Wednesday, 1 October 2008

More wedding choices - but choice of what ?


As from today anyone wishing to be married has a greater choice of the venue following new rules from the Anglican Church
Where previously couples could get married in a church only if they attended regularly or lived in the parish, it will now be easier to have their wedding service in a church where they have a family or special connection – anywhere they have lived for six months or where their parents or grandparents were married.
The Bishop of Reading says “ People who are serious about getting married naturally want a marriage ceremony and a setting which is equally serious - only the Church provides this”.
Perhaps, but if you are that serious about getting married, does it really matter where this happens, or rather in which church it happens?


A church is a church. Granted, many are more beautifully situated, historically connected or architecturally significant. But isn’t the idea that the marriage is taking place in the presence of God ? And surely, God is all around and everywhere (if you believe in a god, that is) The Bishop again, believes people want something only the Church can offer: God's blessing on their marriage and that now it will be easier to provide it. I can’t get my head around why the actual church building makes it easier to provide this service.

The Church of England also says that the changes are in response to the increasing mobility of society - many people move away from where they grew up – and there was a need for change from the restrictions stopping some people from marrying in a church.
Why?
Are some who are intent on marrying in church, for whatever reason, so averse to the church in their own parish ? If so, is this because the surroundings are not pretty enough for the photographs and dvd ?
Cynicism setting in? Maybe.
In the town where I live we are “lucky” for want of a better word. An ancient parish church in a beautiful, peaceful setting. St Bartholomew’s just happens to be the Anglican Church here. But if I truly believed in God and wanted my marriage blessed in this way in a church, I wouldn’t care if the building was a concrete box.



6 comments:

Michael said...

No real comment, stripped down marriage is no more than religious and governmental certification of co-habitation.

I am afraid too many brides seem to consider the occassion/event rather than. The cost of the average church wedding now exceeds £25,000 - a lot of money for something statistically, will end in tears. At every wedding a divorce lawyer rubs his hands together while thinking of his pension fund. How much to undo this terrible thing we have done?

Ban them! but only because I'm cynical.

madeline bassett said...

Hi, sorry to post this here, but there's no relevant other space. I'm writing to you because you posted a comment on The Ugley Vicar site, about holocaust denial. John Richardson doesn't accept my comments there, because I challenge him, and he doesn't like to be challenged. I sent him this link: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/ but he won't put it up. The Institute is Toben's own creation. It is, as you can see, fascist, Anti-semitic, and inciting people to racial hateed and violence. By supporting Toben's right of free speech you are supporting the propogation of these views. Toben is not just a holocaust denier, because holocaust denial is part of a package of views aiming to repeat the holocaust. I thought I should let you know this. Best wishes, Madeline.

Lexia said...

Thanks madeline - will get back to you re the link asap. Please feel free to post your views on anything on this blog..I am quite open to others views regardless of whether they are my own or not !

best wishes
Lexia

madeline bassett said...

Thanks for that, Lexia. I hope when you have seen what Toben is really about you will go back to The Ugley vicar and withdraw your support for him.

Lexia said...

madeline: I have looked at the information from the adelaide institute and agree with you that it appears to be anti semitic and inciting racial hatred. However, my post on the Ugley Vicar blog was not to agree with Toben's views but to disagree with Britain's policy to arrest and extradite based on the laws of another country. I said that the fact that certain expressions of ideas are illegal in this country is to me, clearly worrying.But Britain does not have the Holocaust denier laws that Germany has and it seems to be making a race hatred crime out of what should be classed as freedom of speech. I do not agree that Toben should be arrested here, in Germany perhaps as it is their people and governments decision to make.

I hope this clarifies my views. I was not commenting on Toben's views - but as John Richardson said, defending the right to have views, which was and still should be , the law in this country.

madeline bassett said...

Hi, thank you for your reply. I really don;t want to labour the point, but as we do have laws in this country against inciting racial hatred I think it's absolutely right to use them in this way. As a rule, I'm against censorship, but there have to be limits to freedom of speech and I think Toben goes beyond those limits. In the same way, someone who had a website promoting paedophila should not be tolerated.