completely wrong, but this strikes me as the inherent danger in this particular decision. The only point on which we know that those who voted "yes" agreed is that they didn't want a national ban to remain in place. This could simply be because they didn't want the flack that goes with that level of visibility, rather than anything more progressive.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Thunderbunk
Actually, if it was up to us we would not be debating this at all. There was not a ban in place until another denomination requested one for their convenience and got it through the legislation. So we have only sought to re-state the status-quo. There are a number of URC congregations who if there had been no ban would already have held same-sex marriages. They no doubt will do. There are others where I would be very surprised if they hold one inside ten years. Look at the Baptists and Women's ministry if you want to see something similar.
SvitlanaV2
If I recall correctly, the decision to allow Same-sex marriages to take place has to be with the agreement of all congregations worshipping in the building. The way it looks it is even if they are just renting the hall for two hours on a Sunday for worship. So most Ecumenical Partnerships will have to wait for other denominations.
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It could be a triumph of kicking the decision into the long grass, where local refusals to accommodate same-sex weddings won't be seen beyond their immediate local context.
There will be three groups of churches:
- There are churches which have a large majority objecting to same-sex marriage, and will rapidly have a Church Meeting to confirm that
- There are churches which have a large majority in favour of same sex-marriage, and will rapidly have a Church Meeting to confirm that
- The majority will probably think about it, note that the GA has passed this motion and therefore they should make a decision ... but won't actually do so until someone approaches them with a request to hold their wedding in their church.
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
How many people attend Church Meetings within the URC? I very much hope that they are better attended and more effective than their C of E equivalent? I can see why it could be the case, but of course, principle and reality can be very different.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
If I recall correctly, the decision to allow Same-sex marriages to take place has to be with the agreement of all congregations worshipping in the building. The way it looks it is even if they are just renting the hall for two hours on a Sunday for worship. So most Ecumenical Partnerships will have to wait for other denominations.
Jengie
Would URC ministers in such situations be able to conduct SSMs in other licensed premises?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
A few things.
1. Reflecting its history, the URC is governed both by local congregations and by its Church Councils. Hence local churches could not legally register for SSM until this was agreed by General Assembly. It wasn't a question of a "ban" but of legal process having to be completed. In fact there has been considerable discussion at both local Church and Synod level, with a national decision taken at an Extraordinary Assembly last year and then referred back to Synods for ratification. This year's decision was the final step in a long process - some wished that it could have been faster.
2. Baptists organise things congregationally, therefore no Assembly permission was required for churches to register for Same-sex marriages. However, until recently, Accredited Ministers were forbidden to perform them! That has now changed although the BU Council affirmed its support for "traditional" marriage and urged churches not to register for SSM - this caused a rumpus and further debate is promised!
3. All this means that a URC/Baptist church like ours is now free to discuss registering for SSM. However my understanding is that this option would not be open to a URC/Methodist or URC/Anglican church, as the Methodists and Anglicans have not passed resolutions at a national level. I think this is true even if the building itself is (like ours) held entirely on a URC trust deed.
4. It is now up to local congregations to decide if they wish to register for SSM. Some have been waiting to do so and will jump at the opportunity, others may decide not even to discuss it! So there are definite grounds for debate and contention within local congregations; any decision (either way) will require much careful prayer and guidance.
5. As hinted above, attendance at Church Meetings is often low - less than 50% of membership. And, sadly, people often come to Meetings wanting to "push their opinion" rather than to openly "seek the mind of Christ". Hopefully folk will be able to live with difference, but some people may leave churches after a decision (for or against registering) is reached.
We could be in for a bumpy ride ...!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
If I recall correctly, the decision to allow Same-sex marriages to take place has to be with the agreement of all congregations worshipping in the building. The way it looks it is even if they are just renting the hall for two hours on a Sunday for worship. So most Ecumenical Partnerships will have to wait for other denominations.
Jengie
Would URC ministers in such situations be able to conduct SSMs in other licensed premises?
I think so. Of course there are two parts to this. One is church polity. The other is whether the Ministers are "authorised persons" in legal terms - for instance, I am not although I was in my last church. I think, too, that being an AP for "traditional" marriage does not automatically carry over to SSM.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Probably, provided the premises have permission for same-sex weddings. However and why I am cautious, I do not know what rights a minister in the URC has to officiate at weddings not taking place within a building owned by the congregations who have sought him to be licensed.
IIRC ministers actually are registered for conducting marriage ceremonies in the congregation that they are pastors of. This has to be renewed if they change pastorates.
This is doing the legal part. Taking part in the ceremony while not doing the legal part is entirely within the rights of individual ministers as it is any member of the public who is asked to.
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
A further thought re. the URC decision, which is that a church could decide to register for SSM against the wishes of its Minister; or a Minister could be in favour of SSM but the church decide to not proceed.
In the first case there could, I think, be a bit of a personal/pastoral problem, especially if the church decided to bring in Rev. X from the church down the road to conduct an SSM in the building. They'd have to sort that out amongst themselves.
In the second case the situation is clear: the decision of Church Meeting would have to prevail and the Minister could not override it.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I suspect they would get around the first as they do infant baptism. That is alternative pastoral provision would be made.
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
For these technical questions can I remind people this is the URC. Sometimes I think we are God's civil servants in the UK, the detail is the sort of thing people feel happy working at. Therefore, there will have been committees to sort out all these sorts of issues.
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
For these technical questions can I remind people this is the URC. Sometimes I think we are God's civil servants in the UK, the detail is the sort of thing people feel happy working at. Therefore, there will have been committees to sort out all these sorts of issues.
Jengie
God's civil servants? There speaks someone who has never had the joy of examining the faculty process.
However, notwithstanding that bureaucratic horror, I hope the URC has sorted it all in advance, rather than making it up as you go along - or indeed shortly afterwards. Not that the C of E would do anything as hopelessly backwards and aimless. Oh no, my dear me no.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
IIRC ministers actually are registered for conducting marriage ceremonies in the congregation that they are pastors of. This has to be renewed if they change pastorates.
This is doing the legal part.
In our particular church the tradition has been that one or two lay people are Authorised by the local authority, hence it is their presence that validates the wedding rather than the Minister's. This leaves the Minister free to get on with actually leading the service without having to bother about form-filling. I much prefer it this way (I do countersign the forms afterwards)!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I suspect they would get around the first as they do infant baptism. That is alternative pastoral provision would be made.
Jengie
Yes - that's we do in my congregation (as I am a Baptist).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
This may be a tangent, but am I understanding from this thread that even if a location is registered (is that the right word?) for permission to host "traditional" weddings, an additional registration is required for permission to host same-sex weddings, rather than one registration covering all weddings?
I apologize for my ignorance, but here there is no legal requirement of any kind concerning where weddings may occur. Congregations, consistent with their denominational policy, may decide to allow or not allow same-sex weddings in their churches, but that's purely a church decision, with no legal implications.
--------------------
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Nick - your understanding is correct, in respect of non-conformist (i.e. non-Anglican) churches in England and Wales. Things are different in Scotland and I'm not sure about Northern Ireland.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
IIRC ministers actually are registered for conducting marriage ceremonies in the congregation that they are pastors of. This has to be renewed if they change pastorates.
This is doing the legal part.
In our particular church the tradition has been that one or two lay people are Authorised by the local authority, hence it is their presence that validates the wedding rather than the Minister's. This leaves the Minister free to get on with actually leading the service without having to bother about form-filling. I much prefer it this way (I do countersign the forms afterwards)!
Actually, that is quite common amongst former Presbyterians in the URC. Never seen it in a former Cong.
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
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Thanks, Baptist Trainfan. If I can ask one more (almost surely tangential, but short) question, what is the purpose of regulating where weddings can occur?
--------------------
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
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
It makes money for the local authority?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I don't know the answer, I'm afraid - probably shrouded in the mists of historical marriage legislation! FWIW, registered places have to fulfil certain criteria (although these have recently been relaxed somewhat), so you can't get married on a canal boat or on a balloon, for example - the legal ceremony would have to be carried out at a "proper" place such as the Town Hall. Until very recently the marriage vows also had to be uttered between 8am and 6pm to be valid.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
Interesting. Thanks. (Both of you. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
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
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
I think the original reason for registered places was to ensure no surreptitious and possibly forced weddings (weddings could only take place in certain places at certain times [unless both members of the couple were Jewish or Quaker]).
BTW I think the British Unitarians also allow ssm.
https://www.unitarian.org.uk/news/marriage-same-sex-couples-all-welcome
And I suspect certain varieties of Judaism also do so not second but more like third or fourth.... (btw they would be behind Humanists also except for some pesky matters about recognition of Humanist registrars and registered places).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yes but the Unitarians are not members of CTBI and the Quakers are.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
5. As hinted above, attendance at Church Meetings is often low - less than 50% of membership.
IME, of two URC churches, attendence at the Church Meeting is variable. One church used to hold Meetings on a midweek evening and got maybe 30-40% of the regular Sunday attendence, but switching to a meeting after the service on Sunday boosted that to around 80% of the Sunday attendence. Another with after-service Meetings also gets more than 80% of people at the service staying on. Of course, both churches have an elderly congregation with several members house-bound and unlikely to regularly make either the service or Meeting, so for most Church Meetings 50% of membership would be about right - once people didn't have to come out specially which was then more like 25% of membership at that church.
In both churches, attendence at special Meetings, with one particularly important item of business, was always much higher. Partly because these invariably get scheduled immediately after Sunday morning worship, often with a slightly shorter service to accomodate it, and with a single agenda item don't seem as long as Meetings where the agenda goes through the question of whether or not to get quotes to fix the leaking pipe in the gents toilet. These would include voting on whether to call a particular minister to serve the congregation. Recently attendence at Meetings to discuss whether to formally enter a cluster between four local URC churches have been well attended. As was the Meeting last year to discuss our input into Synod, fed up to General Assembly, on whether the decision about conducting marriages should be left to individual congregations.
quote:
And, sadly, people often come to Meetings wanting to "push their opinion" rather than to openly "seek the mind of Christ". Hopefully folk will be able to live with difference, but some people may leave churches after a decision (for or against registering) is reached.
Sadly, the pushing of an agenda happens too often. And, such decisions can result in people leaving a church (he says having left one church over a decision I particularly disagreed with - and, even more so, by the arguments put forward by some on the other side of the argument and the appearance at the Meeting of people who hadn't darkened the church doors for years, but still members, just to vote against the proposition). Unfortunately, those churches where feelings run high among a sizable minority the issue will probably simply not be discussed to avoid the divisions ... until it's forced on them by circumstances (eg: a couple approaching the minister to ask to get married), when the discussion will happen too quickly and the fall-out will be even worse.
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In both churches, attendence at special Meetings ... with a single agenda item don't seem as long as Meetings where the agenda goes through the question of whether or not to get quotes to fix the leaking pipe in the gents toilet.
Is that really a matter on which Church Meeting needs to "seek the mind of Christ"???!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Most Church Meetings IME would have an item on the agenda to cover the fabric of the building. If only for the congregation to give the nod of approval for the relevant person/group to just get on with it. But, as it always involves money someone will invariably question whether or not a cheaper plumber is available.
My current church tends to just leave that upto the Elders meeting. Although the last Church Meeting did have a discussion about the plaster board in the main hall (multi-function, therefore also the sanctuary on Sunday) after one of the kids at a karate class put a hole in it.
[my spelling was even more broken than the plaster board...]
[ 11. July 2016, 12:04: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
My granny paid for that pipe.
So you should pay for the repair ...
We have a rule that minor repairs and property expenditure below £2k doesn't need Church Meeting approval, Property/Finance Committees can deal with it. (Of course it may go to the CM for information purposes).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
If this topic is known about in advance I predict if it is at all controversial within the congregation a Church meeting of at least 80% regardless of weekday or Sunday.
To get 90% you need to want to change the heating system as well and have a major fundraiser to do that.
That is there are normal church meetings with low attendance and then there are issues that the congregation cares about when the attendance rockets.
Oh, and if you are discussing Christian Education or Evangelism please expect an attendance of 20%.
Oddly I have heard that when church meetings were monthly the attendance rate was better.
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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Oddly I have heard that when church meetings were monthly the attendance rate was better.
Jengie
Don't you believe it! Our meetings are nearly monthly but attendance often isn't too good. Recently we have held some "single issue" meetings and these have worked quite well.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
To get 90% you need to want to change the heating system as well and have a major fundraiser to do that.
Jengie
To get 100%, announce that you will discuss whether to take out the organ.
Or talk about painting the church in any colour apart from dark blue.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
If this topic is known about in advance
Which it will be, as the Church Meeting needs to be announced several weeks in advance (the church constitution would specify how far in advance*). Announcing a special meeting without indicating the topic would be very strange.
* I wouldn't put it past some churches to arrange a meeting inorder to arrange the date of the meeting.
--------------------
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
Of course, one must distinguish between "special meetings" which are really ordinary meetings held to discuss specific and important topics; and properly-constituted "Special Meetings" which are legally required to make major building decisions, call (or fire!) a Minister, change the Church Rules etc.
IME the latter require greater forward notice and different voting percentages to carry through decisions - although I would always aim for consensus if possible.
But we're getting off the main topic ...
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
* I wouldn't put it past some churches to arrange a meeting inorder to arrange the date of the meeting.
Certainly I have today sent a message to my Church Secretary asking her if she thinks that the Deacons, at their next meeting, should discuss whether the topic of registering SSM should be brought to Church Meeting for discussion. It strikes me that we are on a bit of a “hiding to nothing” as having the discussion will be contentious while not having it could rightly provoke criticism!
[ 11. July 2016, 15:31: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I was preaching yesterday, and in my address to the children (both of them) I produced some tools for judging how well something is built (tape measure, square, spirit level and off course a plumb line) and talked about how we use them to make sure a building doesn't fall down, or objects roll off a shelf. From there to how we have rules which are tools for making other decisions in life that are also "sound" (a word from my evangelical background, though I didn't actually use it). My original intention had been to introduce the commandments in the Gospel reading - love God and neighbour. But, on hearing the news of the GA decision I added in a short extra to say that the GA had made a decision and that we, as a church, would soon need to make our own decision on whether or not to accept SSMs in our building. It seemed appropriate.
Fortunately I wasn't mobbed by the rest of the Elders present to tell me I overstepped the mark and there was no way we wouldn't be having that discussion soon ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
If this topic is known about in advance
Which it will be, as the Church Meeting needs to be announced several weeks in advance (the church constitution would specify how far in advance*). Announcing a special meeting without indicating the topic would be very strange.
* I wouldn't put it past some churches to arrange a meeting inorder to arrange the date of the meeting.
I know it's a tangent, but that addendum reminded me of a TV programme only seen once, with Max Boyce playing an American visiting the land of his fathers, but also a comedian, sadly dead, Ryan Davies. And there was a scene in a chapel meeting. His speech went something like...
"This meeting has been called as the result of a resolution passed at the last meeting which was held to decide whether to hold this meeting. Firstly, the minutes of the last meeting: It was resolved to hold a future meeting to discuss holding a further meeting. Matters arising: We are now having the meeting which was decided to be held at the last meeting..."
And it went on, and on, and on. And every part of it made sense.
[ 11. July 2016, 18:22: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
So what are gay folks to do if they want to be married in a URC parish
(assuming there actually are any and the churches have not alienated them for generations to come)? Knock on the pastor's door and find out if they're going to be welcomed or shunned? Not much of an improvement, I fear. If I'm not sure my gay a**e is going to be welcome in a shop or anything that requires membership, I tend to give it a very wide berth.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
That's a good question. At the moment the ruling still has to be "you can't", as the churches won't have had time to discuss the matter and register with the local authorities if they so wish.
But, once this initial phase has passed, I think it will indeed be a matter of asking the Minister "Can you do this for us?", probably prefaced by a look at the church's website to see what clues it offers. (For instance, Union Chapel in London - which is Congregationalist rather than URC - makes its position very clear). There may also - as with any wedding - be questions about where you live, if you are not regular worshippers in the church; this isn't the church being awkward but a legal necessity.
I can see though that a potential minefield could be opening up for folk such as yourself, and I can't see a very clear path through it, I'm afraid.
[ 12. July 2016, 09:22: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
That will be the logical second part of the discussion congregations will have.
One, will this church accept marriage equality and offer same sex marriage?
If yes, who will we offer that service to? URC churches are not in the position of established churches of having any form of requirement to allow people living in the area to be married there. But, would probably have reservations about providing facilities for a Christian marriage (regardless of whether that's same-sex or not) to people without a decent connection to the church - and, that particular congregation.
Most URC churches aren't architectural gems that people would drive past and think "that's where I want to be married", so probably only ever get asked to conduct a marriage by people for whom that is a place of particular personal importance - the church they went to as children, the church where parents or grandparents attend, etc. So, it's likely there may already be personal relationships with people in the church who could be asked.
The potential difficulty comes if a URC church accepts same-sex marriage, but is the only church in the area to do so. They are likely to be asked by people without a connection to that congregation by anyone who wants a church wedding in that town. Do we allow that when we probably wouldn't accept a man and a woman in similar circumstances coming to us? Do we have different policies for same-sex couples because we want to give them a chance for a church wedding and we're the only option in town? Whereas, a man and a woman have much greater choice. Do we change our policy to include all-comers regardless of whether they have any connection to us?
--------------------
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
A good point again. Our church is in the position of being a "traditional" building in a prominent position, hence we do get people with whom we have no connection asking to be married.
My personal view is that I believe in the institution of marriage and want to support it, therefore my default position is to be prepared to conduct the ceremony unless there is good reason not to do so. Fortunately the church agrees!
The problem over the years has not been with weddings but with parents wanting baptism for their child ... were I a paedobaptist, this is the situation where I definitely would expect some evidence of Christian faith.
Having said that, I have quite often done services of blessing and thanksgiving which involve no promises beyond expressing the desire to be good parents, and (crucially) no water! This is a compromise between asking the parents to make promises they really don't understand or expect to keep, and driving them away from the church, perhaps for ever.
(Am I in danger of derailing the thread?)
[ 12. July 2016, 12:12: 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 Alan Cresswell:
Most URC churches aren't architectural gems that people would drive past and think "that's where I want to be married", so probably only ever get asked to conduct a marriage by people for whom that is a place of particular personal importance - the church they went to as children, the church where parents or grandparents attend, etc. So, it's likely there may already be personal relationships with people in the church who could be asked.
I wonder if this is true for the Methodists. A large proportion of marriages in Methodist churches used to be (and may still be) marriages involving of divorcees. They turned to the Methodist Church because the CofE wouldn't marry them. Having a connection with a particular Methodist church presumably wasn't all that important in such cases. ISTM, then, that SSMs could occur in a similar kind of context; couples would simply go to the church that was willing to perform the ceremony for them.
The difference is that no mainstream denomination can currently guarantee that most of its churches will allow SSMs to be performed, but even so, it's always been the case that (depending on doctrinal and/or legal rulings) churches reserve the right not to perform marriages or baptisms for every individual or couple that makes a request, despite the fact that 'refusal often offends'.
This new ruling in the URC does give the denomination the possibility of carving out a very distinctive public image. Congregations that are willing and able to host SSMs should be sure to promote this so that those who might benefit from the information don't have to dig too hard to find it.
(Perhaps some congregations would prefer to conduct SSMs on the quiet so as not to complicate their ecumenical relationships with more traditional congregations or denominations. I don't think this sort of reticence would be successful.)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps some congregations would prefer to conduct SSMs on the quiet so as not to complicate their ecumenical relationships with more traditional congregations or denominations. I don't think this sort of reticence would be successful.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Perhaps some congregations would prefer to conduct SSMs on the quiet so as not to complicate their ecumenical relationships with more traditional congregations or denominations. I don't think this sort of reticence would be successful.
Some churches have been offering services - albeit blessings not marriage - to same sex couples for some years. They tend to be in some out of the way places although perhaps the most well known was Peter Elers at Thaxted in Essex in the 1970's. http://blog.oup.com/2012/09/church-lives-oxford-dictionary-national-biography/ (scroll down)
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'd never heard of him, so that's interesting.
Anecdotally, I think that quite a number of URC, Methodist and even Anglican clergy may have been performing such blessings for quite some time. But, as you rightly say, they are not legal marriages.
I think Svitlana's question was more to do with formal ecumenical relationships (we already know that "the gay issue" can be used to define fellowship boundaries between churches in more informal and local relationships). For instance, would an RC parish (or even diocese) formally dissociate itself from a URC congregation (or synod) over their position on this matter? I don't know the answer; but I do know that the question was raised in the URC's discussions.
[ 12. July 2016, 15:43: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I think Svitlana's question was more to do with formal ecumenical relationships (we already know that "the gay issue" can be used to define fellowship boundaries between churches in more informal and local relationships). For instance, would an RC parish (or even diocese) formally dissociate itself from a URC congregation (or synod) over their position on this matter? I don't know the answer; but I do know that the question was raised in the URC's discussions.
It's happened locally already. The ecumenical group is run by a "liberal" group of churches (interestingly RC's remain) with the evangelicals gathering in other contexts.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
