The Lead

Giving a new meaning to Married with Children, the Church of England has introduced a family-friendly ceremony where you and your co-habitating partner can marry, and your progeny can be baptized. The fee the church charges is virtually the same as if the ceremonies were conducted on separate occasions. A spokesman for the Church said the ceremony was environmentally and socially responsible given the substantial post-ceremony savings in hiring a venue and a caterer. (No, this is not a spoof.)

Reuters:

"Family-friendly weddings" will make it easier for those with children to marry in church, the Church of England said on Thursday as it launched an appeal to cohabiting couples in an increasingly secular Britain. If successful, it would also mean more young people being baptized into the Church.

The decision follows research showing that one in five couples in Britain who get married in church already have children. But critics say such a move condones sex before marriage and will reinforce the trend toward cohabitation.
...
"We are not changing our teachings. It is not something that should particularly contradict views of traditionalists," said a spokesman for the Church, which has about 1.7 million regular worshippers, but which has seen Sunday church attendance in Britain decline sharply over the past decade.

Ruth Gledhill:

Stephen Parkinson, of the Anglo-Catholic group Forward in Faith, said: “The proper place for a baptism is not during a wedding but during the Sunday morning act of worship so the congregation can welcome a new Christian. It is a shame that what should be a bride’s day now stands to be hijacked by screaming kids.”
...
Stephen Platten, Bishop of Wakefield and chairman of the liturgical commission, which drew up the service, said: “This does not mean the Church is changing its teaching. This is a way for the Church to reinforce its commitment to marriage. The Church has always attempted to meet people where they are. But it has also tried to teach something of what it believes the Christian faith to be.”

Parkinson was not asked how it was possible for a bride to hijack her own wedding when she retains the option of separate ceremonies.

At the official Church of England website you can find the news release, A wider wedding welcome for families - Church offers family-friendly weddings for couples with children, as well as the liturgical guidelines.

Addendum. Commenter Peter Carey wondered about whether there really were fees for sacraments. There are indeed fees as this discussion at the recent C of E synod illustrates.

Comments (5)

With all that is curious about this, why is it that a wedding is always "the bride's day"? Isn't that a bit sexist and exclusionary? Does the groom count at all, or is he just a prop to fill out the mise en scène? Is marriage the joining of a man and a woman into an icon of the loving bond between Christ and his church, or just a once-in-a-lifetime chance for a woman to be a fashion model for a day?

Posted by Gregory | July 23, 2009 8:16 PM

Does the C of E not already baptize the offspring of un-married couples?

Gregory's reaction to Stephen Parkinson's comment about "a bride's day" is very similar to mine. Yes, where is the groom? Isn't it also his day? Parkinson does seem to reveal FiF's tendency to an anachronistic view of gender relations. In any case, if the couple already have children, they would--one hopes--be present and part of the service, whether or not they are being baptized. And why assume that they will be "screaming"? Does Parkinson, perhaps, believe that the un-married have especially loud or badly-behaved children? ;-)

Posted by William Gilders | July 23, 2009 8:51 PM

I agree that a wedding day is not solely for the bride...of course!

My only quibble is the claim (hopefully wrongful) that the C of E is making people pay a fee for the sacraments. (Perhaps the fee is for the organist or something, but I thought (at least) baptism would not require a fee)!

"The fee the church charges is virtually the same as if the ceremonies were conducted on separate occasions."

Hmmm...is THIS how they are paying the Lambeth Conference Deficit!?

;)

Peter Carey+

Posted by Peter Carey | July 23, 2009 10:16 PM

The notion that the wedding is the bride's day is sexist, betraying an institution out of step with the people it claims to serve. What if there are two brides or two grooms? Whose day would it be? What about admitting that marriage is a covenant of two loving persons?

What would motivate happy secular couples living together with children want to go to the C of E to be married and have their children baptized? Would it not make more sense for them to get civil marriages?

Gary Paul Gilbert

Posted by garydasein | July 24, 2009 12:48 AM

You write it's not a spoof, but honestly, when I read the story I thought, "This is one for The Onion." :-)

- Jay Vos

Posted by dutchfox | July 24, 2009 2:28 AM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations