Mike's musings

A proper Essex wedding

Mel and Dean got married today, and, as it was a proper Essex wedding, there was a reference in the best man's speech to a kidnapping. None to "shooters" (or "shoo'uhs"), which was a disappointment, but way to go.

Jo was a bridesmaid, something she'd been looking forward to for months. Possibly over a year. She looked gorgeous. So did Miri and Moo (there will be pictures to come, hopefully), but Jo looked just the way a 3 and a half year old bridesmaid ought to look. Beautiful and gorgeous.

Well done Mel and Dean.

Labels: Jo, marriage

Kim's wedding!

(backposting) In the morning, we got up and went to Freeport. The official reasons where:

• to get a wedding card for Kim and and Andy and
• to get my watch fixed.

It was mainly to get out of the house, actually. We got back in time for lunch and then to go to Kim's wedding to Andy. Miriam's not been very well - running a nasty temperature - but she's just got non-specific toddleritis. The wedding went well (they both said "I will"!), although I had to take Jo out twice to go to the loo.

When we headed out to the meal, Miri still wasn't great, but managed OK - keep them dosed up with the relevant medication. Kim and Andy had asked me to say a grace at the beginning of the meal, which was a real honour. It was also my first outing in a public forum in the clerical shirt and tie. I wore a black shirt and a linen suit - having tried on a grey shirt and two other suits.

We had a good time at the meal, sitting on a table with Gena and a bunch of Kim's previous colleagues. Jo enjoyed playing with April, a girl she knows from pre-school and elsewhere, and who was a bridesmaid. Jo was, however, a little bit put out that she (Jo) didn't get a present from the bride and groom, whereas April did...

At the disco afterwards, they were taking requests, and, aware of the shirt and collar, I requested (and got) "Spirit in the Sky". Top tune.

Buster seemed a bit better this morning, having had some food, and so I didn't take him to the vet. I managed to get his pills down him to in the morning and before we went out to the post-wedding party (wedding breakfast). When we got back, though, he was very drooly, and panty, and I was quite worried about him. But he went to bed OK, though he'd not wanted to come in from the garden after going out.

Labels: buster, marriage

Women bishops: yay! Maybe another 13 years of marriage, too

Rowan Williams said: "I am deeply unhappy with any scheme or any solution to this which ends up, as it were, structurally humiliating women who might be nominated to the episcopate." The General Synod voted "for". This means that we're going to have women bishops in the Church of England. And no "super-bishops", as the BBC puts it. A Code of Practice for people who won't accept this.

Given Moo's views on this, this means that there's a decent chance that we'll manage another 13 years of marriage: we were married in King's College Chapel on the 8th July 1995. She's pleased, as am I. Oh - I meant about women bishops, though I think we're both pleased about 13 years of marriage.

This particular entry isn't going very well, but that's mainly because we're watching Series 1 of Peep Show, which I got Moo as a present. And I've been laughing too much.

Labels: church, humour, marriage, Moo, women

Bishop

The deal is that before you're ordained, you need to meet the bishop who's going to ordain you. He (and they're all still men in the Church of England, I'm afraid) has the final say as to whether it's a "go" or "no-go". I met the Bishop of Chelmsford and had a good chat about a number of things, including preparation for the ordination retreat and the office of the diaconate. He was very positive, and I think (and pray!) that we're ready to go. He mentioned that several other people had told him that it feels a bit like getting ready to get married: apprehensive, but sure you're doing the right thing.

Labels: marriage, ordination

Time

Moo's spent the day on a course talking (among other things, I think) about work-life balance, and we've just spent half an hour on the phone trying to find some time with each other in the next two months. Not helped by the fact that the trip to Singapore that I'd tentatively booked ends up being over the second of the two Bank Holiday Mondays in May that I'll be travelling for.

Hmmm.

Labels: marriage, travel

Polyamory - polygamy and polyandry

A friend showed me this post, and asked me to comment on it. In the end, I had so much to say that I thought it made sense to blog it. Hope people find it interesting.

The post: very difficult, very challenging. I struggle with it, on a number of levels.

Let's start with marriage. I'd like to think that (life-long) marriage is the model that we have been given, and which is the ideal to which we are called. But there are problems from the start:

• not all marriages work, and it's not always anyone's fault.
• even when there is someone at fault, should we force people to stay in a loveless marriage and not divorce?
• and why not remarry, then?
• what about gays, lesbians and transgendered people? I can't see any godly reason why their relationships shouldn't be blessed. And I struggle to see why such a relationship shouldn't be a marriage. We can't use the children argument anymore, surely? I've yet to see a theological argument to convince me that we shouldn't remodel marriage in this way (there are lots of issues to do with ecclesiastical reasons to do with schism), though I'm still not sure where I stand
• so, I'm forced to think hard about what I think a marriage is.

Why not more people in a marriage, then? As the poster points out, there's biblical precedent for a man having more than one wife - and though the other way round (one woman, more than one husband) isn't attested to, one assumes that the patriarchal nature of biblical society would be likely to condone this, given the view of women as owned goods, rather than owners. By Jesus' time, however, it seems that the current model was the accepted one. It's also the case that Christians have accepted polygamous marriage in some societies where they've tried to contextualise their mission activity - in Africa, for instance.

So, it's difficult.

And why one-to-one? Well, apart from the historical reasons about needing a mix of male and female to make babies, I suspect that a major reason that most societies worldwide have settled on two-person relationships is that they work best. Relationships are fluid things, and it's difficult enough with children, but having multiple adults will make for more complicated relationships. And sex complicates things. Sexual jealousy is a fact of life, and although people may, at one particular time, not feel jealousy sexually, I suspect that for many people, that can and often will change over time - sometimes more, sometimes less. And sex, I really believe, is, like all good things about being human, a gift from God. It can be misused, but it can be a hugely rewarding, affirming and joyful experience: one of the great things that you can share with another human being.

I think sex is important in this context because there are many family set-ups where lots of people live in the same space - or set of spaces - and care for each other. But the sexual elements of the family relationships tend to be the cementing aspects between particular members.

I talked about "most societies worldwide" settling on two-person relationships. I think there are some questions we need to ask here. The first is "what about God's revelation through scripture?" Indeed - and I think there are very important things to learn here, but we need to be very aware of the readings of scripture we make here - the book "What the Bible really says about homosexuality" is a good source-book here. So, there certainly is guidance to be gained. But I also believe that God, through the workings of the Holy Spirit, works through societies, whether Christian or not, and through the individuals that comprise them - again, whether Christian or not. But there are dangers here, too - where do we stand on the issue that most societies are (still) strongly patriarchal?

Two biblical points: first, the fact that Jesus' first great work was at a marriage (at Cana, of course) has traditionally (and with very good reason, I believe) been seen as an important sign that marriage is an institution blessed by God.

Second, Jesus (in Luke 20:34ff) says "Those who belong in this age marry and are given to marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage." This is the NRSV translation, and there's an interesting note in the HarperCollins Study version on 20:34: "Marry, i.e., to procreate. This is no longer necessary for those who inherit eternal life in the age to come." First, saying that marry = procreate doesn't seem fair to the Greek. I'm not a Greek scholar, but other uses of the the lemma from which this word comes ("gamein"), though it seems to come from a meaning around procreation ("gamete" in English is cognate, I suspect) seems to mean "marriage" when used by New Testament writers, particularly Paul. I have no idea what Aramaic word Jesus was using! Second (on the note in the study version), Jesus _actually_ talks about "those who are considered worthy", which is different. Of course, _we_ can't decide who's considered worthy. Peake's commentary is interesting here:

"[XX:]35. Lk. corrects Mk's apparent implication that all the sons of this age will attain the resurrection life. It is very unlikely that Kl.'s change to Mk's wording imples a view that men are fitted by celibacy in this life to attain the age to come; marriage is considered in this passage solely from the point of view of legal relationship and the procreation of children. No conclusions can be drawn from it concerning the character of Christian marriage."

I'm not sure that I agree with the last sentence: where else are we supposed to take scriptural guidance, if not from Jesus' words? It's a complicated passage, and I don't think that Peake helps much. (NB - I've checked the Synoptic parallels, and they're very similar: Luke has the most material of the three).

There's a last point which complicates matters for me. In the strict Protestant tradition, the only sacraments are Baptism and Communion, as those are the only ones instituted by Jesus Christ. Indeed, the 25th Article of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer states:

Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, begin such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not the like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign of ceremony ordained of God.

I take a high view of marriage, however, and for me, my marriage _is_ a sacrament. But I'm not sure I'm ready to force others to this view. But I think we can agree that it's a divinely ordained institution. That can't help but sway my views on how seriously we take marriage and related issues.

Note - I think there is one area where this poster doesn't meet the marriage criteria: she says that at least one of the members isn't ready for commitment. That's a big one for me. Commitment to each other in front of God and a congregation (preferably of those you know, whether that's family or friends) is a sine qua non for me.

I don't think I'm ready to condemn - I'm not a big fan of condemnation anyway - but I certainly have some reservations about what the poster describes, whether it works for her or not.

Labels: marriage, theology