• A Form of Benediction for Married Persons

    Well, the change in the law last week makes quite a difference for clergy in the Scottish Episcopal Church. Oh, I know that you don’t think it makes any difference unless the Scottish Episcopal Church opts into the legislation to allow same-sex couples to get married but that’s where you are wrong.

    You see, for quite some time, there have been couples entering into civil partnerships who have turned to sympathetic clergy in sympathetic congregations for services to mark their joy in getting hitched.

    Now, in Scotland there has been no great demand for a new liturgy for blessing same-sex couples because we had a brilliant new marriage liturgy in 2007. One of the things that this service emphasised was the mutuality and equality of the couple – There was no giving away of brides, for example. In this service, the gender of the couple was not emphasised hugely and indeed one could perform the service without mentioning the gender of the couple even though until last week that was quite illegal under Scots law. (Oh yes, really!)

    Now at the time that this service was introduced we were encouraged by the liturgy committee to see it as a resource for a number of different situations – for example, bits and bobs could be lifted out and used to make a splendid service for blessing a couple having a golden wedding ceremony. We were encouraged to experiment with it.

    We were also encouraged when one of my colleagues helpfully pointed out that if one chose option A at every point then the service made no mention of the gender of the parties to the marriage whatsoever and that it was tantamount to being an ideal service for marrying a same-sex couple. (This version of the service has been known locally around here as the McCarthy version of the service ever since, in homage to my neighbour at St Silas who was the person who pointed it out).

    Last year the bishops of the church formally acknowledged that these informal blessings were taking place. (Got that? I know it is difficult to make much sense of that but there you go). They effectively said that they didn’t want such services happening without their knowledge and that clergy were to let them know and work collaboratively with their bishops. They also said that bishops themselves were free to attend such informal services formally. Or was it that the bishops were informally able to attend these formally recognised services? I can’t for the life of me work it out any more. Anyway, the point is, the bishops knew that the services were taking place, wanted to know that they were taking place and said that they might or might not turn up to them but that this was a matter for each bishop.

    Now the thing is, people were getting civil partnerships and we were using the marriage liturgy to put together an appropriate service which looked very much like a wedding. All you needed to do was substitute “Loving and lifelong partnership” instead of “lifelong marriage” for example and Bob’s your aunt – you had an appropriate service.

    However, the wordings we have been using are not going to be appropriate for couples who are going to be getting married. You can’t have a couple getting married in the morning and then declaring they are entering into partnership in the afternoon in church. They are not entering into a partnership when they are already married. Neither can you simply recite the marriage liturgy over a couple who have been married earlier in the day because that would be naughty. Again, I have to admit that the reasons why this would be naughty escape me but I know naughty when it comes to liturgy and that would be it.

    So, what to do?

    One might hope for guidance from the church in this situation yet where is that to come from? I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has had a note from their bishop illuminating them as to what service to use for such couples. Yes that’s right – those services which the bishops have formally acknowledged happen informally (or informally acknowledged happen formally, I don’t know) and to which they might turn up. After all, one doesn’t want a bishop turning up to a service and getting sniffy about the liturgy. That would never do.

    Fortunately, we have several sources of authority in the church. These include the liturgy and the Code of Canons.

    The Code of Canons says this in Section 5 of Canon 31

    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.

    The point of this is that you can’t use the service of Benediction for a couple who are related to one another too closely and can’t do it if the marriage itself has been forbidden in church because if one party has been married before and a bishop has refused permission for a second marriage. (Refusal is possible but rare).

    Thus – the canons seem to suggest that a form of Benediction is the right thing to be offering.

    I don’t think that the letter of the law is very helpful suggesting that it be the service of Benediction from the Scottish Prayer Book 1929 but that service does have a very lovely prayer which I’ve rendered here in modern English:

    God the Father,
    God the Son,
    God the Holy Spirit,
    bless, preserve and keep you;
    the Lord look upon you with favour and mercy
    and so fill you with all spiritual benediction and grace,
    that you may so live together in this life
    that in the world to come you may have life everlasting.
    Amen

    This, it seems to me, is a wonderfully helpful resource in determining what to do with couples approaching the church for Benediction after a civil marriage ceremony. And all the more useful as the number of straight couples wanting this is surely destined to rise if the church forbids same-sex couples to wed in church. I expect that thoughtful straight couples will say, “Well, what’s good for the gander is good for the gander as the old gay proverb goes. If our gay friends get offered Benediction after getting married in a civil service then that’s what we want too.”

    So, it seems apposite to look again at the modern marriage rite to see whether it has any useful resources that could flesh out a service of Benediction for Persons who are Married that would serve whatever the gender of the couple.

    I’ve put this together for that purpose and hope that it is the beginnings of something useful for everyone.

    I’d be interested in hearing feedback both on the content presented here and any use of this service by anyone in the future. Remember, this one is for straight people too.

    You can download it here:
    Service of Benediction

    If you think I’ve made any mistakes and allowed the M word to remain in places where it would be naughty for the M word to be, do please let me know.

    And if, in the future, we get to a situation whereby straight people can enter a civil partnership and then want that partnership blessed in church, you can be sure I will have just the thing right up my sleeve.

    Are all these distinctions not becoming rather silly?

10 responses to “Sermon for Christ the King 2014”

  1. Julie Mansfield Avatar
    Julie Mansfield

    Kelvin, I follow your blog and I often find your conversations on facebook a lot of fun. But often, too, I don’t really understand what you are saying – such as your last paragraph there; ‘Like love. Like compassion. Like truth. Like hope. Like justice. Like joy. Like peace. Like the Way. Like the very essence of life itself.’ It sounds wonderful but what does it actually mean? Are you saying that the word, ‘God’ is a synonym for other worthwhile words which already have meanings I do understand?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      What a good question.

      No, I’m not saying that, or at least not quite. I would say that we can’t describe what God is like in language, but one of the closest ways we can come near to talking about God is to talk by analogy – to talk about what God is like.

      The bible is full of times when people use analogy and metaphor to describe the reality of God which we can never completely comprehend.

      In this sermon I’m saying that whilst God may be like a king, God is also like a lot of things that one doesn’t immediately associate with kingship and monarchy. That string of words that you picked out in the sermon are all ways that the bible uses to speak of God. I was using them to do the same.

      Does any metaphor contain or enclose or sum up what we can say or know of God. The answer is always no.

  2. Joy Jones Avatar
    Joy Jones

    I loved your sermon. And have subscribed to your blog.

    No, I have not met the Queen, but I have met the King! And continue to get to know Him more and more every day. His love, peace joy, truth, etc.

    Our priest in North Carolina, said on Sunday, that
    it was hard to tell the difference between sheep and goats.
    Since you live in Scotland, you see a lot of sheep and goats….why did Jesus picked those animals?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks for your comments, Joy.

      Actually, I don’t see that many sheep and goats in Great Western Road in the middle of Glasgow. I do see sheep when I drive in the countryside but very rarely goats.

      I think that it is the case that in the Middle East, sheep and goats are pastured together and do sometimes need sorting out. Here in Scotland, sheep and goats (especially wild goats) look very different. However I think in the Middle East, that’s less true.

  3. Julie Mansfield Avatar
    Julie Mansfield

    Kelvin, I’ve only just found your reply! Thanks so much for bothering. I really mean it. I thought you must have just ignored it. Yes, I see what you are saying but… I would say that all those meaningful words in the Bible about what God is like only make sense in the context of understanding who God is. ( i.e. that He came into being as the personification of the worldview of the marginalised Hebrew people, later taken up by Jesus, just as all of the other communities of the ancient Near East had gods representing their worldviews. I study with this bloke here http://www.bibleincartoons.co.uk. ) What I am trying – !! – to say is that God obviously cannot be everyone’s ‘truth’, ‘joy’, ‘justice’ etc because in society there are contradictory ideas about what these things are.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Are there contradictory ideas about truth, joy and justice?

      I’m not so sure. Surely we can still speak of these things as though they had some commonly understood meanings.

      1. Julie Mansfield Avatar
        Julie Mansfield

        oh absolutely there are, Kelvin. Just one of many examples: these immigrants in the Mediterranean Sea. Their truth and joy and justice is to be allowed to come and live here. Many folk here get their truth, joy and justice in seeking to put in controls. Whose truth, joy and justice is right? As I see it, the god of the marginalised Hebrews would side with the immigrants but I’m not sure about the Church…

        1. Kelvin Avatar

          I was speaking about God, not ethics. That’s not to say that there isn’t a lot that is interesting to say about the two, but they are quite different I think.

          The fact that people disagree about how to show love. does not, to me at least, negate the assertion that God is love.

      2. Julie Mansfield Avatar
        Julie Mansfield

        Oh absolutely there are contradictory ideas, Kelvin. Just one of many examples; these immigrants in the Mediterranean Sea. Their truth and joy and justice is to be allowed a place to live and thrive. For many folk here, their truth and joy and justice depends on keeping out as many immigrants as possible because they affect housing, medical care, schools etc. As I see it, the Biblical god of the marginalised Hebrews is on the side of the immigrants…

        1. Julie Mansfield Avatar
          Julie Mansfield

          sorry I didn’t see your reply! My difficulty is that you use words as if they have a universal meaning. E.g. love is not a neutral word. there are many different types of love such as conservative paternalistic love or socialist love or non-marginalising love. They are all love. How can God be them all?

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • In Englandshire

    Have been in Englandshire for a few days r & r following a conference in Oxford. They have funny money down here but they do have Choral Evensong just like we do. Who would have thought?

  • Doris Day Day

    Never forget Miss Doris’s natal day Sing along now. (And make this one a prayer). [youtube:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AxpXG2wQ-MQ]

  • The Gaiter Controversies

    Fearing that the Anglican Communion does not have enough controversy, division and dissent, I must ask you to respond to the following questions: Gaiters – yes or no? Gaiters on Provosts (or Cathedral Deans) – yes or no? Gaiters on this Provost – yes or no? The picture on Bishop David’s blog will provide you…

  • Introducing Nick Cox

    I meant to say last week that I had a very pleasant hour and a half with Nick Cox. He is the lay rep at St Silas, our nearest (well, geographically!) Episcopal neighbours. We had a good conversation about things that matter. Anyway, he keeps a blog which can be found here: www.learningtowalk.blogs.com/ Go check…