So, a few words were muffed in the Obama inauguration ceremony and this apparently might give conspiracy theorists a window to say it wasn't authentic. So they hastily arrange a repeat of the vows in a side room, but no first lady present and no Bible to hold because there wasn't one to hand. Am I missing something here? If the first one was potentially iffy then the second one must be more so - or are they additive, so that the 'right' bits can be collated and the muffed bits negated? All seems decidedly daft to me - but then as one from a Christian tradition whose ordinations are seem by others as 'irregular' if not 'invalid' maybe it would.
Comments
Has anyone got the marriage regs to hand for when someone gets their vows wrong (like Lady Di inadvertently marrying Prince Charles' father) or has the wrong details on their marriage certificate (e.g. age incorrectly copied from the blue forms)?
At my ordination service, I tried to do my responses to Peter Grange from memory and got them completely mixed up. Peter, who I believe hadn't used 'Gathering for Worship' before, thoroughly enjoyed the moment and told me afterwards he'd decided to plough on regardless as nobody else in the building would have a clue what I was meant to be saying anyway.
Does this mean I'm not properly ordained? Could explain a lot!
And I don't think I'm properly married. When my wife and I were married, back in the late 70s, the Anglicans has just produced Series 3 (I think it was called), and we attended a friend's wedding where these vows were used, and decided to use them at our wedding service. But what was ok in an Anglican service wasn't ok in our Baptist service, and, if you listen to the tape of the service, we didn't say the legal words that we were required to say. This wasn't picked up by either the minister (my father), or the church's registrar. 30+ years of living in sin?
Andy, Peter was right, we didn't have a clue, you're as validly ordained as any of the rest of us Baptist people I reckon.
David, I won't tell Uncle Paul in ministries, and I'm pretty sure God won't worry overly.
My biggest muff to date was at a funeral where I said someone died after they did but no one seemed to mind too much (phew!).
I guess as long as nobody tells the Pope I can still conduct infant presentations and baptise people. I might still have needed special permission (retrospective or otherwise) from the URC district council to preside at communion, but they don't exist any more, so I'm probably in the clear as long as that nice Rev. Poulton agrees...
Hmmm.
As I recall it R.C. canon law allows for anyone to do baptisms if there is no priest available - and you don't often find one lurking in a Baptist church so I think that's OK, valid or invalid ordination. Don't think dear old Ratzinger would know much about infant presentations one way or t'other.
And as long as that nice Rev Poulton is cool with who dishes out the bread and grape juice I'm sure it's fine with JC. Just end up wondering if the URC would authorise him to preside or not...
Hmmm again.
There's no constitutional requirement to swear on a bible at inauguration, it's just tradition.
Come to that, there's a strong argument that even if they don't swear the oath (or affirm, which is the other option) they become the President anyway according to the constitution, but I understand that there's room for debate there, so better safe than sorry (or better safe than allow the narrative to persist).
Thanks Tim. It obviously rattled the EA though - they've evidently sent Obama a Bible - don't they think there are Bibles available in the USA?!
See here: http://www.eauk.org/media/bible-to-barack.cfm
Just covering all possibilities. Im sure the Republicans were checking if mis-stating his vows the first time would somehow invalidate his presidency :)
Shameless self-publicity (unless of course they wanted to ensure the White House had a copy of the NIV to hand).
I'm more concerned that they couldn't find his wife; they've only had her for a day and half - surely they can't have lost her already!