In the beginning of his talk on BBC Radio 4, Fraser lists the purposes of marriage in the liturgy from the 17th century Book of Common Prayer.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
The second and third purposes seem to present no barrier to same-sex marriages. Fraser follows with commentary on the first purpose of marriage - procreation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has rightly recognised that celibacy is a vocation to which many gay people are simply not called. Which is why, it strikes me, the church ought to be offering gay people a basis for monogamous relationships that are permanent, faithful and stable. So that leaves the whole question of procreation. And clearly a gay couple cannot make babies biologically. But then neither can those who marry much later in life. Many couples, for a whole range of reasons, find they cannot conceive children - or, simply, don't choose to. Is marriage to be denied them? Of course not. For these reasons - and also after contraception became fully accepted in the Church of England - the modern marriage service shifted the emphasis away from procreation. The weight in today's wedding liturgy is on the creation of loving and stable relationships. For me, this is something in which gay Christians have a perfect right to participate. I know many people of good will are bound to disagree with me on this. But gay marriage isn't about culture wars or church politics; it's fundamentally about one person loving another. The fact that two gay men have proclaimed this love in the presence of God, before friends and family and in the context of prayerful reflection is something I believe the church should welcome. It's not as if there's so much real love in the world that we can afford to be dismissive of what little we do find. Which is why my view is we ought to celebrate real love however and wherever we find it.
In the event that you wonder about my extensive posting on actions and opinions in the Church of England, it is because I have been stung by Archbishop Rowan Williams critical statements about the Episcopal Church going its own way in consecrating Gene Robinson, a partnered gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire. He has singled out the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada for particular criticism. Now that he must deal with similar departures from traditional practices in his home church, I hope that he may cast a more kindly gaze upon the actions of his brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada.
Episcopalians in New Hampshire are left without representation at the Lambeth gathering of the bishops of the Anglican Communion this summer by the non-invitation of Bishop Robinson. Diocesan leaders in New Hampshire sent a letter to Archbishop Williams in protest that Bishop Robinson is barred from the conference. I'd like to have signed the letter in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in New Hampshire, because, as a member of the Episcopal Church, I take his non-invitation somewhat personally.
From BBC Radio 4 via The Lead at the Episcopal Café.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
I Ask Myself...
From LapinBizarre, who insists, "No subliminal meaning in my sending it to you."
I believe him.
Martin Dudley Explains Why
From the New Statesman:
Robustly heterosexual since early adolescence, unable to see that any love surpasses the love of women, and once branded by the odious Daily Mail as 'Dud the Stud', I may seem miscast in the role into which I have now been thrust, that of the turbulent rebellious priest who defies bishop and archbishop to bless two gay men, also priests, in their civil partnership.
Dudley speaks of the influence on him of the turmoil of the 1970s and of his studies in theology at King's College in London:
The study of theology at King’s College, London, was rigorous, critical, comprehensive, and above all engaged with a rapidly changing world. As Dean Sydney Evans posed the existential “Who am I?” he taught us not to accept the “I” as a fixed point but a point in motion, always becoming.
Of the Church of England now, Dudley says that it's as though that time never happened. The questioning, exploring, testing the boundaries of the period, all that seems forgotten.
There has been a return to uncritical fundamentalist use of biblical “proof texts”, ripping verses from their theological and literary contexts. There has been a flight to the safety of rigid law and inflexible dogma and a consequent desire to unchurch those who will not conform.
So on a day late in 2007 when my friend and colleague Peter Cowell asked me to bless the civil partnership that he was to contract with David Lord in May this year I was ready to answer “yes”. I did so not to provoke the so-called traditionalists and to deliberately disregard the guidelines published by the English House of Bishops, not to defy the Bishop of London, whose sagacity I respect, or Archbishop Rowan, who I have known and admired for 25 years, but because to respond in any other way would have been a negation of everything I believe, of everything that makes me who I am, as a man and as a priest.
....
On 31 May, my birthday and the feast of the Visitation, when Mary said “My soul doth magnify the Lord”, 300 people gathered in St Bartholomew the Great to celebrate the Eucharist, to witness Peter and David commit themselves to each other in an exclusive loving relationship.
....
I did not seek the role, the interviews, the publicity, but more than thirty years ago I began a journey, a process of becoming, that focuses on Jesus the Christ, not as lawgiver and judge but as the one who loves us and holds us and will not let us go until we know ourselves as loved by him despite our foolishness and imperfections, and because of that, when Peter Cowell asked me, I did not hesitate, not even for a moment to answer “Yes, I will.”
Robustly heterosexual since early adolescence, unable to see that any love surpasses the love of women, and once branded by the odious Daily Mail as 'Dud the Stud', I may seem miscast in the role into which I have now been thrust, that of the turbulent rebellious priest who defies bishop and archbishop to bless two gay men, also priests, in their civil partnership.
Dudley speaks of the influence on him of the turmoil of the 1970s and of his studies in theology at King's College in London:
The study of theology at King’s College, London, was rigorous, critical, comprehensive, and above all engaged with a rapidly changing world. As Dean Sydney Evans posed the existential “Who am I?” he taught us not to accept the “I” as a fixed point but a point in motion, always becoming.
Of the Church of England now, Dudley says that it's as though that time never happened. The questioning, exploring, testing the boundaries of the period, all that seems forgotten.
There has been a return to uncritical fundamentalist use of biblical “proof texts”, ripping verses from their theological and literary contexts. There has been a flight to the safety of rigid law and inflexible dogma and a consequent desire to unchurch those who will not conform.
So on a day late in 2007 when my friend and colleague Peter Cowell asked me to bless the civil partnership that he was to contract with David Lord in May this year I was ready to answer “yes”. I did so not to provoke the so-called traditionalists and to deliberately disregard the guidelines published by the English House of Bishops, not to defy the Bishop of London, whose sagacity I respect, or Archbishop Rowan, who I have known and admired for 25 years, but because to respond in any other way would have been a negation of everything I believe, of everything that makes me who I am, as a man and as a priest.
....
On 31 May, my birthday and the feast of the Visitation, when Mary said “My soul doth magnify the Lord”, 300 people gathered in St Bartholomew the Great to celebrate the Eucharist, to witness Peter and David commit themselves to each other in an exclusive loving relationship.
....
I did not seek the role, the interviews, the publicity, but more than thirty years ago I began a journey, a process of becoming, that focuses on Jesus the Christ, not as lawgiver and judge but as the one who loves us and holds us and will not let us go until we know ourselves as loved by him despite our foolishness and imperfections, and because of that, when Peter Cowell asked me, I did not hesitate, not even for a moment to answer “Yes, I will.”
Japanese Water-Fueled Car
Thanks to Doug, who says we should all buy stock in Dasani. He adds:
Figures -- the Japanese would do this first!
Runs on something the Saudis don't have a whole lot of. Interesting.
Yes, it is.
From Reuters:
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Button Sold At Texas GOP Convention
From Talking Points Memo.
When TPM contacted spokespersons at the GOP, they said that they did not know about the buttons and, had they known, they would not have permitted them to be sold.
Congratulations To Del And Phyllis!
From the New York Times:
In San Francisco, Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, longtime gay rights activists, were the first and only couple to be wed here, saying their vows in the office of Mayor Gavin Newsom, before emerging to a throng of reporters and screaming well-wishers.
Ms. Martin and Ms. Lyon, who have been together for more than 50 years, seemed touched, if a little amazed by all the attention.
“When we first got together we weren’t thinking about getting married,” Ms. Lyon said before cutting a wedding cake. “I think it’s a wonderful day.”
Oh, my! Isn't this lovely? It is a wonderful day.
Picture from the San Francisco Chronicle.
UPDATE: Elizabeth Kaeton at Telling Secrets has a wonderful post on Del and Phyllis.
Do You Have What It Takes To Be A Citizen?
Do you have what it takes to become a citizen?
When immigrants want to become Americans, they must take a civics test as part of their naturalization interview before a Citizenship and Immigration Services (INS) officer. The questions are usually selected from a list of 100 sample questions that prospective citizens can look at ahead of the interview (though the examiner is not limited to those questions). Some are easy, some are not. We have picked some of the more difficult ones
NOTES: The INS plans to revise its list of questions in 2008 (a pilot program is using these new questions at selected INS sites). Also, the questions in the test below are as asked on the official United States Immigration and Naturalization Services Web site. Candidates are not given multiple choices in the naturalization interview, which is conducted orally.
Take the test.
I'm not an immigrant, but I took the test anyway. My score - 90%.
85-100%: Welcome to the United States! (And, truth be told, you know more about this great land than most Americans.)
I'm already here, but thanks for the welcome.
Blame or thank Doug.
Monday, June 16, 2008
May I Have A Blessing, Please?
From the Guardian:
A gay priest who angered conservative Christians by exchanging rings and vows with his partner in a church ceremony for his civil partnership in London last month has resigned, it emerged last night.
The Rev Dr David Lord, a New Zealander who tied the knot with English clergyman Peter Cowell on May 31, "felt it appropriate to lay down his clergy license", according to a statement released through the Anglican church in New Zealand.
How sad. All the uproar because two men love one another, and made a commitment to each other, and wanted God's blessing on their union.
Much of the anger toward the couple came after details of the service were revealed. Traditionalists were angry that the men were able to enjoy a ceremony almost identical to a traditional church wedding, with readings, hymns, a Eucharist and a version of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer's Solemnization of Marriage.
It's mine, mine, mine! You can't have it!
But the Rev Martin Dudley, who led the service, downplayed the event's political significance.
"I am surprised and disappointed by the fuss. It was a joyful, godly occasion. Why turn it into a controversy? It was not a rally or a demonstration," he said.
Exactly. I gather the ceremony took place last month. Why the fuss now? Did the word just get out? This is not the first ceremony of the sort to take place in England. Surely the Archbishop of Canterbury knew that, but now we all know that he faces similar situations in his own country to those in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Next time he feels called to chastise the North American churches, perhaps he will think twice and decide against it. Once again, hypocrisy is brought into the light.
Liberals reacted with disappointment to the news of Lord's resignation. The Rev Dr Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney and president of Inclusive Church, a campaign group working for equal rights for gay Christians, said: "This is disgraceful. It's amazing this church cannot celebrate what little love there is in this world. It was supposed to be the happiest day of their lives and they have been turned into outcasts."
Amazing, indeed! The outcome of this battle for the right to celebrate a loving commitment between two people, no matter their sexual orientation, is already known. It remains to be played out, and unfortunately others will be hurt along the way, but there's no turning back.
Thanks to Ann at Of Course I could Be On Vacation for the link to the Guardian story.
UPDATE: From the Dominion Post via Press.Co. NZ News
A Hamilton priest whose gay wedding ceremony has sparked a row between liberal and conservative wings of the Anglican Church has returned to New Zealand without his partner.
But the couple look set to enjoy a proper honeymoon soon amid speculation that they will be reunited in New Zealand within weeks.
The Rev David Lord was yesterday tending patients at Waikato Hospital, where he works as a doctor.
I hope that they were not driven out of England.
Read the rest. Thanks to Mike in Texas for the tip.
A gay priest who angered conservative Christians by exchanging rings and vows with his partner in a church ceremony for his civil partnership in London last month has resigned, it emerged last night.
The Rev Dr David Lord, a New Zealander who tied the knot with English clergyman Peter Cowell on May 31, "felt it appropriate to lay down his clergy license", according to a statement released through the Anglican church in New Zealand.
How sad. All the uproar because two men love one another, and made a commitment to each other, and wanted God's blessing on their union.
Much of the anger toward the couple came after details of the service were revealed. Traditionalists were angry that the men were able to enjoy a ceremony almost identical to a traditional church wedding, with readings, hymns, a Eucharist and a version of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer's Solemnization of Marriage.
It's mine, mine, mine! You can't have it!
But the Rev Martin Dudley, who led the service, downplayed the event's political significance.
"I am surprised and disappointed by the fuss. It was a joyful, godly occasion. Why turn it into a controversy? It was not a rally or a demonstration," he said.
Exactly. I gather the ceremony took place last month. Why the fuss now? Did the word just get out? This is not the first ceremony of the sort to take place in England. Surely the Archbishop of Canterbury knew that, but now we all know that he faces similar situations in his own country to those in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Next time he feels called to chastise the North American churches, perhaps he will think twice and decide against it. Once again, hypocrisy is brought into the light.
Liberals reacted with disappointment to the news of Lord's resignation. The Rev Dr Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney and president of Inclusive Church, a campaign group working for equal rights for gay Christians, said: "This is disgraceful. It's amazing this church cannot celebrate what little love there is in this world. It was supposed to be the happiest day of their lives and they have been turned into outcasts."
Amazing, indeed! The outcome of this battle for the right to celebrate a loving commitment between two people, no matter their sexual orientation, is already known. It remains to be played out, and unfortunately others will be hurt along the way, but there's no turning back.
Thanks to Ann at Of Course I could Be On Vacation for the link to the Guardian story.
UPDATE: From the Dominion Post via Press.Co. NZ News
A Hamilton priest whose gay wedding ceremony has sparked a row between liberal and conservative wings of the Anglican Church has returned to New Zealand without his partner.
But the couple look set to enjoy a proper honeymoon soon amid speculation that they will be reunited in New Zealand within weeks.
The Rev David Lord was yesterday tending patients at Waikato Hospital, where he works as a doctor.
I hope that they were not driven out of England.
Read the rest. Thanks to Mike in Texas for the tip.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
A Fast For Equality
As you may know, the California Supreme Court declared that the state ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, thereby giving all couples in the state the right to be married. In response, Bishop Marc Andrus of the Episcopal Diocese of California suggested pastoral guidelines for the clergy and laity of the diocese regarding weddings. Directive No. 1 states:
I urge you to encourage all couples, regardless of orientation, to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service and then being blessed in The Episcopal Church. I will publicly urge all couples to follow this pattern.
In this manner, all couples, whether male/female, female/female, or male/male will be afforded the same treatment by the church. Only blessings will be performed by the church after the couples have been married in a civil ceremony, until such time as the canons of the Episcopal Church change so that all may have equal access to church weddings. Read the rest of the letter, including the other guidelines.
Richard Helmer, rector of The Church of Our Savior, in Mill Valley, California, has chosen to follow Bishop Andrus' directives. His eloquent and inspiring statement of his reasons for so doing is at his blog, Caught By The Light. Richard says:
Bishop Marc, it seems to me, has chosen along with his Diocese a very careful, tenuous path of grace in a conflicted Church. Following his recommendation, I informed my vestry yesterday evening that I would no longer preside over a marriage of any kind until The Episcopal Church has settled on a way forward that honors the covenants of all couples with equality. Rather, I will treat all couples who approach me for marriage equally by offering counseling and blessing, and referring them to the civil authorities to publicly declare their vows as legally binding. By equality, I don't mean political equality (although that naturally follows), but equality in terms of the recognition of God's grace.
A parishioner asked me yesterday if I was therefore withholding the sacrament of marriage. After reflection, I decided I wasn't because I can't. It is the couple who engage in the sacrament of marriage. At best, as a priest, I can only name it and declare it publicly. The sacrament of marriage between couples of all sorts will continue with or without my help in that particular way. In a curious sense, that's liberating Good News, as I fast from this part of ordained priesthood.
Indeed, in my many years of Roman Catholic schooling, I was always taught that the minister of the sacrament of marriage is not the priest, but the couple themselves. The priest pronounces that the commitment has been made and blesses the couple and the covenant they have agreed to with one another.
Richard names refraining from officiating at weddings as a fast until all couples in his parish may receive equal treatment with respect to church weddings. To me that's close to an ideal description of the practice. I've said before that I'd like to see the church out of the marriage business altogether, with the couple receiving the church's blessing after a period of discernment by their church community.
Richard allows that the practice of blessing all couples is at the edge of the boundaries of what the canons of the Episcopal Church permit:
While our violation of canons by what we are doing in this case is quite arguable (I believe we have pushed their limits, but not transgressed them), amid the half-veiled or fully naked calls that we are anarchists and rejecters of the rule of law, I am reminded of the legacy of civil disobedience. Is there such a thing in an ecclesiastical setting? It was St. Augustine who argued that an unjust law is no law at all. Perhaps we are starting to point towards this ancient truth in our actions at this time.
I left the following comment at Richard's blog:
Richard, an eloquent and inspiring post. Thank you for taking the time to share your words. Just last night, durng my walk, I thought of the civil rights struggles here in the US. I thought of civil disobedience and wondered what the term would be for such actions within the church. Ecclesial disobedience? Ecclesiastical disobedience? I don't know, but you make the important point that if one engages in such actions, one must be willing to face the consequences of those actions, as those in the civil rights movement had to, with the consequence that some died as a result of their part of the struggle for equality. Others went to jail. They were willing to pay the price.
FWIW, I believe that Bishop Andrus has made the proper decision and that yours to follow his recommendations is proper and right.
Please read Richard's well-reasoned and eloquently written post in its entirety.
I urge you to encourage all couples, regardless of orientation, to follow the pattern of first being married in a secular service and then being blessed in The Episcopal Church. I will publicly urge all couples to follow this pattern.
In this manner, all couples, whether male/female, female/female, or male/male will be afforded the same treatment by the church. Only blessings will be performed by the church after the couples have been married in a civil ceremony, until such time as the canons of the Episcopal Church change so that all may have equal access to church weddings. Read the rest of the letter, including the other guidelines.
Richard Helmer, rector of The Church of Our Savior, in Mill Valley, California, has chosen to follow Bishop Andrus' directives. His eloquent and inspiring statement of his reasons for so doing is at his blog, Caught By The Light. Richard says:
Bishop Marc, it seems to me, has chosen along with his Diocese a very careful, tenuous path of grace in a conflicted Church. Following his recommendation, I informed my vestry yesterday evening that I would no longer preside over a marriage of any kind until The Episcopal Church has settled on a way forward that honors the covenants of all couples with equality. Rather, I will treat all couples who approach me for marriage equally by offering counseling and blessing, and referring them to the civil authorities to publicly declare their vows as legally binding. By equality, I don't mean political equality (although that naturally follows), but equality in terms of the recognition of God's grace.
A parishioner asked me yesterday if I was therefore withholding the sacrament of marriage. After reflection, I decided I wasn't because I can't. It is the couple who engage in the sacrament of marriage. At best, as a priest, I can only name it and declare it publicly. The sacrament of marriage between couples of all sorts will continue with or without my help in that particular way. In a curious sense, that's liberating Good News, as I fast from this part of ordained priesthood.
Indeed, in my many years of Roman Catholic schooling, I was always taught that the minister of the sacrament of marriage is not the priest, but the couple themselves. The priest pronounces that the commitment has been made and blesses the couple and the covenant they have agreed to with one another.
Richard names refraining from officiating at weddings as a fast until all couples in his parish may receive equal treatment with respect to church weddings. To me that's close to an ideal description of the practice. I've said before that I'd like to see the church out of the marriage business altogether, with the couple receiving the church's blessing after a period of discernment by their church community.
Richard allows that the practice of blessing all couples is at the edge of the boundaries of what the canons of the Episcopal Church permit:
While our violation of canons by what we are doing in this case is quite arguable (I believe we have pushed their limits, but not transgressed them), amid the half-veiled or fully naked calls that we are anarchists and rejecters of the rule of law, I am reminded of the legacy of civil disobedience. Is there such a thing in an ecclesiastical setting? It was St. Augustine who argued that an unjust law is no law at all. Perhaps we are starting to point towards this ancient truth in our actions at this time.
I left the following comment at Richard's blog:
Richard, an eloquent and inspiring post. Thank you for taking the time to share your words. Just last night, durng my walk, I thought of the civil rights struggles here in the US. I thought of civil disobedience and wondered what the term would be for such actions within the church. Ecclesial disobedience? Ecclesiastical disobedience? I don't know, but you make the important point that if one engages in such actions, one must be willing to face the consequences of those actions, as those in the civil rights movement had to, with the consequence that some died as a result of their part of the struggle for equality. Others went to jail. They were willing to pay the price.
FWIW, I believe that Bishop Andrus has made the proper decision and that yours to follow his recommendations is proper and right.
Please read Richard's well-reasoned and eloquently written post in its entirety.
Gay Marriage? "No" Says The Rev. Dudley
The Rev. Martin Dudley, who performed the ceremony at St. Bartholmew the Great in London for the Reverends Cowell and Lord, says "no" in this interview on BBC4.
Thanks to Doorman-Priest for the link.
Thanks to Doorman-Priest for the link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)