I did NOT like that secret marriage at the end. To me that was exactly the wrong thing to do, and also sent the message that clergy who *don't* do things that way are the bad guys. As one of the clergy who does not do things that way, I am irked.
Here's the problem -- the conflict was all framed as being about getting in trouble, not wanting to get in trouble, how not to get in trouble. The archdeacon's "unity of the church" was at least one second of belief in something other than self-interest. But getting in trouble is not the point. When one is ordained, one takes a VOW to the bishop. It is a vow which is, in fact, very like a marriage (Andrea and I were joking the other day about being in a committed and permanent vowed relationship with our bishop), and like a marriage it is essentially about a relationship, or actually several relationships -- priest-bishop and priest-community most importantly. You do not manage conflict in a relationship by doing things secretly, at least not if you want that relationship to be healthy in any way. Adam appears to have conducted the marriage secretly from both bishop and community. That's … vaguely like adultery, actually.
When you have a conscience matter, and this *is* a conscience matter, no denying, you need to *talk* to your bishop about it. Of course we have not really seen the bishop and know nothing much about him/her. Speaking to the archdeacon is perhaps a substitute, but that conversation never reached the level of "how will we handle the conscience issue." And it must.
My own solution -- discussed in excruciating detail with my archdeacon, as stand-in for the bishop -- was to decline my license to perform marriages at all. I don't marry anyone, gay or straight. I am pretty happy with that, as I don't like being an agent of the state, and am dubious about marriage as a sacrament.
Another priest took the route of openly, publicly performing a lesbian wedding, having told the bishop he was going to do so, and in the full knowledge that the consequence would be the loss of his license, a consequence he accepted. Had Adam done that, I would have cheered loudly for him, as I did for the priest who actually did this.
One parish has worked out a deal where their priest conducts every part of the wedding except the legal bit, at which point a JP steps up -- this is done quietly, but again, with the bishop's knowledge. There is also at least one parish which is known to have been quietly but openly performing same-sex marriages for years, and the bishop is aware, and allows that one parish to do so, because they are such an outlier in so many ways.
So there are different ways to deal with the conscience issue, but secrecy is just the wrong one. Easiest to dramatize, yes. And easier than trying to explain ordination vows to a general audience, yes. But a cheap solution, to my mind.
None of which changes the fact that it is, overall, a *very* good episode ...
no subject
Here's the problem -- the conflict was all framed as being about getting in trouble, not wanting to get in trouble, how not to get in trouble. The archdeacon's "unity of the church" was at least one second of belief in something other than self-interest. But getting in trouble is not the point. When one is ordained, one takes a VOW to the bishop. It is a vow which is, in fact, very like a marriage (Andrea and I were joking the other day about being in a committed and permanent vowed relationship with our bishop), and like a marriage it is essentially about a relationship, or actually several relationships -- priest-bishop and priest-community most importantly. You do not manage conflict in a relationship by doing things secretly, at least not if you want that relationship to be healthy in any way. Adam appears to have conducted the marriage secretly from both bishop and community. That's … vaguely like adultery, actually.
When you have a conscience matter, and this *is* a conscience matter, no denying, you need to *talk* to your bishop about it. Of course we have not really seen the bishop and know nothing much about him/her. Speaking to the archdeacon is perhaps a substitute, but that conversation never reached the level of "how will we handle the conscience issue." And it must.
My own solution -- discussed in excruciating detail with my archdeacon, as stand-in for the bishop -- was to decline my license to perform marriages at all. I don't marry anyone, gay or straight. I am pretty happy with that, as I don't like being an agent of the state, and am dubious about marriage as a sacrament.
Another priest took the route of openly, publicly performing a lesbian wedding, having told the bishop he was going to do so, and in the full knowledge that the consequence would be the loss of his license, a consequence he accepted. Had Adam done that, I would have cheered loudly for him, as I did for the priest who actually did this.
One parish has worked out a deal where their priest conducts every part of the wedding except the legal bit, at which point a JP steps up -- this is done quietly, but again, with the bishop's knowledge. There is also at least one parish which is known to have been quietly but openly performing same-sex marriages for years, and the bishop is aware, and allows that one parish to do so, because they are such an outlier in so many ways.
So there are different ways to deal with the conscience issue, but secrecy is just the wrong one. Easiest to dramatize, yes. And easier than trying to explain ordination vows to a general audience, yes. But a cheap solution, to my mind.
None of which changes the fact that it is, overall, a *very* good episode ...