« Don't Immanentize The Eschaton | Main | Sick Hamster »

09 March 2007


Ali C

Interesting you pick those exerpts Dave - they are the ones used at my wedding!I've also used them at other weddings and renewal of vows services (changing making promises - voice 3 - to renewing promises). The journeying theme is one that appeals to Alan and I, and to other couples - seeing the wedding ceremony as merely one important point in a continually developing and growing relationship, alongside many other important and memorable moments. Its not necessarily about a "stealth" approach to same sex blessings (tho I understand your concerns), but an aknowledgement that couples have a life and a relationship prior to the wedding, and draws that whole relationship into the presence and blessing of God - not just the point from the wedding service onwards.

as for handsel - I'm as stumped as you :) hasn't that bit been removed now?


Handsel -to me- is when money is given to a baby.

Raspberry Rabbit

I dunno Dave - the least they could have done - if they wanted to use the friendship and faithfulness of two women as an angle in to the question of Christian marriage - would've been to balance things off with the friendship of David and Jonathan. I'm surprised nobody brought it up.


Raspberry, I think it would only have been fair! Maybe it was felt this way was slightly more subtle?

Our main concern is that the theology of marriage as expressed through option 'A' is very weak. To say as was said at your synod and ours, 'Our theology is written in Canon Thirty One', is all very well, but what about the public expression of this -'our belief is expressed in our prayer'?

At least at our synod, it does not seem like adequate discussion has taken place ove the years of experiment with this.

Ali C

I have to disagree Dave, I feel it has a very strong theology of marriage, as journeying in relationship with each other and with God. What it doesn't have is a definition of marriage.

My difficulty lies in the way in which this process has taken place and the liturgy has been discussed in the Diocese - especially within this region and diocesan synods. at regional council meetings, the liturgy has been described, with little chance for discussion, and at Synod we are told that the discussion has already taken place. By whom? in what context? The impression given at diocesan synod was that some concerns were not worthy of a response by the provincial liturgy committee - such a state of affairs is appalling, and hardly conducive to good relationships or a good example of listening to the spirit in the church at large


But, Ali, my point is that while of course there is some good theology in there,it doesn't tie in clearly with what Canon Thirty One says about marriage being lifelong and between a man and a woman.

Ali C

so it's good but weak theology? ;) bit of an oxymoron there...

I understand your issue with the missing of canon 31 - it does give a structure to the context (both theological and relational) of those relationships after all.

however for me the biggest problem is with the process of this documents approval rather than the document itself. It seems we are a church which is rather exclusive in its inclusiveness, willing to listen to some voices at the expense of others.


You're awfully paranoid.


I agree, Ryan. I can't think of a more beautiful and appropriate scriptural passage for a wedding than this, which I prefer in the Authorised Version:

"Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the LORD do so to me, and more also, if aught but death part thee and me."


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

GadgetVicar serves with: