• Benediction

    A couple of people have asked me to give details of the service of Benediction which can be used in the Scottish Episcopal Church where a couple conduct a marriage which is a legal marriage but one which is irregular under canon law.

    The form of service that we are talking about is this one:

    A FORM OF BENEDICTION OF MARRIED PERSONS

    The canon that governs marriage in the Scottish Episcopal Church includes this clause:

    5. A cleric may use the form of Benediction provided in the Scottish Book of Common Prayer (1929) to meet the case of those who ask for the benediction of the Church after an irregular marriage has been contracted or after a civil marriage has been legally entered into, provided only that the cleric be satisfied that the marriage is not contrary to Sections 3 and 4 of this Canon.

    Here’s the whole thing if you want chapter and verse.

    Now, the reason this is interesting at the moment is that the Scottish Government is keen to introduce the possibility of marriage for same-sex couples. I’m very much in favour and hope that the Scottish Episcopal Church enjoys a fruitful discussion about these matters over the next months and hope that the result of those discussions is that we can opt into whatever means the government chooses in order the enable those marriages to happen.  Now, obviously, one matter that will need some attention is the marriage liturgy. There will need to be some work put in to ensure that it can be used for all marriages. This won’t be too much trouble though as we’ve plenty of experience of rewriting liturgies in inclusive language. (Not least the fairly recent rewrite of the ordinal to ensure that it did not use male pronouns all the way through the liturgy for making someone a bishop).

    One little detail which seems to have passed most people by is that the Canon which governs marriage in the Scottish Episcopal Church explicitly authorises an old form of words, the Service of Benediction from the Scottish Prayer Book for use for a couple whose marriage is legal but cannot for some reason be regarded as having been regularly conducted according to the canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church. For a long time, this was the mechanism by which divorced people could have a blessed (ie a benediction) in church after a civil marriage.

    Nowadays, most couples where one person or other has been divorced can have a marriage in church anyway, by going through a pastoral procedure involving the bishop.

    However, the clause permitting Benediction still exists. Its only stipulation (and it uses the word “only” quite explicitly) is that the marriage is a legitimate one and that the couple have not been refused a marriage by a bishop if they have gone through the pastoral process pertaining to divorce.

    The consequence of all this is that once the Scottish Government legalises marriage for same-sex couples, the Scottish Episcopal Church has on its hands a piece of Canon Law which permits those couples to be blessed in church using an authorised liturgy.

    The liturgy itself would need some very minor modifications to be modified for inclusive language of course, but clergy do that all the time.

    Here are two versions of the text to show how easily that can be done:

    A FORM OF BENEDICTION OF MARRIED PERSONS for gay men

    A FORM OF BENEDICTION OF MARRIED PERSONS for lesbians

    Now, someone might want to argue that section 1 of Canon 31 (which is a doctrinal statement) prohibits this. But the point it, Canon 31 has a number of clauses which all have the same validity. Section 5 was explicitly put into the canon to deal with situations where a couple’s marriage did not fit within the boundaries of Section 1.

    Anyone attempting to argue that Section 5 does not apply if a couple’s marriage falls outwith the doctrinal boundary of Section 1 risks casting a slur upon those divorced persons blessed in church under the canon thus far. Such an argument would undermine the position of the Faith and Order Board’s recent first submission to the Scottish Government. It would also undermine the Grosvenor Essay produced last year by the Doctrine Committee. (You can’t argue that Section 1 of the canon means what it literally says amidst fast changing circumstances without also applying the same standards to Section 5).

    Without taking any actions, the Scottish Episcopal Church is going to find itself in the interesting position of having a service, albeit an archaic one, of blessing for gay couples authorised because of the actions of the Scottish Parliament.

    Now, wouldn’t it be much more sensible for us to have some discussions about this in the synod instead to ensure that there are appropriate resources for everyone who is engaged in ministry with engaged couples in our church?

11 responses to “We drink from our own wells”

  1. fr dougal Avatar
    fr dougal

    Excellent! 1st class – wanna be Bishop of Edinburgh?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      So far as I can ascertain, almost everyone wants to be Bishop of Edinburgh.

  2. Kimberly Avatar

    except you, I should think.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      I love what I do. The job of being bishop of anywhere seems to me to be far more grim than most people realise.

  3. fr dougal Avatar
    fr dougal

    Yes, I always think the Bishop’s theme song ought to be “naebuddy loves, awbuddy hates me, think Ah’m gauuny eat worms!”

  4. Joe Avatar

    You took a chance that day Kelvin and it paid off for the good. As a gay man brought up in the RC Church, when I was 17 and very confused I thought that my church and God hated me because of my sexuality (obviously not my choice). I was actually told at that age by a priest in Glasgow that I would go to hell if I had sex with my then lover. I’ve seen many suicides over the years because of the fact that some people I knew could not reconcile their religion with their sexuality. Note I said religion not faith. The God I have a relationship with loves me as I am, whether human beings who claim to know better than me what he thinks of me condemn me does’nt bother me. I’ll let God judge not them.

  5. Stew Avatar
    Stew

    Fine line between drawing from one’s own well and ignoring all the other wells. Quite often I get the feeling that some people believe everything they need, all of the raw materials, are within and I can imagine that too much faith in one’s own well is the cause of much wayward preaching also. I hope that this lesson, which I am sure worked well in your case, would not become a maxim for general teaching and preaching,
    without some safety clauses…. Have I misunderstood?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Well, Stew, perhaps you have misunderstood, I’m not sure.

      I wasn’t talking about what is necessary and sufficient for salvation, if that’s what you are worried about.

  6. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Great post!
    Stew: Is the very existence of legitimate ” other wells” not, in and of itself, an argument against the dichotomies and simplistic certainties of the One True Well good old bad old days? I read much of the post as tracing the realisation that “neutral” readings are no such thing, and that the wells of teachers and human authorities are no more (or, of course, less) intrinsically real than our wells. The passage beginning ” I had drunk from” suggests someone adding to their knowledge of wells – not exchanging one set of wells for a single well, and therefore choosing a literally less well-informed world view ;-). Although even that would be a significant experience as other people’s experiences with their own wells might not be things they could usefully communicate to others. The blog post IMHO traces an expansion of (not just) knowledge, the opposite of diminuition from a wider to a smaller view. Although maintaining safety around wells is of course important 😉

  7. Ruth Avatar
    Ruth

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/mabroccoli/5578370888/in/stream

    When the sermon was over, he dived round the back, hoping to catch you as you left the laptop. I’m delighted that I’m still reaching a feline audience.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Thanks Ruth – very good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • BirthdayFest #2 – The Rivals

    To Glasgow on Saturday for a performance at the Theatre Royal of the Rivals by Sheridan. Oh dear, not even Stephanie Coles as Mrs Malaprop could save this production. She tried though bless her. What a lot of shouting from some of her fellow actors. How long too. Longer than many members of the audience…

  • Sermon – 23 October 2005

    I have become accustomed to seeing in the bookshops great quantities of what have become called “Self-Help Books”. I may even have one or two on my bookshelves – many people do. You know the kind of thing – The Road Less Travelled, Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway, Women who Run with the…

  • BirthdayFest #1 – You Never Can Tell

    Just back from seeing Mr Shaw’s, You Never Can Tell at the King’s Theatre in Edinburgh. A comedy of manners intertwined with a gentle battle of the sexes never does anyone any harm. Ms Diana Quick presented a most elegantly emancipated dragon; Mr Edward Fox an all-seeing Butler. If anything about the play surprises is…

  • BirthdayFest

    Having missed going to see anything at all during the Edinburgh Festival and not having been to the theatre for months, I have decided to declare the coming week BirthdayFest in honour of my 39th birthday which falls tomorrow. So, off to Edinburgh for a bit of Shaw. Review later.