Even if William and Catherine have the Church of England’s Common Worship liturgy at their marriage service, counter-cultural (in the UK at any rate) Christian truth would get a much-needed public airing. But if they get the Book of Common Prayer, some serious punches for biblical Christianity could be landed.
Here is why the high priests of establishment political correctness could find themselves squirming in the Abbey:
• Right from the start, the Prayer Book's 'Form of Solemnization of Matrimony' insists that marriage is between a man and a woman: ‘Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony’.
• It insists that marriage has a transcendent, spiritual purpose that is uniquely Christian: ‘holy Matrimony (is) an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifiying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church’.
• It insists that sex before or outside heterosexual marriage is morally wrong: ‘It (Matrimony) was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body’.
• It insists that there is a final day of judgement on which the whole of mankind will appear before the Christian God. The officiating minister declares: ‘I require and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement, when the secrets of all hearts will be disclosed'.
• It insists on the complementary differences between the sexes. The form of vows is different for the man and the woman. The woman promises to ‘obey’ her husband, reflecting his God-given duty to provide loving leadership in the marriage.
• It insists that it is not God's moral will for the marriage that He has made to end in divorce. Before the congregation who have just witnessed the solemn vows (in this case the nation), the minister joins their right hands together and says: ‘Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder.’
All the above emphases are gross sins against the cult of secular permissiveness that has held the English-speaking world in a grip of self-obsessed superstition since the 1960s. The devil will no doubt be actively scheming to ensure that the Christian emphases at the Royal Wedding are downplayed.
But it is unlikely that he will succeed altogether. By God's grace, the couple have already chosen to get married in a building consecrated for the purposes of Christian worship.
Even in a national Church seriously debilitated by theological liberalism, it would be impossible for the Name of Jesus Christ not to be uttered in public in a positive light.
God willing, William and Catherine will get the historic liturgy of the Church of England as the form of words in which publicly to express their understanding of the God-given institution of heterosexual marriage which they have chosen to enter.
May God the Holy Trinity bless them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most excellent.
ReplyDeleteThe BCP marriage service has one serious theological fault, perpetuated in 1928, but corrected in Series 3 (which was used at my own wedding in 1980), the ASB and Common Worship; it states that the causes for which marriage was ordained were children, sex, and companionship. The later liturgies stated - correctly - that the causes were companionship, sex, and children.
ReplyDeleteAnd I still wonder whether Prince Charles' first marriage would have turned out differently if he had undertaken to "be faithful to" Diana - he would have known what that meant - rather than "keep [himself] only unto" her, which might mean anything.
I hope Prince William and Catherine Middleton will be married according to a rite which both they, and the majority of the former's future subjects watching on television, will actually understand.
(By the way, I'm also a Iwerne veteran....)
As a PS to my previous post: I believe that the use of 17th (or really 16th) century language for such a public occasion will only make the Church of England look even more ridiculous and out-of touch to the outsider than it does already. Let's face it, Cranmer didn't choose to write his liturgy in Chaucerian English; he wrote it for worshippers to be able to understand.
ReplyDeleteI've given up listening to the carol service from King's on Christmas Eve because their continued use of the 1611 translation of the Bible makes the whole thing sound like a fairy story - and I, for one, don't believe it is one.
Thank Sir for a fantastic array of comments on other posts as well. May I ask Steve who?
ReplyDeleteWhat Steve said.
ReplyDeleteWe have to decide whether, as the CofE, we're in this for our own satisfaction, to hear the words which we want to hear and will make us feel better, or whether we have a responsibility to the nation to share the gospel in a 'language understooded of the people'. If it's the former, fine, use the BCP, and lets drift into irrelevance in our own little subcultural bubble.
Though in my experience, far more than any liturgy that is used, is whether the priest conducting the ceremony knows and cares for the couple, and is able to make the service 'work' as an act of worship. Wedding ceremonies can be the high point, or the low point, of the couples day, depending on how well they are led.