Blog Archives

On private weddings with children

4/26/2015

by Rev. Thurlow Weed

I was recently called to officiate a wedding for a couple who wanted to get married on the 1-year anniversary of their partnership. It was a second marriage for both; he a widower, she a divorcee. They both had young children from their previous marriages.   It was a private wedding in the couple's home, with their young children (and three growing & curious kittens!) present, along with the groom's grandmother and an older relative of the bride.   The children were in the 5-8 category.

In the traditional marriage ceremony, the question is asked, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?" This is a vestige of the time when women were considered property, and I dislike using this. Instead - and to bring awareness that the groom is an equal part of the event -- I prefer to ask "Who presents these people to be married to each other?"

Normally this would be answered by the parents of the couple, saying "We do!" But in this case there were no parents present.   But there were children!   So I suggested to the couple that when it came time for that question, I ask the children (who were quite happy that the two were getting married). They instantly like the idea. So several minutes into the ceremony, I asked each half of the couple if they were ready to take the other as their lawful wedded spouse, to which they said, "I do."

Then I smiled and turned around to the children, seated comfortably on a plush sofa, "Who presents these two people to be married to each other?" Three young'uns jumped up and down in their seats and squealed happily, "I do! We do!" And two older ladies grinning ear to ear! It was a fun way to involve the children in a way that made them a big part of the ceremony, much more than being ring-bearers or flower girls. I'll definitely keep this in mind for any future weddings that have a similar circumstance.

And nearly the entire time of the ceremony -- about 15 minutes -- I had a grey tabby kitten about 8 weeks old nosing around my feet inspecting me most carefully. A wonderful afternoon, and a very "real" wedding that was all about the couple and their family at home. No lavish over-the-top affair that's all about flash and glitz. No bridesmaids, no limousines, no fancy wedding dresses. Just very simple, and straightforward.

And then we had cake, accompanied by the revelation that the husband dislikes broccoli as much as I do. Also learned about an ice cream shop in town that has started serving Cinnabon-type decadence that I really should check out.            Soon.         Very soon!

Thurlow+

0 Comments

Some thoughts on marriage

4/15/2015

1 Comment

by Rev. Thurlow Weed

Marriage today is a hot topic in the United States. Slowly, one state at a time, same-sex marriage is being legalized. The left generally supports it, and the right is generally against it. We all know the arguments on both sides pretty well by now.

One of the main arguments used by the right is that marriage was instituted by God as being between one man and one woman; that marriage is Biblical. Of course, we know all too well that “Biblical” marriage is not limited to one man and one woman. Granted there may be only one man involved, but certainly not one woman! Just think about King Solomon!

Part of the right’s argument is that marriage is a religious institution, and most people you encounter there will assert that it has always been this way.   But this is far from correct. Marriage, historically, has been about property.   Until the 20th century, women had no voice. Women were literally property, human property, in much the same sense that slaves were the property of their owners. The only real difference between women and slaves in this respect is that the former were not “forced labor.”

A woman remained under the ownership of her father until marriage, at which point there was a ceremony for transferring the ownership from the father to the husband. It was not a religious ceremony, but in fact a legal one. It was a civil business transaction with witnesses, and an agent who oversaw the transaction. Usually there was an exchange of money involved, the husband having to purchase the woman from her father. This was called a bride token. Bear in mind also that most marriages were arranged by the parents.

To this day, marriage in most of the developed world remains a civil contract, with marriages being arranged. In many parts of the world, women are still considered to be the property of their fathers until marriage, at which point they become the property of the husbands. In most of the developed world, it is actually illegal to be married in the church, since the church is a religious institution, whereas marriage is not. Couples are required by law to be married by a magistrate in the courthouse or statehouse, after which they may have the marriage solemnized in a religious ceremony. My parents were married in Rome, Italy by a civil magistrate, and on a Friday, no less! (Italians don't get married on Friday, because supposedly it's considered bad luck.)

In England, clergy of the Church of England may conduct marriage ceremonies, but only because the Church of England is the State Church. Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, and other clergy are forbidden by law to conduct marriage ceremonies, but may solemnize.

In the United States, it’s quite different. Clergy are permitted to act as agents of the State and conduct marriage ceremonies. Most states require that clergy be licensed in order to do this; without the state-issued license no marriage would be valid or legal. Ohio, where I live, is one of those states. Ohio clergy must submit to the Secretary of State a copy of their credentials, along with a filing fee of ten dollars. Any marriage I conduct, even as a minister, I am doing so as an agent – a legal representative – of the State.

Does this mean I’ll marry any couple that calls or knocks on the door? Yes and no. In theory, someone could call me on the phone, and say, “We just got our marriage license, we just left the courthouse. Can you marry us this afternoon?” I could say yes, do the ceremony and collect my fee. But I hesitate to do that. Even though as a State agent, I could do a simple mechanical ceremony, I choose not to. Even my basic non-religious ceremony is quite spiritual in nature, and it is important to me that I take the time to meet with the couple beforehand, so as to get to know them at least a little bit, and also avoid any “Las Vegas” weddings.   On the other hand, my great-grandparents eloped on the Winter Solstice in 1898 to be married by a Justice of the Peace after having known each other for only a few months. They were married until parted by death in 1957, and had a very happy marriage.   So who’s to say?

So for me, a marriage ceremony – no matter how religious the verbiage of it may be – is still a civil ceremony. Therefore I will marry, if able, anyone who asks for it.   Even if they just got their license an hour ago, the fact they want a minister to do the ceremony says something. It tells me that religion, faith, God, plays some part in their lives. Otherwise, they’d have the clerk or notary at the courthouse conduct the ceremony. So if I can make the language of the ceremony just a little bit more religious than bare-bones civil, I think of it as planting a seed. With any luck, that seed will sprout and grow. But that is up to the couple.

1 Comment

A Progressive perspective on Atonement

4/13/2015

3 Comments

by Rev. Thurlow Weed

Atonement theology has long been considered a standard teaching of the Church. There are five basic versions of it: 1) Ransom/Christus victor theory; 2) Moral influence theory; 3) Satisfaction theory; 4) Recapitulation theory, and 5) Scapegoat theory. Penal substitution theory is a refinement of St Anselm’s Satisfaction theory that was developed by Protestant reformers such as Calvin and others.

They all revolve around the doctrine of Original Sin, which is the teaching that the sin of Adam & Eve (eating the fruit of knowledge) is passed down through all mankind. The various theories teach that Jesus’ crucifixion was necessary to save us and all mankind from all their sins, and to save us from eternal damnation; also to save us by pardoning us from original sin.

All but one: the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement. The West has largely rejected this theory of atonement, replacing it with the teachings of St Anselm and others. The Eastern churches still teach this earlier doctrine, though often in combination with Ransom and Christus victor models.

So what is the moral influence theory? In a nutshell, it is the teaching that Jesus came to save us from ourselves, not from sin. It is a doctrine that focuses on positive moral change as the heart of the Christian faith. It teaches that God’s concern is with our inner character, and whether our free will inclines that inner character to good or evil. A good inner character is one that is inclined to unselfish love to others. Moral Influence Theory teaches that God works through the hearts and minds of people to transform us into more loving societies. Central to the Moral Influence doctrine is the concept of Free Will, wherein all human beings are responsible for their own actions, and that we are all capable of change. Moral Influence doctrine generally rejects the doctrine of Original Sin.

So what then, does Jesus’ death mean, if he didn’t “die for our sins and for the sins of the whole world”? To answer that, we must look at what Moral Influence doctrine contains, upon what it is built. The doctrine looks at Jesus as a teacher, since most of the Gospel accounts place great emphasis on Jesus’ teachings. Second, the New Testament is filled with passages admonishing us to follow not only Jesus’ teaching, but his example. As a result of Jesus’ teachings and example, the Church has as a significant purpose that of the ability to transform people and society.

This brings us to the fourth item, that of Jesus’ crucifixion, which under Moral Influence is regarded as martyrdom – martyrdom as a consequence of his efforts to bring about moral transformation through the message and teaching of God’s love and acceptance.

You may then ask, “What, then, is the significance of the Resurrection?” The answer is that the Resurrection provides the evidence that an atonement occurred. The Resurrection extends the impact of his death, and thereby extends the impact of his life and teachings.

Jesus’ teachings and example were for us the way to “at-one-ment” with God. We are the bread of the world, the image & likeness of God scattered the world over. This is the bread of the Last Supper. In like manner, the wine is the blood we all may be called upon to shed as we follow Jesus’ teachings and example of grace, of love, of acceptance, of forgiveness.

As Progressive Christians, we continue this teaching of the early church, largely to the exclusion of all later teachings. We are taught to love as God loves us, as demonstrated through Jesus of Nazareth. The teachings are to bring us to the realisation that we are God’s image; God is in us, and we are in Him. When we come to this knowledge and understanding, and accept it and strive to live our lives accordingly – loving as we are loved, forgiving as we are forgiven -- then we will discover our own atonement.

3 Comments

What is a Priest?

4/5/2015

0 Comments

What is a priest? I have been asked this questions many times and this is how I answer (and what I hope for from each of the lay ministers, deacons, priest, and bishops of TPEC): A priest is someone who can walk into a coffee shop (or a bar) sit down, order a drink, read a paper, drink his drink, and leave - and the people in that establishment will be closer to healing, closer to maturity, closer to GOD for his presence.. A priest is a walking, talking, living conduit for the presence of GOD. In this way - every breath, every word, every thought, every act is an act of ministry...

+Mani Gilmore

0 Comments

Bishop's Corner

4/4/2015

0 Comments

The following article does not reflect the official theology or doctrine of The Progressive Episcopal Church. The Bishop's Corner is the personal reflections of Rt. Rev. Mansell C. Gilmore, the Presiding Bishop of The Progressive Episcopal Church.

An Honest Faith Part One: Healthy Spirituality

The quest for an authentic spirituality often begins in pain. Whether it is the result of dissatisfaction with the monotony of material life, the loss of a loved one, the suffering of the weak or the injustice of life, suffering at the hands of an uncaring or abusive religious institution, a crisis of faith, or even the result of a visionary experience or divine revelation, the quest for a spirituality that allows us to grow, allows us to transcend the empty platitudes and rituals of normal religious life, a spirituality that can serve as a foundation and support for continued growth and evolution is most often born out of a personal crisis.

0 Comments

On private weddings with children

Some thoughts on marriage

A Progressive perspective on Atonement

What is a Priest?

Bishop's Corner

About

Archives

Categories