This afternoon I’ve been engaged in a discussion at the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church about same-sex marriage. At least, that’s what it was supposed to be about. Often in the afternoon it felt like a discussion about how to have a discussion. (All of this was being facilitated by Hugh Donald of A Place for Hope initiative of the Church of Scotland NB correction from earlier text)
We began by someone challenging the process by speaking against the motion to suspend the standing orders and go into a different mode of meeting. That challenge didn’t fly, but a quarter of the synod members didn’t want to go into small groups. That’s quite a high proportion of dissatisfied customers to begin with.
We were then invited to listen to a conversation amongst some people who were part of a previous conversation at Pitlochry that had been limited to invited people only. Already we were into the territory of people feeling excluded from a process – at my table there were two of us who would have liked to have been at Pitlochry but who had found ourselves excluded from it.
The conversation that we were invited to watch went on for a bit and they all agreed that Pitlochry had been wonderful and transformative. (Guess what that feels like if you’ve been excluded!) However it was difficult to hear much about what they had talked about at Pitlochry.
But the worst thing from my point of view is that this conversation that we were invited to witness had no participant who was ordained and gay.
It was the antithesis of the principle that you don’t speak about people without including them in the conversation. There were plenty of ordained people who happen to be gay in the room too – just not invited to be part of that conversation.
Then we went into table groups where we were expected to talk about gay people’s personal lives without having any warning of what the questions would be and without any reference to the fact that straight people have a sexuality too. (The questions very clearly made gay people the problem the church was trying to solve).
For some reason, the people who went to Pitlochry who had a great time there who have come back saying how much wonderful listening was going on are finding it terribly difficult to listen to those who were not there or who have any criticism of the process.
At the end of all this, bumping into some of my gay friends in the room, I saw one brushing back tears (and I knew they were fury tears not just ordinary upset tears), another was still fizzing about the questions and was heading off to have a go at one of the bishops about how manipulative it had been, another with his head in his hands saying “how long can this go on” and another patiently trying to explain to straight liberal so-called allies why being asked to wait another year (yet again) did not feel like a step forward.
Rounding off this session of the Cascade process, the Primus spoke of how well it was being conducted and how well it was going.
He does not walk in my shoes.
At my table, when we started to discuss the first question, the one about how we personally had come to hold the views we have about same-sex relationships, everyone looked at me (gobby and out), and I said, “I’m gay,” and they kept looking at me, and I said, “I’m not going to say anything else personal until someone else has.”
Oh God Beth and I bet they did not, either. How awful. I am so so so sorry. All I can ask is that you believe some straight(ish) gay liberals are NOT part of all this, and do and will continue to speak up about it. I am only sorry so much of the weight of this falls on people you are gay and out.
What a sad way to conduct business 🙁 I despair of our bishops (I’m CofE) and those who prevaricate and pretend that this is an issue of little consequence, when it’s impacting the lives of faithful Clergy and Laity who are not seeking special privileges, just wishing to be recognised and welcomed in the same way as their fellow Christians, who happen to be straight.
The don’t see the harm that they’re doing to those who their actions impact on, and the many like myself, who while straight, long for the day when we can say that we’re truly ALL ONE IN CHRIST without any exclusions whatsoever.
And that will allow the message that we send out in mission to be genuine and real, not one stilted by the prejudices and fears of those who can’t or won’t feel the wind of the Spirit blowing through the Church.
Same sex marriage is Marriage, pure and simple. It doesn’t downgrade my marriage, it allows those who’ve been excluded by archaic and blind legal provisions to enjoy the same status and equality as their fellow citizens.
This is so disheartening to hear. I don’t think I was expecting much from Synod after the horrendous process leading up to it but this is still awfully discouraging. I’m so sorry.
Thank you for this post, for your honesty about this awful process.
It has fed into some broader thoughts about anger and marginalisation, which I’ve blogged about here: http://becausegodislove.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/righteous-anger/
Keep going. Keep speaking out. Keep refusing to be silenced. I and many others will be praying for you, and for something good to come out of this dreadful process, however improbable that seems.
Some times over the last month, on hearing of the Cascade process, I’ve tried to think if there might be something good about it.
Having heard much of it from the live audio feed this afternoon, I can safely say there isn’t. It wins a prize for the most vacuous inane mutual-back-slapping discussion I’ve heard this year. I’m so glad they came back from Pitlochry gushing with a case of the warm fuzzies – now how about sharing the substance of what they actually discussed? Oh, we’re meant to trust them in their secretive meetings, well that must be OK then.
The huge danger is that this small introverted clique with its words and inaction will divert attention from the real problems of justice, ethics and relevance. These things need debating in proper synodic form and until that canon is changed, the job has not be done.
I’m still feeling physically sick about this afternoon, and half ashamed that I didn’t somehow manage to share what came into my life over 40 years ago when God marched in with all these difficult realisations about justice, equality, truth and peace. They’ve been getting me into trouble ever since, but I feel trouble might have been a more satisfactory outcome than the creeping niceness that threatens to smother us all.
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
I do hope that David Porter (ABC’s reconciliation person) reads this. (He’s I/C building the CofE’s discussion process and there is plenty to learn from this. Thanks, Kelvin.)
David Porter was a key person in this process in Scotland, having been one of the participants in the Pitlochry conversation and someone who advised on how it should be done.
> (All of this was being facilitated by Hugh Donald of Core Solutions – a mediation and facilitation company.)
I’ve had experience of this ‘mediation and facilitation’ approach (not by this company, I should make clear) and found it disastrous. Judging by an analogous situation I experienced, sending the Chosen to Pitlochry and shutting out the rest must have been a recipe for division, creating cliques and dividing people into “ins” and “outs”. Why wasn’t there just an open discussion on the floor of Synod, the opportunity for everyone who wanted one to have a full say, and then have a vote on a substantive proposition?
It wasn’t for lack of trying, nor was it largely for the members of Synod being unwilling.
Well, the Standing Committee took the view that the synod shouldn’t have an open debate about this. The synod itself voted by a clear majority to have an open debate about at least some of this stuff, but not by enough of a majority. (It needs 2/3rds of people present voting).
My view is that this proved that Standing Committee (of which I was a member at the time) made the wrong call.
It is also my view that at least some of the things that went wrong with the process on Friday afternoon would not have gone wrong or maybe would not have been perceived to have been so wrong if an open, whole synod debate had been allowed.
I take the view that effectively, the Standing Committee severely undermined and damaged the Cascade Process by trying to keep it all nipped in.
Knowing who was most upset by it all, it will be a very difficult process to run in this diocese, for example.
None of this is to say that everyone had a bad time. There were obviously positive conversations going on all around the room. But that isn’t the point – there was much that was really quite wrong too.
On Thursday I was at the 12:30 Eucharist at St Columba’s and it wasn’t until I was having lunch in the pub afterwards that I learned it was the day Synod began. How wonderful it felt to be in that happy situation!