The Columba Declaration – where are we now?

I was present this morning at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for the Church of Scotland’s acceptance of the Columba Declaration – the agreement that has been made between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England which has cause a huge amount of concern to Scottish Episcopalians.

It was good to be in the Assembly Hall – there’s an atmosphere there that can’t be replicated online. I’ve enjoyed dropping into the business of the Church of Scotland for years, since the time I was doing a degree at New College which is adjacent to the hall itself. The singing of the Assembly is spine-tingling and this morning there was a brilliant homily from the Moderator of the Assembly on the bible reading of the day which was of the two men who went up to the temple to pray.

I enjoy the way the Church of Scotland does its business. Utter courtesy is the order of the day and there’s always the most powerful attempt to ensure that all voices are heard.

I’ve often commented that a good Church of Scotland moderator would enable one of our synods to get through its business in a couple of hours rather than a couple of days and more people would feel that their opinion had been part of the discussion.

When I was an ecumenical corresponding member of a Church of Scotland Presbytery I gradually got used to the cadences and the humour and gentle stamping of feet to indicate agreement. I also realised to my surprise that the things which presbyterian  friends have often thought odd about Episcopal worship – bowing, standing and sitting every verse-end, a daring splash of lace and a smattering of Latin within the context of an experience that is both highly serious and highly camp are all present in the way the Church of Scotland does business.

This morning was a hugely important symbolic occasion. The Archbishop of Canterbury was present and had been invited to contribute to the debate. This was also an opportunity to try to put some of the ill-feeling to rest that has been stirred up in Scotland by the Columba Declaration.

I have to say that having read my social media timelines since coming home, it is very obvious that this hasn’t been achieved. Whatever was said in public in the Assembly today, there is still a level of outrage being expressed by Scottish Episcopalians which has led both journalists and people from out of Scotland to express considerable surprise to me about it in the last 24 hours. How can it be, they ask, that things are going on in public church gatherings which have these extraordinary levels of grievance attached to them online? My only answer is that those with the power in the equation simply don’t care about the members of the Scottish Episcopal Church enough to have paused long enough to try to put things right.

Full marks to Justin Welby though for trying. He got up at the Assembly and apologised for the hurt that had been caused to Scottish Episcopalians by the manner in which this had all been handled. Indeed, he said that he took personal responsibility for that.

This was highly commendable and might have worked if we had not known since Christmas that it was the Church of Scotland’s media office which leaked the details to the press with the express permission of “someone high up” in the Church of Scotland’s Ecumenical Relations Committee. (I know this because I was personally told so by the person who did it within 24 hours of it happening).

That’s been known for months and talked about for months, tweeted about for months and discussed for months. We know that the way in which this was handled wasn’t Justin Welby’s responsibility. Bless him for trying to pour Archepiscopal oil on troubled Episcopal waters, but Justin Welby was trying to take responsibility for things that he is known to have had nothing whatsoever to do with.

Here I think it is important to distinguish what has caused the trouble for Scottish Episcopalians. There are two issues. The first is the leaking of the report just before Christmas – this was unfortunate and made a bad situation much worse but it was a mistake and we can all move on from that. Indeed, I don’t think Scottish Episcopalians are that bothered by that now. The apology for that mess should have come from the Church of Scotland today though it was clear that the Church of Scotland was in triumphalist mode and there was little chance of any kind of apology from that quarter. But at the end of a rather long day, I think all we can do is shrug and acknowledge that it shouldn’t have happened that way. People make mistakes and I don’t think there’s any point dwelling on this any more.

The second issue is the fact of the agreement itself. This is much more problematic and this is the trouble that just won’t go away. The Scottish Episcopalians I know and whom I see posting at length online about this simply do not believe it is appropriate for the Church of England to be interfering in another Province. And that is, to so very many of us, exactly what this is.

For that, the Archbishop of Canterbury didn’t apologise. And that’s the nub of the problem. Who cares about how it was announced? The fact that it was announced at all is what everyone I know seems to care about.

It is important to acknowledge that there are very real differences in the way that the Archbishop of Canterbury is seen here in Scotland from that in other parts of the Anglican Communion.

This was a very public event with a public gallery but I only saw three Episcopalians whom I recognised there today. There were far more empty seats than Anglicans present.

Having got to know, for example, the Episcopal Church in the USA, my sense is that there they love and adore the idea of the Archbishop of Canterbury and indeed they pray for him at services. This means that when he is seen to misbehave towards America there is not so much anger as bewilderment that the one whom they have loved (and the England that he represents) has not returned the favour (or even favor). The pain of the US church is the pain of unrequited love.

Here in Scotland we are innately suspicious of the idea of the Archbishop of Canterbury (and very rarely pray for him in services) and when he behaves badly it confirms all our expectations. This tends to brew up into our righteous anger which gets very readily trumpeted abroad. We don’t do Archbishops generally. We don’t have one of our own and woe betide any Primus that doesn’t understand that from the get go.

I suspect the US position is a lot more painful in reality. Our pain here in Scotland is more easily expressed and has a historical context and many historical and contemporary myths about England and Scotland from which we can draw, in expressing our indignation. That indignation has once again been pouring out, even as there have been attempts to move on today at the General Assembly.

What I saw today was an attempt to try to make things right. It was largely unsuccessful. It was difficult not to listen and hear under the surface of so much that was said a desperation from presbyterian brothers and sisters to be recognised as a “real church”. One spoke with some pathos about the fact that Anglicans had simply not been able to recognise a Church of Scotland communion service as being the equivalent of a Eucharist celebrated by an Episcopally ordained priest. This one won’t go away with the Columba Declaration either – most Episcopalians I know would take that view whilst being perfectly happy to share in the  bread and wine if invited to within the context of the Church of Scotland.

That hurts for our Presbyterian brothers and sisters and that hurt is just as real and has to be taken just as seriously as any hurt that Episcopalians have been feeling for the last six months.

The Columba Declaration states that in both the Church of Scotland and the Church of England “Holy Communion is rightly administered”. I think Scottish Episcopalians are puzzled by that statement and don’t really know what it means. For what it is worth, Scottish Episcopalians are sometimes more bewildered by what passes for Eucharistic services in some parts of the Church of England as anything happening in the Church of Scotland but perhaps that is for another day. However, the fact remains that we care very much how Holy Communion is administered and this part of the Declaration makes us raise our ecumenical eyebrows.

In the course of today’s events at the General Assembly, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church were both sitting in the gallery for honoured guests at the beginning of proceedings. The Archbishop was then invited onto the Assembly floor where he had a voice and quite literally a place at the table. The Primus was left in the gallery and in course of the debate, people around him disappeared. It was as though whoever was in charge of the choreography had tried to recreate the slight to the Scottish Episcopal Church symbolically for all to see. The players enacted their parts. The Scottish Episcopal Church was isolated and patronised with invitations to join in by sending someone to join the ongoing conversations. The Church of England was invited to the feast.

The Columba Declaration is a major piece of ecumenical work that has been brought about at the cost of more ecumenical goodwill than I ever really thought Scotland had to lose. Looking at my social media timelines over the last 24 hours, it is very obvious that it will poison the wells of ecumenical relations for many years to come. Something has been broken and I struggle to see how it can be repaired.

And the outcome?

They set up a committee.

 

Comments

  1. Has any of this been caused by the 2011 census where it might have been the first time that the CofE realised they have quite a big constituency in Scotland, and a lot more people in Scotland claiming an affiliation with the Church of England than the SEC. It says here that 67,000 people said they were C of E, compared to just 8,000 Scottish Episcopal Church? (though probably need to add the 20k who answered as generic ‘episcopalians’):

    http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/documents/censusresults/release2a/rel2A_Religion_detailed_Scotland.pdf

    I.E. apart from the rudeness and cack-handedness, are there any legitimate arguments for them to do ‘brand management’ in another jurisdiction if there are so many of their affiliates here? Like, if the aim was to enable some of those 67k to feel they have more options is that a good possible outcome from this?

    • I didn’t mean good possible outcome, I meant good possible intention if it had been handled better.

    • Actually, I don’t think the C of E is trying to establish itself in Scotland and I’d be surprised if the census was a factor in any way.

      There are big issues from the census for Scottish Episcopalians to think about – the C of E is probably more concerned with the large drops in allegiance south of the border than any stated Church of England members north of it.

      I wrote a bit about the census here:
      http://thurible.net/2013/09/30/i-d/

  2. Fr Terry Taggart says:

    Thank you for this update Kelvin. I’ve been struggling to get anything of substance regarding who said what to whom and when it was said !! A committee!!! Well that should sort it 🤔

  3. Hugh Foy says:

    We have been Offended throughout our history at people referring to us as the ‘English Church’ in Scotland in complete ignorance of our history. This sad sttempt at faux ecclesial imperialism does nothing to help us consolidate our Scottish identity in public space in post referendum Scotland. Kelvin is absolutely correct in identifying the issue is Jurisdictional and the pain and insult emerges from this. However at a political level it’s simply a pathetic attempt at establishment power consolidation but it addresses no significant issues in our divergent Eucharistic Theology and Theology of Ministry. In a time of Church decline it allows the Church establishment to speak with one voice to the political establishment. A delusional codependent alliance that allows clerical gatekeepers to believe they still matter in a post post Christendom society to the State. I find out acquiescence here both disturbing and saddening.

  4. This high-handed treatment of the Episcopal Church of Scotland – with an attempt to achieve ecclesial unity on its own provincial ground between the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, without local consultation with SEC – must indeed seem, not only a snub but also a deliberate sidelining of our Anglican partner Church in Scotland – the Church whose episcopate was instrumental in providing the basis for an episcopal (Anglican) presence in North America – when the Church of England had refused to provide such a provenance.

    A very good reason, one might suspect, for SEC to join TEC in a new brand of Anglican presence in the world – in common with those provinces of the Communion who wish to go forward on the matter of Same-Sex Unions and the banning of sexism & homophobia

    Father Ron Smith, Christchurch, new Zealand

  5. John Neal says:

    Our Church of England community in Tours, France uses the protestant Temple. As such, the Reuilly Declaration between the Eglise reformée and the Church of England (2001) has particular significance for us. The second of the acknowledgements is this:

    “We acknowledge that in all our churches the word of God is authentically preached, and the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist are duly administered.”

    I am just not sure about this. Naturally, the pasteure has not been episcopally ordained. I think there must be many similarities with the Church of Scotland, indeed, in the 1920s the local pasteur had studied at a Scottish University. He offered BCP Communion services in English and had to be warned off using the absolution and prayer of consecration by the C of E bishop.

    Hmmm!

    • Yes, the Columba Declaration has much copied over word for word from the Ruilley Declaration. That’s always left me to say that this means the C of E isn’t taking the C of S that seriously, something that C of S people don’t understand. Columba is made up of Ruilley not Porvoo.

  6. Whit says:

    “We don’t do Archbishops generally. We don’t have one of our own and woe betide any Primus that doesn’t understand that from the get go.”

    That’s interesting. Our Presiding Bishop has, over the course of the last two decades become an archbishop in all but name. Indeed, I no longer bother correcting English people who call the PB an archbishop.

    • Robin says:

      The last Scottish Episcopalian Archbishop was Archbishop Paterson of Glasgow, who died in 1708. The Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church is neither an Archbishop nor a Primate nor a Metropolitan. He/she is, as the name ‘Primus’ implies, merely first among equal Bishops.

  7. Richard Barnes says:

    You’ve been very restrained in not naming anyone over the past 5 months, but since Abp Welby specifically mentioned him, it seems to me it’s the Bp of Chester who should have apologized. According to Chester Diocese he studied and trained in Edinburgh, so I’d’ve thought he would have known the hurt the Columba Declaration would cause to the SEC…
    With Welby trying to be all things to all men, I’m surprised his costume department didn’t find some Geneva bands for him to show how Calvinist he is.
    40 years ago in St Andrews, we had ecumenical Communion Services in the University Chapel led one week by the CofS Chaplain, another week by the “Anglican” Chaplain, and sometimes by a transAtlantic, woman Presbyterian minister; all equal in integrity, consecration and worth for my spiritual health, and no Declarations or Committees, just local ecumenism working.
    I look forward to our House of Bishops working out how to welcome married gay CofS ministers to work in England while persecuting their own.
    Not a proud week to be CofE.

Speak Your Mind

*