We had such a good evening discussing Canon Law at the Cathedral’s gay group on Monday evening. Presumably all churches have evenings like this.
Canon Law is more often talked about than referred to. In this case, we were looking at Canon 31 which is the canon about marriage.
There are quite a few interesting things that we talked about in relation to the canon, but first, here is the Canon itself.
CANON THIRTY-ONE
OF THE SOLEMNISATION OF HOLY MATRIMONY1. The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.
2. No cleric of this Church shall solemnise Matrimony except in accordance with the civil law of Scotland for the time being in force in relation to civil marriages and unless satisfied that compliance has been made with such preliminaries as are therein required for the Solemnising of Religious Marriages.
3. No cleric shall perform the Marriage Service, nor permit it to be performed in Church, for parties who are within the forbidden degrees, as specified in Appendix No.26. No cleric shall perform the Marriage Service, nor permit it to be performed in Church for parties, for one or both of whom a decree of Nullity of Marriage Ab Initio has been pronounced by a Civil Court, nor for parties, either of whom has had a previous marriage dissolved quoad civilia in a Civil
Court, so long as the other spouse in the marriage so dissolved remains alive, unless that cleric shall have been given a Certificate of Authorisation on the grounds that there is no ecclesiastical impediment to the marriage in terms of Section 4.4. In cases where a decree of Nullity of Marriage Ab Initio has been pronounced by a Civil Court, or in any case where either or both parties to a proposed marriage has, or have had, a previous marriage dissolved quoad civilia in a Civil Court, but the other spouse to that marriage remains alive, any cleric to whom an approach is made by or on behalf of either party with a view to the solemnising of such proposed marriage shall refer the matter to the Diocesan Bishop. Upon receiving such reference, the Diocesan Bishop shall make such enquiries into the circumstances of the case, and take such pastoral and legal advice, as shall seem appropriate, and thereafter may issue, or decline to issue, to an officiating cleric, a Certificate of Authorisation in terms of Appendix No.27 authorising and approving that cleric’s officiating at the Solemnisation of Holy Matrimony of the parties concerned according to the Rites and Ceremonies and Canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church. No Bishop shall entertain an application which has already been before another Diocesan Bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church without the agreement of the Bishop of that other Diocese and the Episcopal Synod.
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.
6. The solemnisation of Marriage shall take place in Church except with the written sanction of the Bishop.
We were, obviously, looking at the Canon in the light of the knowledge that the Scottish Government is planning to change marriage law to allow same-sex couples to get married.
I’m still not entirely convinced that the parliamentary process is going to be quite as easy as the politicians thing. They appear to me to be planning on building new discrimination into new law and that might well unravel. For example, they talk about “protecting” any cleric who belongs to a denomination which has opted in to doing same-sex weddings where the celebrant in question doesn’t want to do them but they don’t propose doing anything about the cleric who wants to perform a same-sex wedding when their denomination has not opted in. That is clear and obvious discrimination and I’m not sure that it will (or should) pass muster when it comes to legislation.
It is worth noting that this business of providing “protection” to those who don’t want to do same-sex weddings is a nonsense and a red herring. No-one can be forced to conduct any wedding at the moment. No additional legislation is needed. No-one, if you think about it, can be forced to pray or perform any religious act that they don’t believe in. It is absurd to think that any court in Europe is going to start to force people to perform religious ceremonies they don’t want to. That’s because celebrants already have rights – the same rights which mean that one can’t be forced to perform religious acts. We already have freedom of concience in Western Europe. Same-sex weddings are no threat to this at all. The more you hear from the SNP Government about providing “protection” in this area, the more you know they are trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes or trying to delay the process. It just isn’t necessary. Not a jot or a tittle of the law needs changing, as Someone might well once have said.
Now, when it comes to that Canon there are a couple of interesting things to note. Firstly, note the definition of marriage as being, “a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.”
Opinion has been expressed in the church recently by those with some power and influence in this area, that the church wouldn’t be able to marry same-sex couples whilst this statement is in Canon law. However, the church manages to marry couples whose lives have not reflected this standard all the time. If we marry divorced people, then our relationship with this doctrinal statement must at least be nuanced.
I was very interested to see an old copy of the Canons recently – I think it came from the 1920s. I looked up Canon 31 and found that this doctrinal statement was simply not there. I think (and I’d be happy to be corrected if I’m wrong) that it was inserted precisely when we did start to recognise divorce.
Section 5 of the Canon is rather interesting. It suggests that it is legitimate to perform the service of Benediction (ie perform a blessing) for couples whose marriages have been contracted irregularly (ie not within the other terms of the Canon) so long as they have not had a marriage refused for reasons connected with a divorce. (It is extremely rare for our bishops to refuse marriages in this area).
It seems to me, that should the state allow same-sex couples to marry, Canon Law is at least nodding towards the possibility of giving the couple a blessing in church, even without changing a word of the Canons.
Clearly there is a time of discussion and reflection needed with regard to the way Canon Law intersects with Scottish Law. If the state allowed same-sex marriage but the church didn’t, it seems to me to be very likely that some clergy would start to refuse to marry straight couples and simply suggest that for reasons of equality everyone goes to get married in the registry office and an appropriate church service can follow immediately afterwards. That seems not only very likely but only a couple of years away.
Alternatively, the church will allow everyone to live according to their conscience on this matter. Allowing those who wish to conduct such marriages to do so and allowing those who wish to refuse to do so too. This is how we deal with divorced couples wanting to get married, so there is clear precidence for this path. It seems to me that this would be wisest and the path forward which least distracted us from other mission inititives.
Incidently, if we do start to unpick the definition of marriage that we have in Canon 31, don’t expect it to be easy. It currently says,
The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.
I’d be happy with it if it said,
The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of two people created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.
There are others who would find it much easier to reconcile their own experience with the church if it said,
The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy estate instituted of God.
And I’ve recently heard a bishop questioning the last clause who would really prefer –
The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate.
Ho hum.
All of this is, of couse, about the canonical definition of marriage and takes no account of the liturgical formularies, which are different and diverse. I’ll perhaps look at them in another post.
Suffice it to say that the biggest change that the Scottish Episcopal Church has ever made in relation to marriage was in producing a new marriage liturgy which regards the two persons contracting the marriage as equals.
That seems to me to be a far greater change to our ecclesiastical views on marriage than allowing same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it is one of the foundations upon which the case for same-sex marriage can be built.
37 responses to “Keeping the faith”
It was an inspiring recitation. Following the English translation in the service sheet provided added insight to the life of Mary. All the more so as the cathedral is dedicated to St Mary. You are reminded of Mary every time you walk into the building with the Gwyneth Leech mural over the High Altar.
Kelvin is quite right. The very self-righteous defenders of the Bible (including the ones who trolled a brave young Muslim woman, for days, with the most vile language, and those who did not reprimand them) totally ignored the Biblical instructions for raising concerns with a brother in faith (Matthew 18:15; 2 Tim 23). Very practical instruction too! As anyone who has ever lived in community can verify. Could all these obsessive men *please* stop trying to divide our communities in Glasgow. We will not be divided. At the first sign of trouble we rush out to embrace one another. These abusers have much to repent of, even if *just* standing by while others throw stones.
I HATE it when the wrong tune is picked for a hymn … it is simply an abomination before God.
However, helping people to think about how we share hospitality, welcome and learn from each other is the WAY of God! Blessings on you Kelvin.
Some reasons why this time was different:
1. The other quaran recitations you mentioned happened at Nine Lessons and Carols, or special ecuminical and interfaith events. While 9L&C was originally a modified Evensong, nowadays it’s usually considered a seasonal community musical recitial with a religious tinge, so having a Muslim from the community recite something from their faith would seem natural enough. Civic and interfaith services will likewise naturally include representatives of every faith in the community. By contrast the Eucharist is the central act of Christian worship and people expect to hear ONLY Christian doctrine proclaimed in the Holy Eucharist. In other words, this was the wrong venue for showing hospitality to Muslim neighbors. You did not intend to practice syncretism, but I think the outcome was syncretic despite your good intentions.
2. Post Brexit (and post Trump) British Muslims are now seen as alien invaders rather than fellow members of the community.
3. Because hostility to Muslims is now fashionable, the Express and rest of the gutter press decided that this was a story worth reporting. Since conservative Americans often read the online editions of the British gutter press, the story then went global.
4. Because you are gay and out, your every action is scrutinized for any possible hint of heresy by GAFCON and Co.
Of all these reasons, only reason #1 is a legitimate criticism, but I hope you do think about criticism #1 as well as defending yourself from other, illegitimate criticisms.
Thank you for your comment Whit J – all the more because it is a thoughtful criticism.
I’ve plenty to reflect on about the how and the when we do things like that and I do hear loudly and clearly that many people think this was an inappropriate context. Though of course, I’d be bound to say that some are saying that the Eucharist is precisely the place indeed there are some saying that is what it is for.
I’m not going to get into a back and forth with all the comments on this post and I’m deliberately not letting through things that have already been said but be assured that I’ve heard the criticism and will reflect on it not simply now but over coming months. (I’ve learned a lot about where God is this week that will take a long time to process). I’m grateful for the way you’ve made your point.
I think there is a good deal in what Whit J says, although I am not sure the effect actually was syncretic. I think one does perhaps have to be a regular worshipper at St Mary’s to understand how totally orthodox the worship there is, and how much Jesus is the focus of worship – how utterly unlikely it is that anyone there would make the mistake of thinking he was not revered by the congregation as a whole as very God from very God. It would be impossible for them not to realise that all the clergy there rejoice in this belief. The congregation saw the words of the Qu’ran in an English translation which portrayed that book’s far-from-easy-to-follow account of Islam’s view of the conception of Jesus, in which there was nothing offensive, and heard a very beautiful voice singing in a strange and glorious language. These were clearly indicated to be the beliefs of another faith. We certainly neither saw or heard or understood any insult to the person of Christ. I am sure none was intended, either. Whereas, and this bears repeating, I am totally sure that many of those commenting (not of course by any means all of them, and nobody whose comments are published here) simply wish harm to relationships between the great faiths in Glasgow.
I have spent my whole adult life in dialogue with people of other religious traditions, it has been deeply rewarding. However I feel that what happened at this service was profoundly wrong. When we are truly ourselves we allow other people to be profoundly themselves. The truth of Christianity is not compatible with any other religion. To avoid that incompatibility is to avoid reality. Worship of Jesus is the fountain of our faith the Qu’ran is opposed to that. I love Jesus and therefore cannot conceive of reading the Qu’ran in an act of worship – no problem doing so in other contexts but not in worship. I am profoundly disturbed that you cannot see this Kelvin.
There are so many things aren’t there, not just around this issue which we hold dear in faith and which we can’t see from another perspective?
I can hear and see that people are upset by this and clearly there are many people not upset by it too. And obviously, at least I hope obviously, I love Jesus too.
The trouble with religious questions and the questions that religious people have I think is that so often that our love for our faith can make it impossible to comprehend others who also claim to love the same faith but who take different views about things. We can hear them claim that love but be intellectually unable to process it because it leads them to different conclusions.
I’ve found the same thing to be true in the sexuality debates very frequently though I perceive that to be changing sometimes now. Similarly with other identity issues and some political issues. Israel/Palestine conversations for example often seem to be conducted (when they are conducted at all) by people who seem to behave like ships passing in the night.
I happen to have views about Church Schools which are pretty intransigent and negative. You are one of the few people, no the only person, who ever made me really think there might be a point of view about them other than mine which might have an integrity I could respect. And I’m very grateful for that.
Kelvin, thank you for your reply. I have enormous respect for you. I have no doubt that church schools can be argued against from perfectly respectable positions. Worship of Jesus is simply a different order, it cannot include a reading from the Qu’ran. Worship is one thing, study, dialogue, relationship something else.
I am really grateful to Richard for the phrase “When we are truly ourselves we allow other people to be profoundly themselves” which reflects my experience of interfacing with sincere people of other faiths. Is a Christian Eucharist a place this should happen? I can understand some Christians feeling it is not, but as long as everything was clearly labelled as what it was and the integrity of the liturgy was intact, I can also understand some feeling it is.
Brother Kelvin,
Although I do not agree with allowing the Koran to be read in our Christian churches, I truly appreciated your firm and resolute stand for the deity of Jesus. He is our great God and Savior and I love Him very much. Blessings from Tennessee.
Just as a perhaps amusing point of reference, the 1982 hymnal of the Episcopal church in the USA has “Brightest and best of the STARS” (caps mine) “of the morning,” apparently so as to avoid offending any daughters who might be present, and the two tunes included are “Morning Star” by James Proctor Harding (1850-1911) and “Star in the East” from The Southern Harmony (1835). The Harding tune was also in the 1940 Hymnal, wherein the word “sons” was still used.
I am not clear as to whether the hospitality at St Mary’s anticipates infinite extension of parallel lines between Islam and the Church in Glasgow. Are you planning some opportunities for Glasgow Muslims to understand the Christian faith and prepare for Baptism and the glorious liberty of regeneration by the Holy Spirit? (In whichever order; no axe about that!) As you move around the Glasgow community and meet more Christians of Islamic background, why not invite such to participate in groups for new Muslim enquirers? The testimony of an ex-Muslim can express vibrantly “How I know He lives” (as your SA brethren would sing). You might find not only new hearts from a divine work of grace among your Muslim neighbours but in other neighbours too. Amen. Inshallah!
There are a small number of people in St Mary’s who are converts from Islam to Christianity just as there are a small number of people in local mosques who are converts from Christianity to Islam.
St Mary’s regularly puts on events and courses for people discovering and exploring Christianity. Most living religions do the same thing.