AUSTRALIA’S largest and most conservative Anglican diocese will tomorrow approve changes that would permit couples to marry in church, whether or not they are Christian.
The change to be passed at the Sydney synod tomorrow makes the diocese the 14th of the country’s 23 to approve the reform that would allow an unbaptised Australian to be married in church provided he or she meets the basic standards for civil marriage: a union between a man and woman voluntarily entered into for life.
The change was first mooted at the Anglican general synod in 2007. It has since been put to the different dioceses for agreement and will go back to the national synod next year. Of 16 dioceses that have so far considered it, 13 have agreed, including Melbourne and Adelaide, with Sydney to follow tomorrow, breaching the halfway mark.
The reform drops the “faith requirement” promulgated in 1981 that requires at least one half of the couple be baptised into the Christian faith (not necessarily Anglican).
[i]”My target market are people who wouldn’t call themselves Christian,” the Reverend James said yesterday.
“They are people who have no relationship with God, who want to get married in a church and I welcome them with open arms.”
He doesn’t always know why couples who aren’t Christian want to marry in his church, but suspects it may be because the church is pretty and the service so lovely.
“But that’s OK. I want unchurched people, who don’t have a church, to come to us,” he said.
“My concern is, for too long, churches have been turning away people because they don’t fulfil the criteria.
“I’m not going to knock back people who aren’t Christian. I marry them, and I tell them God is present, and I pray for them, and they love it. And maybe, just maybe, we can introduce them to God that way.”[/i]
I’m doing my best not to be critical of this apparent attempt to “reach out” to unchurched people. Maybe we can introduce people to God this way. But I have trouble understanding the logic of it.
In the Marriage Rite in our Anglican prayer books, bride and groom make promises “according to God’s holy ordnance,” public promises “witnessed… before God and this company” (i.e., the community of faith that is going to support the couple in keeping their marriage vows).
If only one of the 2 persons– bride or groom– believes in Jesus, the believing spouse can serve as the “priest” of the marriage. (1 Corinthians 7:14-15) But if neither one is a believer, how are they not embarking on this most important step of their lives– a step that we hope they will remain committed to until death– how are they not entering on their marriage on a false note?
How is this not just a form of pandering to the culture? Seems to me, it just reinforces the culture’s assumptions about the Church: “Full of hypocrites.” Church is where we say all kinds of things that we don’t really mean.
Someone help me understand this, please.
Pax Christi!
Chuck Bradshaw, Hulls Cove, Maine
But, pastorchuckie, if Sydney believes marriage is not a sacrament, and holds a very “low” view of the sacraments, even the Eucharist and Baptism, what is the problem?
2. Dan Crawford wrote: “…what is the problem?”
Oy, vey!
Maranatha!
Chuck
This is apostasy of the highest order. Between this and lay presidency, who can doubt that though “conservative” – orthodox Sydney Anglicans are not.
Have the Aussies gone bonkers? It sure looks like they have!
Incorrect. One half of the couple must be Catholic, the other need not be Christian. St. Paul allows Christians to marry unbelievers (“for the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband”) and the Church permits it provided that the non-Christian partner indicates that they 1) understand the sanctity of sacramental marriage; 2) will not interfere with the Catholic’s partner’s practice of their religion; 3) will not seek to prevent any children resulting from the marriage from being raised in the Catholic faith. There is no mass, but the marriage can be performed in a church. (Indeed, every marriage solemnized by a Catholic priest must be performed in a church without a dispensation for a significant reason.)
Calling David Ould to comment on this one.
I am withholding judgment on this matter. In England, as I understand it, parish clergy are required by law to perform civil marriages on behalf of the state for all citizens resident within their own parish. I do not believe that there is a similar law in Australia, but recognize there may be a common cultural tradition involved which is taken for granted in the article.
This is most unfortunate. One does not make something (in this case Christianity) attractive by debasing its sacred rites. (I recall reading something about casting pearls before swine… but I digress.) And of course there is the question of theology. It would seem the Anglicans in Australia have definitively abandoned even the thinnest claim to adhering to the catholic tradition.
Rome’s rules (as noted above) are much stricter as they preserve a clear sacramental theology. (The Orthodox rules are even stricter.) But then again once one starts handing out communion to anyone who walks through the door on a no questions asked basis this really is rather a non-issue.
In ICXC
John
Non-christians have their children baptized in the Anglican communion, receive communion, sit on vestries (one of the infrequent contributors here, search for yourself) , why exactly NOT marry them? My sister is godmother to the daughter of a religion teacher in Britain, an atheist, by the way. Not a problem at all, and this was over 30 years ago. Nothing newsworthy here.
If they’ll marry non-Christians, why not baptize them, or give them communion: those (especially the latter) would be good “evangelization strategies.” No, wait — maybe that’s why “open communion” has come into such vogue in ECUSA.
Just to add/clarify a bit to #6:
For a Catholic to marry a non-baptized person requires what is called a Dispensation from Disparity of Cult. Is it not, or at least should not be, “automatic,” but only based on careful consultation between the parties and the pastor (or other priest).
I believe, however, that a marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person is NOT a sacramental marriage: it is marriage in the natural law, witnessed by the Church, that once validly entered nevertheless retains its character of binding unto death. By virtue of one of the parties missing the character of baptism, the two parties cannot confect a sacramental union.
The dispensation referred to by #6 in her last sentence falls under a Dispensation from Canonical Form (which includes various other matters).
Re # 11
uscetae,
Interesting. The Orthodox position is a bit less complicated. We don’t do it. The only way to be Orthodox while married to a non-Christian is if both were initially pagan and married outside the church and one later converts. The Church permits such persons to receive communion while in a non-sacramental marriage through economy.
This rule also applies to a number of pseudo-Christian sects such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In ICXC
John
Too bad so many prayer books are gathering dust in the pews, having been conveniently re-written and left wanting. Hopefully the priest who would want to reach the un-churched will require pre-marital Christian counseling and use only the words of the Prayer Book in the solemnization of the marriage. It would be a terrible scandal for such a priest to permit vows to be composed by the un-churched. I have a vision of alcohol laced party frivolity replacing the solemn beauty of holiness that attends marriage in a church. It seems to me that the parties can be elsewhere. Gather ye Prayer Books and read.
#11 — I believe you are correct. Certainly it is true that marriage between a Catholic and a non-Christian may be dissolved under the so-called “Pauline exception” — however that refers to the non-Christian spouse deserting the Christian spouse. The Christian spouse is not bound for life to be available for the non-Christian spouse to decide to repent and come back. This is quite different from “having found somebody else I now want to dump the Jewish guy I married in the Church.”
Buck up, now. If the non christian can’t marry, they can still just shack up with no notice whatever. Vicar, laity, hetero, whatever. Actually, “Whatever” is the usual arrangement, isn’t it?
Lemme see… an unbaptised nonChristian fella or gal off the street can be married before the priest instead of having to look for a magistrate.
Great! Now I can expect that my rent dispute can also be handled before the priest–maybe he’ll be cheaper than the magistrate.
And of course, now there is no need to find a priest to pronounce absolution for my many sins. I’ll just ask the local magistrate.
#11,14 – all true, one other thing though: the Dispensation from Disparity of Cult must ultimately be approved by the diocesan ordinary. The priest makes the recommendation but the bishop signs off on it. I had to get this to marry my wife, who is not Catholic (yet) and was not baptized. Her parents are atheists, her grandmother a Southern Baptist who took her to her church for a number of years but she stopped going before she was old enough to be baptized.
On another note: guess what comes after this, when the basic standards for civil marriage changes?