Wednesday, April 25, 2007

WHO SAID I'D NEVER BENEFIT FROM THE GOE?

Posted by Reverend Ref + at 11:01 PM

Ah yes, the General Ordination Exam, the GOE's, the acronym that strikes fear into the hearts of seminary students around the nation, the tool used to determine theological preparedness for ministry but not fitness, or the be-all and end-all of one's ordination track, the Bar Exam for priests. Whatever or however you reference it, the GOE is a major ordeal. This was mine.

I remember being given a piece of propaganda that went something like this: "The GOE can be a stressful time; but many people, after completing the exam, have said how enjoyable the experience actually was."

I wouldn't call it enjoyable, but it felt good to be able to articulate what I had learned over the past 2-1/2 years of seminary. Well, except for that Caroline Divine thing . . .

Okay, I'm getting sidetracked. One of the best pieces of advice I ever recieved about the GOE was this: "Find the question. Answer the question." The GOE is like a math story problem. So it has helped me to locate the real question being asked. Like today.

I met up with a guy in town and he says, "You gotta minute?"

"Sure."

"How do I become an ordained minister?"

Turns out that he really doesn't want to become an ordained minister. His brother is getting married and wants him to officiate at the service and he wanted to know how to get licensed. The Montana answer is this: the people getting married have to believe that the officiant has the authority to perform the marriage ceremony. I could officiate at a wedding. The mayor could officiate at a wedding. The fire chief could officiate at a wedding. A former school teacher could officiate at a wedding. In other words, ANYONE OVER 18 can officiate at a wedding. I am not making this up.

He doesn't want to become an ordained minister; he wants to officiate at his brother's wedding.

You gotta know the question before you can give the right answer. Thank God for the GOE.

Labels:

6 comments:

Jane Ellen+ | 11:45 PM, April 25, 2007  

You left out the part where neither party has to be present at the ceremony-- both can be married by proxy.

Or if they want to skip the whole ceremonial thing, that's okay, too-- they can simply call each other husband and wife, and they are. No waiting period, nothing.

Montana's marriage laws are so laid back they're almost unconscious.

Ecgbert | 1:45 PM, April 26, 2007  

I understand that in Pennsylvania the Quaker option is popular with some non-religious couples who want a ceremony nicer than a registry office. As Quakers have no ministers as most understand that, the marriage certificate and state law allow for that.

Readers of my blog know my answer to the gay-marriage row: get the state out of the marriage business.

Leave the matter of who can or can't marry up to the religious groups.

So Montana's approach sounds sensibly libertarian to me.

And in a way retro mediæval. As you probably know, most Europeans back then didn't have church ceremonies. That was for nobles. Given the Western Catholic theology of marriage where the bride and groom are the ministers of the sacrament, they made promises to each other, perhaps their families threw a party, they moved in together, consummated it - and the church recognised it.

In modern law that'd be common law. Just like Montana. Which is great.

(Like I wrote in the six-weird-things-about-me meme, 'Catholic anarchy' sort of makes sense to me.)

I think in most other states if Joe Gubbins wants to officiate at his relative's or friend's wedding he'd get 'ordained' online (it used to be a mail-order operation) by the Universal Life Church (their creed: 'We believe in what's right'). No bishop, no exams... just print a piece of paper and the state is satisfied.

Reverend Ref + | 3:00 PM, April 26, 2007  

Readers of my blog know my answer to the gay-marriage row: get the state out of the marriage business. Leave the matter of who can or can't marry up to the religious groups.

I don't mind the state being in the marriage business. The system I'd prefer is to have the state determine who can and cannot be married for their legal requirement, let the churches determine who they will or will not allow to be married, and quit having ministers act as state agents. If a person wants to be married in the eyes of the state, go see a JP (or in MT, anyone except a minister); and then if they want to get married in the church, show me a marriage license and let's go.

I actually tried that once . . . it didn't go over so well. I ended up doing the ceremony and they are now members of the parish.

Sonje | 3:12 PM, April 27, 2007  

Montana sounds like a very strange place sometimes...

Reverend Ref + | 3:58 PM, April 27, 2007  

This from the woman who sings Benedictine chants about mashed potatoes. ;)

Anonymous | 7:44 PM, April 28, 2007  

The differences in state marriage law can be scary. In Massachusetts, anyone can be licensed to perform a wedding by the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office upon payment of a $50 (iirc) fee to license themselves for one day.

In Ohio, authorization to sign the marriage license used to be handled through the county probate court, until some political hack decided that too many people were being licensed to perform marriages that weren't part of "real" churches, so it was centralized into the Secretary of State's office in Columbus, where you have to submit several different forms of documentation that you are ordained and validly serving a congregation in Ohio with sufficient standing to be allowed to solemnize a marriage. Aside from that, only judges and justices of the peace may officiate. Interesting, only city court judges and JPs are allowed to preside at a wedding without prior permission. Court of common pleas judges and appellate judges/justices must give notice to the Secretary of State's office that they intend to sign the license before they do.

At one point, some states allowed Quaker meetings to solemnize the marriage by having everyone present sign the license. I don't remember which ones do still allow this anymore.

Pennsylvania and Ohio have apparently removed common law marriage from the books. It used to be that if you cohabitated and presented yourselves as a married couple, you legally were treated as such, or that after several years of cohabitation without presenting as husband and wife, for that matter. Apparently that was causing legal problems, so now you can live together indefinately in those states without fear of alimony or any other responsibilities.

J. Fred

Post a Comment

First time comments will be moderated.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)