This time next week, the “Cascade Conversations” will be taking place in Pitlochry. This is an attempt to allow discussion in the Scottish Episcopal Church about issues relating to homosexuality.
I won’t be there because I’ve not been invited and I’m sorry about that as I would have liked to listen to what others were saying. Invitations were entirely at the whim of diocesan bishops and my own has chosen not to invite me.
The idea is that this conversation will cascade into dioceses but how that will happen is far from clear.
In many ways this process has been a model example of how not to do things. There was no-one who was gay on the initial scoping group. There have been several people who have represented anti-gay organisations on the design group but none who have been prominent members of LGBT advocacy groups in the church.
My more fundamental concern though is the idea of having a closed conference at which many people who would like to be there are excluded. It is, as someone with a lot of experience of living in Africa pointed out to me the other day, the very opposite of indaba – the idea that you get everyone together and talk until you find a solution.
The last time we had a process like this in the church where bishops chose people to go to a conference it was all about patterns of ministry and mission. It was a hugely successful conference for those who were invited by the bishops but a disaster for the church as the resentments which built up amongst those who were not invited were significant. Were a psychological study to be made of the troubles of the Theological Institute of the Scottish Episcopal Church then that conference would be a significant point to remember as a time when some felt they had a mandate for a certain trajectory which was not shared by the rest of the church.
One of the things which I observe in many Anglican Churches is the odd reality that decisions about homosexuality seem to be made in private by bishops (and their chosen advisers). It is very odd behaviour in churches with synodical government. After all, when we decided big things about the ordination of women as priests and bishops it was the General Synod which made the decisions.
General Synod has at least some transparency about it. There is defined process and you know who will be there to represent you. Despite asking my bishop a month or so ago, I still don’t know who is representing this diocese at the Pitlochry talks. Bishop Gregor simply refused point-blank to tell me.
At our diocesan synod, questions were asked by a couple of us about whether this was a safe process for anyone who is gay. One of the things that many people don’t understand is that straight people and gay people don’t meet as equals within church processes. To put it bluntly, revealing things about your life, your relationships and your hopes at these events if you are straight makes no difference to how you will be treated in the future by people who have power within decision-making processes about jobs, housing, pensions etc. For gay people that just isn’t true. Revealing personal material about yourself could cost you a job, could bring trouble for your partner, could lead to you losing your home.
Now, when asked about this at our synod, Bishop Gregor gave a good answer for himself but a terrible answer for the current process. He said that if someone who happens to be gay or lesbian revealed anything about themselves then he would admire their honesty and integrity and was very clear that they would not be treated in a detrimental way in this diocese. That was absolutely the right thing to say. However, he then went on to say that of course, he could not give the same guarantee on behalf of anyone else in the church and particularly could not guarantee that bishops in other dioceses would take the same view.
That crucial admission marks this out as a very unsafe process for gay people in the church. My recommendation to any gay or lesbian ordinand, lay-reader, deacon, priest or bishop or anyone in any of the new less clearly defined lay ministries who is involved in these talks would be that they should be very cautious about talking about their own lives. This isn’t a safe process and one might suffer in the future for being honest.
That is, if there is anyone gay who has been invited.
When all interests are not represented any process will lack true integrity. I suspect people are afraid of you for your clarity of perception and ability to air the truth robustly, which those attending would find difficult to rebut.
Why let progress get in the way of a good lunch?
It is sad to see what is happening. It is not safe, and it is not equal. Some of that lack of safety (though not all) extends to those who are straight but speak clearly for equality. I have heard people say they will not speak up for equality during synod or during this process because they fear the backlash, they fear the disruption in their parish, and they fear being moved from ‘inside’ to ‘outside’.
Still, I hope you and I both will be proven wrong, and that courage will arise.
The whole thing is an utter disgrace. It does not appear to take any account of known best practise in making a process safe. I did know that no LGBT advocacy groups had been invited, but not that anti-LGBT groups had been invited.
And over and above that, surely the days of being told what to think from the top are long, long past. In as far as one knows anything of this nasty process, it seems to be a matter of ‘getting them telt’ rather than a matter of listening and discussion.
That is shocking and unsurprising, all at once.
To be clear, I was not making any comment about organisations being invited. I don’t think any organisations were invited in that sense. What I said was that there are those on the design group who have in the past been representatives of anti-gay groups in the church. There’s no-one who has been a representative of a pro-gay group that I’m aware of.
Do we know what the next step in that process is, Kelvin? After this conference, what next?
We do not know.
The Primus said a while ago that “We” would be deciding what to do next in September. I think that he meant the College of Bishops.
I have been invited to the “Conversation” and am both gay and lay (good slogan?). My understanding is that we will be invited to speak and to hear so that a variety of views within the SEC will be aired. Arising out of this conference should be a way forward for the church to explore within its membership the “official” response to legislation on human sexuality. One of the things we are tasked with is to meet in Diocesan groups and to formulate a process for exploring, within our own diocese, the response of the people and clergy. Given that I have accepted the invitation to attend, you will realise that I have not written the conference off and hope that our God will guide us to the conclusion S/He wants.
Thanks Alan
I’m glad you will be there. I’m not convinced that the conference has any legitimate authority for determining a way forward for the church to explore within its membership how to respond to legislation. Our canons simply don’t mentiona any possibility that the bishops can appoint an alternative synod of their own chosing, as seems to be happening here, to make such decisions.
I also feel a sense of concern that some dioceses are significantly over represented.
The Diocese of Argyll and The Isles, for example, which I think you will be representing, will have 7 people at the conference, just like each of the other dioceses.
To point out the obvious, the Diocese of Argyll and The Isles has a smaller number of communicant members than the number of people who were at St Mary’s last weekend.
I think this comment of your nails it on the head, Kelvin: ‘One of the things that many people don’t understand is that straight people and gay people don’t meet as equals within church processes’. This is the point that is so often missed, and the reason that these initiatives, such as the current Cascade conversations are so unsatisfactory and do not work. They are predicated on a listening to each other, reconciliation and compromise model, rather than on a justice and equality model. That basic flaw then affects all further decisions and processes, and entrenches the very positions the initiative is seeking to address.
Yes – that’s it exactly Pam.
I was rather caustic recently about a new report on the Usual Topic from the Church in Wales precisely because there was nothing at all about human rights arguments in it despite these being very much what the campaigns to change the law have been based on and that there’s good theological material that connects with this.
This earlier post is relevent here too – http://thurible.net/2008/11/17/listening-talking-discussing-lgbt/
Until a situation can exist where anyone can contribute with out fear of retribution, bullying, etc because of they are different, or percieved as being different, then no consultation can be considered complete.
Putting under wraps of a “by invitation only” event and then not being open on what will happen subsequently just adds to the lack of openess.
How can anyone (whether those who want to be treated as equal – as they should be – or those who fear the world will come to an end – which it will not) be expected to have any faith in the process when it is not seen to be fully inclusive.
I hope that we will all hear, frankly and comprehensively, what happens in the corse of this discussion. I was asked but wasn’t free to go – but if it’s going to be kept under discreet wraps I shall be even more fed up than I am already.
This sort of thing is why I joined a church that rejects personal episcopacy altogether.
For all sensible people, all the talking/thinking/theologising was over yonks ago. This would have been meaningful thirty years ago … even twenty years ago. Not now.