What is in Kelvin's Head?

Another Argument for Marriage

16/08/2012

I recently posted a link to a piece by a Labour MP about how he was planning to support moves towards Equal Marriage. Shortly after I posted that, someone kindly drew my attention to another piece by and MP that is worth a read, this time from a Conservative.

Take a look at this, and the pdf that it points towards:

http://www.johnhowellmp.com/constituency-campaigns/local-campaigns/gay-civil-marriage/333

It is from John Howell MP OBE and is a pretty good answer to his local “Christian” critics. It is fascinating to see people working out their own responses to this proposed change and see arguments for it coming from different sides of the political battlefield.

As with Tom Harris’s piece, I don’t actually agree with all of this. In particularly, I don’t agree with the current moves to make a distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. We’ve been proceeding on the basis that it is one institution which one can enter in either a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony. It seems to me to be unhelpful for Mr Howell to refer to “Gay civil marriage” as though that were the institution itself rather than the means of entering into the institution. He is also quite muddled when he says:

Although civil and religious marriages have some similar end results, I regard them as separate acts. In practice, civil and religious marriages are already regarded as two different things in much of mainland Europe and they convey different rights. Indeed, more and more couples here are opting for a civil wedding followed by a church ceremony. For historical reasons, the automatic fusion of the two ceremonies in the UK occurs only where the marriage is conducted by an Anglican priest.

That may be true in England (though I’m not even sure if it is entirely true there) but it is certainly not true when applied to the UK as a whole.

However, there’s far more in Mr Howell’s piece that I agree with than that I disagree with. It is particularly interesting to see the case being put by an elected Anglican, coming from a Conservative background. It chimes with David Cameron’s argument that he is in favour of allowing gay couples to wed not despite being a conservative but because he is a conservative.

All in all, I’d say this paper would be a model for bishops to think about. One does get weary of being told by bishops how supportive they are when they say nothing whatsoever in public. It is possible to express one’s opinions and to do so charitably without the sky falling on our heads.

Last word to Mr Howell:

Allowing gay civil marriage is not a fundamental change at all and will, on the basis of evidence from elsewhere around the world, have no effect on the structure of society or on religious marriage. Above all, whichever way you approach this issue, there is no evidence of any harm which such a change would create. I have listened carefully to the views that have been put forward and I have read in detail the points that have been made. However, I cannot help but conclude that no compelling case has yet been made against this rather modest change. Rather, its contribution to a tolerant society at ease with itself is something which all Conservatives should support.

Conservative Party, equal marriage, LGBT, politics

23 responses to “What if this is the end of the Eucharist?”

Thomas Scott

06/05/2020

Just noticing here that DGD (of happy memory) seems to have left out of his catalogue of joyous, sad, perilous, and solemn occasions any instance of celebrating during a plague or pestilence. I’m not worried about the mass. The eucharist need not be celebrated as though it were a car battery, as if not offering it now would somehow allow the power to run down. It is not at risk, we are, which I think is your point. The questions asked are worth asking, of course.

Reply
Mo Nicholson

06/05/2020

Mo Nicholson. This is an intriguing discussion and what I would like to add to it is the observation that I have had to learn the hard way that participation in the Eucharist being made impossible in no way diminishes an individual’s ability to worship God or be in fellowship with other believers. I am barred from receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic church because allergies make this impossible for me. The pain induced by this has little to do with feeling separation from God, in fact nothing at all as I do not feel that. It comes from feeling excluded from the community, different sections if which regard it as desirable or tolerable that a member of the community should be excluded in this way. This experience has made me understand as never before that if we place prime value on liturgical celebrations, ir indeed anything else, above charity, compassion, welcome and inclusivity, in other words love, then we have become the sounding gong which St Paul warned against. If we truly believe that God is love, as I do, then it is obvious that it is love for one another which makes us true children of God our Father, and in light of this we could begin to look at these present challenging circumstances as simply an opportunity to love more, to reach out to one another in whatever way possible in the knowledge that this is what actually matters and always did. Only perhaps we were tempted to almost make a fetish of our rituals, sacraments and so on. And perhaps this can show us a better way more adapted to the world we are supposed to serve.

Reply
Lynsay Downs

06/05/2020

You and your conversation with Dave Roberts prompted me to write this. Does it resonate for you?

https://astonishing.community/2020/05/06/conversations-in-coronatide/

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  06/05/2020
  
  Thanks Lynsay – yes, it does resonate with me very much.
  
  I’ve shared it on facebook. I think it is really helpful.
  
  Reply
Fr Keith

06/05/2020

Thanks again for such a thoughtful piece. With the Eucharist central to much of, at least Anglican/Episcopalian, worship in recent generations, we perhaps forget that the Church in these islands was, between the Reformation and the liturgical revivals of the 19th and 20th centuries, sustained by Mattins and Evensong as the regular diet of worship on Sundays. I’m not advocating a return to such times, but there is, as you suggest, work to be done on non-Eucharistic worship (though not defining it as a negative). Thanks again.

Reply
Fenland Boy

07/05/2020

For the record, I’m not in favour of lay presidency at the Eucharist. I believe, for better or worse, in an ordered church.

Why are you concerned about lay Presidency?

Reply
Chuck

08/05/2020

May I say respectfully, lighten up. Many Anglicans/Episcopalians lived on the edges of civilization in the nascent U.S. and various elements of the British Empire. Priests to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and to baptize were seldom seen, at most twice a year in many areas. (Bishops, only every several years.) The Church carried on in this manner decade after decade. If circumstances require, the Church will carry on again despite our profound sense of loss.

I should add, to those who grew up under threat or reality of war, persecution, oppression, famine, other disease, etc, the present difficulty is not unfamiliar in many respects.

Reply
Miriam MacCarthy

08/05/2020

Thank you! It is wonderful to read these serious, personal thoughts about the Eucharist. My feeling is that it has become celebrated to the point of boredom. Church, and what we do in it, is in danger of becoming simply a habit. It could just as well be crackerjack for a fast-asleep congregation. My heresy is that the direction Jesus gave is to “do this in remembrance of me”, and that means everything we eat at any time, whether alone or with others, in thanksgiving. If that is seriously done, it has vastly more meaning. It really gets ones attention and requires preparation. Would not become popular or usual, I predict!

Reply