It's nearly eight am and, daily office done and dusted (so now we're both up!), I begin to prepare for an early wedding. Looking at the league tables I see that weddings are lying a poor second to funerals but were still way ahead ahead of baptisms when we hit the halfway mark for 2012.
I think we often miss the fact that the occasional offices are more than just something we 'have to do'. I meet clergy who grumble when someone has the temerity to encroach upon their 'day off'. I meet others who do the service without any wedding preparation ("What's the point, they're only coming for the building?") and, by virtue of their lack of engagement, find in weddings a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Actually, weddings are a happy moment. The white dress, the shine of the shotgun, the dressing-up and so many other things conspire to make this a 'special day' for the punters and with just a bit of work on our (the DogCollars) part it could be even more special. It could be the pin in the map of life that marks step one in relationships between the couple and God. Not only that some of the things we tell and teach in preparation and the way we sell the Church (even though we give it away for free there is still marketing to be done!) in the interface with those coming all add up to either a warm feeling or a closed door.
The same is true of funerals for in them we find the potential for the development of real relationships as we become someones neighbour when they are in need. The trouble is that I know some who have two funeral sheets; one for 'believers' and the other for 'the lost'. I know so many clergy who offer nothing outside their rigidly structured service. Funerals are, for me, the best part of the job and I reckon that to do one well takes upwards of half a day when the visiting, preparing and doing (not including post-service involvement when required or VAT). When I said this to a bunch of people recently they told me it was, "Half and hour in the undertakers, half an hour in the crem/church/graveside - job done!" If this is the reality is it any wonder people pay for those who are other than clergy to give them what they want in a service? Seems we don't even manage to bring God into it (and I have listened to more than a few by arriving half an hour early for my slot at the Crem') so what's the point of having us do their services for Him or them?
And of course there's baptisms. That wonderful service that every time brings surprise from the family when you tell them, "No charge - God's grace is free!" So why is it when I ask about baptism prep' the answer is (almost) always in the negative? The rite of initiation is something that needs to be taken seriously (as do all the offices) but also need to be customer-facing, friendly and taking the opportunity for engagement. So why the hell don't we take these opportunities?
Here's a raft of things I encounter from talking to other clergy about their offices:
Baptismal preparation is often left out because people don't come.
We don't do baptismal preparation because the families don't like it.
People go somewhere else when we tell them they need to come for three months before we will baptise.
We ask baptism families to do an Alpha.
I just get the sheet and do the funeral with that and the words I ask the family for regarding the deceased.
I try not to do weddings as they take up my Saturdays and no one ever come back.
We don't do wedding preparation because they've already got loads of kids from other relationships.
I usually meet my wedding couple for the first time on the Friday before, the office do all the paperwork and meet them to arrange the service.
I never see any of the baptism couples again.
I never see any of my wedding couples again.
I never see any of my funeral families again.
Discuss
Showing posts with label church weddings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church weddings. Show all posts
Saturday, 28 July 2012
Friday, 6 January 2012
Hijacking Easter
Telephone rang yesterday:
"Hello, is that the Vicar?"
"Yes, it is, what can I do for you?"
"I want to get married.
[Pause to allow shock to subside, we just don't get weddings here because we are surrounded by picturesque church buildings which mean that out 1960's 'Barrett Building' isn't usually a first, second or third choice!]
"And when would you like get married?"
"Eleven O'clock on Easter Sunday."
"That's a bit of a busy day and we will be doing our morning communion service at that time and so wouldn't be able to do it then."
But I want to get married on Easter Sunday and can't get a registrar and a friend told me that you were a nice vicar and would do it!"
"Well that's kind of your friend but Easter Sunday is a bit of a special day for the Church and so as this is the primary service of the year as I see it and so couldn't do it on that day at that time."
"Who's your boss? I want their telephone number because it says in my book that Vicars HAVE to marry us!"
"Certainly, the bishop's telephone number is nnnnn. I'm sorry I couldn't help."
Phone goes down and I've become just a little more confused than usual.
Wondering what else I could have done (and whether, if I'd said 'Yes' whether I would then be told they wanted it at St Wallyburgs in the Mire - it's happened before. they want the vicar but not the church building he's attached to!!!) I turn to Google and find these comments regarding Easter Sunday services (Wedding.theknot.com):
I am also getting married on easter sunday. I have found that my guests have no problem with it and even my vendors are ok with it. Although I am not Christian, it was initially a concern for my guests...but I come to find to them at least it is no big deal and they are happy to celebrate my day with me.
Actually, Easter is a very joyous day as it has been discovered that Jesus was restructured. The season of lent is over as of Easter morning. Lent is a time of mourning and Easter is a day to celebrate. It is this day that is very appropriate for the celebrations of things such as the baptism of babies and uniting people in marriage.
Couples are allowed to get married during Lent in the Catholic Church, however, some priests still choose not to preform wedding ceremonies during that time. Definitely check with the priest before setting a wedding date during Lent!
I am getting married on Easter in Florida and haven't had to much of a problem. My grandmother and I were very close and she and my grandfather were married on the same date, and it was Easter, in 1936. I saw it as a sign! Even though it is a holiday, the most religous of relatives and friends decided that it would be a great idea to spend it together with us. I even had someone say that it was truly a new beginning!
Some days it seems that you just can't win! Would have been happy to have done it after the main service but this obviously wasn't going to be acceptable and so I await a call from the floor above!
Hey Ho!
"Hello, is that the Vicar?"
"Yes, it is, what can I do for you?"
"I want to get married.
[Pause to allow shock to subside, we just don't get weddings here because we are surrounded by picturesque church buildings which mean that out 1960's 'Barrett Building' isn't usually a first, second or third choice!]
"And when would you like get married?"
"Eleven O'clock on Easter Sunday."
"That's a bit of a busy day and we will be doing our morning communion service at that time and so wouldn't be able to do it then."
But I want to get married on Easter Sunday and can't get a registrar and a friend told me that you were a nice vicar and would do it!"
"Well that's kind of your friend but Easter Sunday is a bit of a special day for the Church and so as this is the primary service of the year as I see it and so couldn't do it on that day at that time."
"Who's your boss? I want their telephone number because it says in my book that Vicars HAVE to marry us!"
"Certainly, the bishop's telephone number is nnnnn. I'm sorry I couldn't help."
Phone goes down and I've become just a little more confused than usual.
Wondering what else I could have done (and whether, if I'd said 'Yes' whether I would then be told they wanted it at St Wallyburgs in the Mire - it's happened before. they want the vicar but not the church building he's attached to!!!) I turn to Google and find these comments regarding Easter Sunday services (Wedding.theknot.com):
I am also getting married on easter sunday. I have found that my guests have no problem with it and even my vendors are ok with it. Although I am not Christian, it was initially a concern for my guests...but I come to find to them at least it is no big deal and they are happy to celebrate my day with me.
Actually, Easter is a very joyous day as it has been discovered that Jesus was restructured. The season of lent is over as of Easter morning. Lent is a time of mourning and Easter is a day to celebrate. It is this day that is very appropriate for the celebrations of things such as the baptism of babies and uniting people in marriage.
Couples are allowed to get married during Lent in the Catholic Church, however, some priests still choose not to preform wedding ceremonies during that time. Definitely check with the priest before setting a wedding date during Lent!
I am getting married on Easter in Florida and haven't had to much of a problem. My grandmother and I were very close and she and my grandfather were married on the same date, and it was Easter, in 1936. I saw it as a sign! Even though it is a holiday, the most religous of relatives and friends decided that it would be a great idea to spend it together with us. I even had someone say that it was truly a new beginning!
Some days it seems that you just can't win! Would have been happy to have done it after the main service but this obviously wasn't going to be acceptable and so I await a call from the floor above!
Hey Ho!
Monday, 16 May 2011
Divorce - the unforgivable sin?
Reading Lesley's blog and the account of her physio's experience regarding remarriage in the church and my thinking turned back to a vicar who was approached by a couple seeking a marriage in church. One of the couple had had a PMD (previous marriage dissolved) and so was told that a church wedding would not be available to them. After some discussion, the dog-collar told them that if they got involved in the life of the church, he would reconsider the situation after six months. They did - he did and decided that although they were now deeply involved members, tithing and engaged, his answer was still no.
The couple were pointed to me for advice as they were wounded and felt unloved, abused and even a little manipulated by their opportunistic (or perhaps worse) dog-collar. I soon ascertained that:
1. Neither of the parties seeking marriage had been involved with, or responsible for, the breakdown of the marriage,
2. Both were willing, and in fact desirous, of some time working through the expectations, realities and demands of marriage in the form of a marriage preparation class,
3. The church looks at restoration, forgiveness and helping people to learn from their experiences and move on in their relationship with God and with each other. When this desire is matched by the couple, then it is our task to lead people forward and affirm them (and honour God), not penalise and exclude.
So there was nothing to stop them being remarried in church. This diocese applies canon law to weddings and so the general rule is that people may be remarried in church (once, any more than that needs a jolly good reasons for it),
Of course, there are some who will wave their Bibles at me and tell me that by marrying divorcees I am placing them in a position of 'permanent adultery' and am contravening Scriptural warrant. Well, let's take a quick look at this then:
I begin, M'lud with Matthew 19:
"Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. wWhat therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia and marries another, commits adultery.”
Now, to contextualise the passage (always a good idea), as I understand it there were two prevalent attitudes regarding divorce. One said that you could divorce your wife for any reason, the other said you needed a reason (i.e. she was getting old, fat, couldn't cook - you know, something valid!!). Jesus is speaking against the trivialsation of marriage and the lack of commitment to it.
I have replaced the words 'sexual immorality' for the original 'porneia' because we find this word translated as so many things (adultery, marital unfaithfulness, sexual immorality, unchastity, etc.) and what is relevant here is that it is a serious issue, not a trivial one.
A book of Jewish custom and practice I have on my shelf tells of those who would divorce their wife and marry a younger woman for a period of time (weekend), divorce her and remarry the first wife so that they have had their jollies without being adulterous. Legal and right in the eyes of the Lord (hence the passage that prohibits remarriage to a former wife!). This is the minefield we enter when considering remarriage and divorce.
I have to go off to a staff meeting and so will leave you with an interim thought:
A bill of divorce is given to permit remarriage, not to end the marriage. The bill of divorce is a recognition that the marriage has ended and permits a person to be remarried without causing adultery to occur. Consider this:
In biblical times a woman finds herself divorced. She is no longer a wife and is no longer the property of her father. How does she live? She cannot remarry, for to do so would cause the man who takes her on to commit adultery. The woman is given a bill of divorce which states that she is ritually free to marry and that anyone who marries her is not in a state of adultery. Thus it is simple to demonstrate that the bill of divorce is a permission (ritually, theologically, practically) to remarry.
When one gives an engagement ring, it is a sign that a relationship exists, for it is not the ring that makes the relationship. It merely acknowledges what is.
When one gives a wedding ring, it does not make the marriage, the vows, promises and the couple do that, but it acknowledges that a marriage exists.
So too does the bill of divorce. It does not break the relationship, the couple have done that, but it recognises the break and makes it possible for restoration, succor, support and love that is marriage to exist with another, blessed and right before God.
Simples, isn't it?
Pax
The couple were pointed to me for advice as they were wounded and felt unloved, abused and even a little manipulated by their opportunistic (or perhaps worse) dog-collar. I soon ascertained that:
1. Neither of the parties seeking marriage had been involved with, or responsible for, the breakdown of the marriage,
2. Both were willing, and in fact desirous, of some time working through the expectations, realities and demands of marriage in the form of a marriage preparation class,
3. The church looks at restoration, forgiveness and helping people to learn from their experiences and move on in their relationship with God and with each other. When this desire is matched by the couple, then it is our task to lead people forward and affirm them (and honour God), not penalise and exclude.
So there was nothing to stop them being remarried in church. This diocese applies canon law to weddings and so the general rule is that people may be remarried in church (once, any more than that needs a jolly good reasons for it),
Of course, there are some who will wave their Bibles at me and tell me that by marrying divorcees I am placing them in a position of 'permanent adultery' and am contravening Scriptural warrant. Well, let's take a quick look at this then:
I begin, M'lud with Matthew 19:
"Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. wWhat therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for porneia and marries another, commits adultery.”
Now, to contextualise the passage (always a good idea), as I understand it there were two prevalent attitudes regarding divorce. One said that you could divorce your wife for any reason, the other said you needed a reason (i.e. she was getting old, fat, couldn't cook - you know, something valid!!). Jesus is speaking against the trivialsation of marriage and the lack of commitment to it.
I have replaced the words 'sexual immorality' for the original 'porneia' because we find this word translated as so many things (adultery, marital unfaithfulness, sexual immorality, unchastity, etc.) and what is relevant here is that it is a serious issue, not a trivial one.
A book of Jewish custom and practice I have on my shelf tells of those who would divorce their wife and marry a younger woman for a period of time (weekend), divorce her and remarry the first wife so that they have had their jollies without being adulterous. Legal and right in the eyes of the Lord (hence the passage that prohibits remarriage to a former wife!). This is the minefield we enter when considering remarriage and divorce.
I have to go off to a staff meeting and so will leave you with an interim thought:
A bill of divorce is given to permit remarriage, not to end the marriage. The bill of divorce is a recognition that the marriage has ended and permits a person to be remarried without causing adultery to occur. Consider this:
In biblical times a woman finds herself divorced. She is no longer a wife and is no longer the property of her father. How does she live? She cannot remarry, for to do so would cause the man who takes her on to commit adultery. The woman is given a bill of divorce which states that she is ritually free to marry and that anyone who marries her is not in a state of adultery. Thus it is simple to demonstrate that the bill of divorce is a permission (ritually, theologically, practically) to remarry.
When one gives an engagement ring, it is a sign that a relationship exists, for it is not the ring that makes the relationship. It merely acknowledges what is.
When one gives a wedding ring, it does not make the marriage, the vows, promises and the couple do that, but it acknowledges that a marriage exists.
So too does the bill of divorce. It does not break the relationship, the couple have done that, but it recognises the break and makes it possible for restoration, succor, support and love that is marriage to exist with another, blessed and right before God.
Simples, isn't it?
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)