The big church news of the week has been the Church of England publishing a liturgy for a combined wedding-and-baptism service. And it's not the couple getting married who are to be baptised, it is their children.
Now, my own prejudice is to think that baptism is best reserved for those able to answer for themselves, but let us leave that on one side for now.
Reactions to the news have been mixed: some have said that it is yet another nail in the coffin of the church's teaching; that it is one thing to marry those who have been "living in sin", it is quite another to endorse their lifestyle by enshrining in liturgy a mis-ordered family where the birth of the children precedes the wedding. Others have said that it is a good pragmatic response to modern realities: that given the Church of England's role as the established church, open to all comers, it is better to welcome people in all conditions of life, rather than to turn them away. Still others have said that it is in fact a great celebration of God's grace: that it is never too late to regularize one's family relationships, and that it is most excellent to celebrate and affirm those who wish to do so.
I confess sympathy for all of these positions. Pragmatism gets you a very long way - and so does grace. And yet, you have to look at the message being given, as well as the impact on individuals. There is, surely, value in bringing children into the world in a stable relationship, rather than stabilizing it later: and if you preach that, but make plans for other patterns of family life, you surely seem to present a mixed message.
But life is mixed and messy. I don't doubt that this liturgy has arisen from genuine pastoral need. And so I must assume that it will be a significant and valuable part of a faith journey for some families. The promises made at an Anglican baptism involve the sponsors answering for themselves and for the children (whatever that means :-) ) and saying that they turn to Christ, and renounce evil. That's something to celebrate, however it comes about.
2009/07/26
2009/07/20
2009/07/11
just when I thought life was wierd enough
Our church uses a common cup for communion. Each person wipes it before passing it to the next person. The alcohol in the wine is said to act as a mild antiseptic: I have no idea if that is true.
With the spectre of swine flu sweeping the nation, government advice is to avoid common cups and plates. So we have to think about 'going Baptist' and using individual cups. I think we may be using miniature medicine cups tomorrow: but I've been googling around to see what else might be on offer at a reasonable price.
Some of the more bizarre offers I've found include:
With the spectre of swine flu sweeping the nation, government advice is to avoid common cups and plates. So we have to think about 'going Baptist' and using individual cups. I think we may be using miniature medicine cups tomorrow: but I've been googling around to see what else might be on offer at a reasonable price.
Some of the more bizarre offers I've found include:
- Portable communion sets. Would you like yours in silver or Pewter? In a leather case? Old English style, or Georgian?
- Or perhaps you'd like pre-filled cups with wafers. "Our prefilled communion cups and wafers include both the wafer and grape juice in one sanitary, single-serving sanitary container." I confess that this one has me giggling uncontrollably. The word "incongruous" is just insufficient to cover it.
- A helpful Time article explains some of the trials of military chaplains, overcome with paper communion cups (enough to make a real presence adherent shudder a great deal, I wager).
On the night before he died,The Eucharist is a mystery. Looking too closely at it makes it mundane, to be sure. I guess we have to, from time to time. But let us worship with thankfulness, too.
he came to supper with his friends
and, taking bread, he gave you thanks.
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
2009/06/28
*rolls eyes*
 Pastor Ken Pagano says he wants to show that gun owners are law-abiding |
A pastor in the US state of Kentucky has told his flock to bring handguns to church in what he says is an effort to promote safe gun ownership.
Pastor Ken Pagano told parishioners to bring their unloaded guns to New Bethel Church in Louisville for a service celebrating the right to bear arms.
He said he acted after church members voiced fears the Obama administration could tighten gun control laws.
2009/06/22
Church blesses Fathers with beer
Rather lovely.
[The bishop] argued that the free beer was intended to be symbolic of "the generosity of God".
2009/06/13
what about the heretics?
A colleague of mine is a Mormon. That's prompted me to do a bit of reading. If Evangelicals can be weird at times, Mormons are sure weirder. I suppose that distrusting/disliking/fearing "the cults" has long been an article of faith for Evangelical-me: what is that going to mean for post-Evangelical me?
[Well, I learn that Glenn Beck is apparently a Mormon (apologies if I'm wrong: I have no wish to defame Mormons needlessly). That's not a good advert.]
I suppose that my point is that deciding that it's time to hold onto truth a little less tightly; deciding that a whole lot of things I've previously assumed are actually a whole lot more fluid than I might have admitted; deciding that just because St. Paul believed something doesn't mean that I have to; deciding these things doesn't mean being willing to accept just anything as reasonable.
That's sort-of obvious, of course. It doesn't make sense to replace one set of weird dogmas with a weirder set. But perhaps it needs saying anyway. And of course, it begs a question about how one decides.
[Well, I learn that Glenn Beck is apparently a Mormon (apologies if I'm wrong: I have no wish to defame Mormons needlessly). That's not a good advert.]
I suppose that my point is that deciding that it's time to hold onto truth a little less tightly; deciding that a whole lot of things I've previously assumed are actually a whole lot more fluid than I might have admitted; deciding that just because St. Paul believed something doesn't mean that I have to; deciding these things doesn't mean being willing to accept just anything as reasonable.
That's sort-of obvious, of course. It doesn't make sense to replace one set of weird dogmas with a weirder set. But perhaps it needs saying anyway. And of course, it begs a question about how one decides.
2009/05/25
sometimes, you just sigh
There are whacky people out there. The linked story describes a renegade 'priest' who is offering - for a fee - 'consecrated' communion by post. (Only the bread/wafers... I guess wine would be a whole lot more complicated).
I guess we'll always have such curiosities. The man's charges are not high, so I guess he's doing it from pure motives, not to make money.
But the really weird bit is the chatter of blog responses - from apparently faithful Catholics who are discussing whether, through a series of exceptions and loopholes, the items received through the post are really transubstantiated flesh. Who needs Dan Brown when you have this stuff? Come to that, who needs role-playing games with bizarre rules, when you have an ongoing disucssion about Old Catholic Orders and the mispronounciation of the Tridentine Mass?
Now, I suspect that my own spirituality (changing as it is) would also look absurd if pressed to extremes and held up to skeptical analysis. But I'd like for it not to be (absurd, that is). The gospel is counter-intuitive (foolishness, even): the last, first; others before yourself; things that don't come easily. But that's a far cry from making up crazy, arbitrary rules, surely?
I guess we'll always have such curiosities. The man's charges are not high, so I guess he's doing it from pure motives, not to make money.
But the really weird bit is the chatter of blog responses - from apparently faithful Catholics who are discussing whether, through a series of exceptions and loopholes, the items received through the post are really transubstantiated flesh. Who needs Dan Brown when you have this stuff? Come to that, who needs role-playing games with bizarre rules, when you have an ongoing disucssion about Old Catholic Orders and the mispronounciation of the Tridentine Mass?
Now, I suspect that my own spirituality (changing as it is) would also look absurd if pressed to extremes and held up to skeptical analysis. But I'd like for it not to be (absurd, that is). The gospel is counter-intuitive (foolishness, even): the last, first; others before yourself; things that don't come easily. But that's a far cry from making up crazy, arbitrary rules, surely?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)