• 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?

5 responses to “Sermon preached on 14 March 2010”

  1. David | Dah•veed Avatar
    David | Dah•veed

    It is always interesting to me to travel the world from the comfort of my home on Sundays and get a feel for how different of our honored clergy approach a shared topic as we have the same readings in our Anglican worship. (Not forgetting that other flavors of Christians are also using those same readings as well.)

    Father Tobias Haller has a much different angle to this story in the form of poetry on his blog; The Elder Son and the Father’s Repentance

    Regarding Bishop David as you current ordinary, is that a canonical device of SEC, it seems different from how it is handled in TEC and so here in Mexico. When there is no diocesan bishop the Diocesan Standing Committee is then the ecclesiastical authority in a diocese and they can choose to “hire” a bishop for episcopal functions in the interim period until a new diocesan is elected and enthroned. The hired gun is often a neighboring diocesan, a resident or neighboring suffragan or assistant or they may even pull someone from retirement for a short period.

    I was happy, that as with you Father Kelvin, I had no trouble at all understanding +David’s accent! I see also that you have managed to repair that lean to your pulpit.

    When +David defined prodigal as extravagant waste I was immediately reminded of the writings of one of my favorite bishops, the blessed +John Shelby Spong at whose feet I studies one summer at Vancouver School of Theology. He often states, “God, who is the Source of Love, calls us to love wastefully.” God’s love for us is in the measure of extravagant waste and God calls us to love one another just as wastefully. As did the father in the parable.

    I cannot recall who of the Master Painters, but I know of a painting of the return of this Prodigal Son where the haste with which the father rushed to greet his son is represented in the fact that he is out in the road hugging his son in his fine clothes, but he is wearing mismatched shoes. I have experienced just such love and concern from my own Papá as I have seen him responding to emergencies in the middle of the night in our wee village and glancing down to see that he is wearing one shoe and a bedroom slipper!

    Pardon my rambles today, this simple sermon sparked many thoughts.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      During an Episcopal Vacancy, it seems to be becoming common for someone to be appointed to be Bishops’ Commissary for the vacancy. This gives them delegated authority for administrative functions. The Ordinary, in such circumstances is usually the Primus though I think that the Priumus (or perhaps the Episcopal Synod) can nominate someone else to look after an Episcopal Vacancy.

  2. ryan Avatar

    Ooh, what’s a Priumus? (and yes, I googled – unsuccessfully – before asking!)

  3. David | Dah•veed Avatar
    David | Dah•veed

    A Priumus is a typo. Nothing more.

  4. ryan Avatar

    Thanks! I did (genuinely) wonder if it was something different (like a collegiate group who make primus-like decisions in an empty see?) because of the “Primus though I think that the primus” (as opposed to Primus/s/he phrasing). Feel a bit D’Oh now.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Sexretary

    Deliciously, the latest statement on the usual topic from the bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church has been sent out by someone claiming to be a sexretary.

  • Sermon – 5 June 2005

    The bible makes for poor history and worse law. As history it is inevitably a record of either those celebrating victory or those bearing a grievance. As law, it is hard to know whether to try to keep the detail or to try to extract precepts. The readings this morning give us much to think…

  • Anglican Communion

    This entertaining statement comes from a press release from the Anglican Communion: “This Sunday, May 29, in many parts of the Communion, is Anglican Communion Sunday, a day to raise awareness of and celebrate the Anglican Communion.” Presumably other parts are not celebrating. Source: http://anglicancommunion.org/acns/articles/39/75/acns3981.cfm

  • CMQ

    The new Church Music Quarterly was waiting for me yesterday. I can’t work out whether it is just me having a cynical moment or whether it really is as dull as I think it is. Is the Royal School of Church Music an historical society?