What is in Kelvin's Head?

The Peace and Unity and Order of the Church

One of the things that I’ve occasionally raised in blog posts is the question of whose responsibility it is to promote the unity of the church.

I think this was focused for me particularly at the consecration of the Bishop of St Andrews, Dunkeld and Dunblane just over 9 years ago when the preacher preached a sermon which was one of those sermons that you remember. It was one of those sermons that you remember because something about it niggles away at you. Sometimes that can be a good thing and sometimes not so good. At this particular service, it was a sermon that I knew at the time I disagreed with but I couldn’t immediately work out why. The gist of the sermon was fairly simple – we were at the consecration of a bishop and the preacher, Lord Eames, spoke of the ministry of the bishop as being a particular gift to the church – that of being an icon of unity.

I remember thinking at the time that it didn’t just sound odd to me but foreign.

Years later I remember that sermon and I think I was right in what I thought. It is a foreign idea to us in the Scottish Episcopal Church. It doesn’t belong here.

In the Church of England, bishops are expected to be the focus of unity in their dioceses. Their Ordinal says so. In Scotland, our Ordinal says no such thing.

But it is more profound than that. You see the truth is, the responsibility for promoting the peace, unity and order of the church doesn’t simply rest upon bishops in Scotland, it rests upon all of us who are in authorised ministry in the church. It isn’t that this is their responsibility it is that this responsibility belongs equally to the rest of us who minister too.

If you enter authorised ministry in the Scottish Episcopal Church then you make a series of promises, one of which is this:

I will show, in all things, an earnest desire to promote the peace, unity, and order of the said Church….

It is perhaps worth thinking this weekend about what the peace, unity and order of the church look like and how we take seriously our oaths to promote each of them.

I take the promise to promote the peace, unity and order of the church very seriously. So seriously, I’m prepared to fight for them in ways that don’t always look peaceful. Indeed I know friends from other denominations who can’t understand how Episcopalians cope with saying what they think to one another in the ways that we do. Politeness is a sacrament in some churches but I don’t think it is so in my own. Kindness is worth striving for but I don’t think we tend to paper over the cracks when things get tough.

Things have certainly become tough this week. I referred earlier this week to a new document that has been published by the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church which deals with the changes in the law regarding marriage in Scotland which come into force this week. I don’t think it is overstating the case to say that the publication of this document has seriously disrupted the peace and unity of the church. It was an attempt to say something about the order of the church which the bishops thought it important to say. The manner and timing of it though has caused more disruption to the peace of the church than I can remember for many years. (And I can remember more years of our church’s life than several of our bishops). It is my view that the bishops didn’t expect the sense of outrage which many feel about this. I also believe that it must be ghastly trying to do the right thing and be presumed to be malevolent in return.

I personally seek the peace, unity and order of the church.

I seek peace in the church by trying to bring the church to a place where all can stand united in our love of God and able to freely share that love with those who do not yet know it. I don’t believe we are in that place of peace at this time and I yearn for it, hope for it and pray for it.

And I am praying for that which my heart does not entirely desire but which my oath demands.

You see, what I want in my self is every church to be a welcoming and safe place for gay people, including those gay couples who chose to get married. My conscience demands that I hope and pray for that. But my oath to promote the peace, unity and order of the church demands that I put at least some of my own needs to one side and ask what will bring that peace to the church which will allow us to stand side by side.

The oath I’ve taken demands that I seek a place to stand for those who disagree with me. It demands that I defend their rights to be upset and grumpy and cross. It demands that I weep when they are weeping.

And in recent years, I think I can say that I’ve developed a far greater respect for those who say they disagree with me on gay rights than I do for many of those, particularly those who have power over other people’s lives in the church, who claim to me in private that they think I’m right. (Mind you, there are plenty who once disagreed with me who don’t now, so we can’t presume that these are two immutable categories of piskies).

I have to search for peace, unity and order in the church and my view is that we won’t have anything that looks like that until we have a church in which I can marry gay members of my congregation one unto another amidst great rejoicing whilst simultaneously defending the right of a sister or brother priest not to have to do so. And I have to hope that the desire to reach Scotland with the good news will allow colleagues who do disagree with me to search for the same peace that will allow us all a place to stand in order to reach out united to a world that needs the love of God.

I don’t believe and have never believed that the oaths to seek the peace, unity and order of the church are oaths involving any kind of conformity. And one of our troubles at the moment in my view is that our bishops have mistaken conformity for collegiality. The two are different. Collegiality is required of the College of Bishops. Collegiality is also required in a different way from the rest of us. Demands from any of us that look like conformity though do not look like the road to peace.

The sooner these issues that trouble us are resolved the better. It is my view that the bishops of our church have struggled to lead us towards peace. I pray for them, as I hope they pray for people like me.

Right now, the need to find peace, unity and order are becoming urgent. The mission of the church is compromised by our inability to live peaceably together.

I personally never renew my ordination vows at the annual chrism mass where such things are done. (Not least because we don’t have an authorised liturgy for such things in the Scottish Episcopal Church and I’m led to believe that doing things we don’t have an authorised liturgy for is somehow rather naughty).

I take my oaths more seriously than to think they need topping up once a year. I renew them daily as I live my life.

And today, as I see the peace of the church more seriously disrupted than I’ve ever known, I find myself reminding myself of my own vow.

I will show in all things, an earnest desire to promote the peace, unity, and order of the said Church.

And I will do so knowing that we will only get these things when we are ready to come together and accept that we all need a place to stand.

The church will have no peace whilst those who believe in the dignity of God’s gay and straight children alike are told that they belong to a church in which such a thing is impossible

This could all be resolved very quickly if people were minded to do so. Prolonging this argument is leading us further from the godly peace we need.

Comments

37 responses to “The Peace and Unity and Order of the Church”

  1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    I am currently more furious, and more shamed to be a member of the SEC than I can ever remember being. I have never, ever, been closer to leaving a church that I have loved and tried hard to serve for thirty years.

    I understand and accept that I am expected to respect the views of those whom I disagree, and I have as a matter of fact always tried to do so.

    But what has happened here is that the views of those who disagree with me have been imposed on me, and on those whom I love and respect, with absolutely no recognition that we even hold those views.

    I am socially embarrassed by what has occurred and it is currently impossible for me to speak about church matters or matters Christian to any of my peers. Mission? Forget it. My head will be down now for many a day.

    If any peace and unity is to be restored, the bishops who all put their names to this vile document (a slur on the relationships of some of those I hold most dear) need to remember that in our times leadership must be earned and no respect is given unless it is earned.

    I hear what you say Kelvin, but before there can be forgiveness, there must be repentance.

    Reply
    1. Kelvin Avatar
      Kelvin

      Thanks Rosemary – I know it is difficult for many this week. In many ways, your post above illustrates my point that our peace has been disrupted and needs to be restored.

      I think it is worth saying that I also see people coming together to struggle for a better way more clearly than I might have expected.

      Reply
  2. Father David Avatar
    Father David

    From what you have written, Kelvin, it would seem that the recent Statement by the bishops has been the cause of conflict, disunity and disorder North of the Border. South of the Border the concept of the bishop being the icon or the focus for unity is wearing very thin. I once heard another illustration of episcopacy – that the bishops were the knots in the fishing net holding the whole Church together. That being so, it seems to me that the fishing net is in much need of repair.

    Reply
  3. Christine McIntosh Avatar
    Christine McIntosh

    This is incredibly moderate. I respect what you say here immensely. I don’t think I even begin to feel anything but what Rosemary says. Perhaps it is time to write something myself to try to clarify *for* myself.

    Reply
  4. Ann Fontaine Avatar
    Ann Fontaine

    David- my early morning (on the Pacific coast of the US) read of your comment about bishops — was that they saw the knots in the net as a problem rather than what holds the net together (not that they are the knots!)

    re: vows — why I have never been interested in re-newing our wedding vows.

    re: the shame — the US church is only barely emerging from its shame for the same sort of foot dragging you are experiencing — I am sorry that your bishops heaped more burdens on everyone. Just what Jesus was talking about when he told people to come to him for his burden is light– the religious leaders were heaping heavy burdens on the people. It is not his way and when I have to tell myself every day that the church is not God – only a vehicle – and it is the one I am in (with its bad alignment and needing a oil change) and where I work – but it is God I follow.

    A tiny bit of cheer – last week a young gay couple, married by a priest in the church, were there with their new baby – passing her back and forth between the besotted dads – while every else had that “ahhh gee – sooo cute look”

    Reply
    1. Daniel Berry, NYC Avatar
      Daniel Berry, NYC

      I knows what I’m about to say here is only obliquely on-topic, and for that I apologize if it annoys anyone, especially the good Provost.

      I’ve just visited your church’s website and looked at a lot of the photos and enjoyed the hell out of ’em. It struck me that the work your parish is devoted to is the Ministry of Reconciliation –which, of course, is how Paul describes the vocation of the church.

      I’ve never been particularly attracted to the Pacific Northwest – until I read your posting here, which, happily, led me to your webpage.

      Amazing the variety of forms evangelism comes in.

      Thanks for bringing me aboard with your parish’s fan-base.

      DBerry NYC

      Reply
  5. Cynthia Avatar
    Cynthia

    What Ann says, only from Colorado, USA.

    In January, my partner of 23 years and I are getting married in the church. The parish is so excited, they can’t wait to host the reception and it looks like we’re going to have an army of 60-75 year old bridesmaids and best men, um, I mean presenters.

    It’s been a long haul, and we did have some schism. But my church at long last decided not to continue laying the burden of injustice on others for the comfort of a few. Some of the schismatics are coming back, hate isn’t a good foundation for a church.

    So sorry that our sisters and brothers in Scotland and England have to continue to carry this burden, or decide it’s time to shed it for progressive churches that take more seriously what it is for all people to be created in the Image of God.

    Reply
  6. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
    Lawrence Rosenfeld

    Thank you, Kelvin for this amazing peek into these differences between the SEC and the CofE, but even more for your exposition about what “peace, unity and order” might look like.

    Here on the West side of the “pond,” “peace, unity and order” have given way to a sort of chaos in which breakaway parishes are suing and being sued by dioceses that claim ownership of the real property the arch-conservatives (having “taken over” the parishes) are occupying. I am also desperately saddened to think that the lack of “peace, unity and order” spreads across the entire Anglican Communion, but your words have permitted me to see the part my own (allegedly “liberal”) attitude is playing. Mea Maxima Culpa.

    @Rosemary – is it possible that Matthew 18:21 – 22 has a different slant on forgiveness?

    Reply
  7. Pam Avatar
    Pam

    Peace, unity and order in the church is surely what God wants. We need to remember in this discussion that Kelvin is talking about leadership in the church promoting peace, unity and order. For those people in the church not in a position of leadership, for those people who are women, who are gay, who have difficulty in conforming, the question of peace, unity and order is of a different ‘order’ to leadership. Being created in the image of God is not a fixed state or condition, and so leadership of the church needs to be aware of this. Dialogue between people who are in disagreement within the church needs to take place. When a chance of dialogue is offered, and rejected, then it is difficult to see how unity can be achieved.

    Reply
  8. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Can I ask a silly question? Has any one of the current Bishops ever publicly stated their own views on equal marriage etc…? If so, what were they? If not, why not? Can those with privately supportive views not be required to go “on the record”? Are they not morally obliged to do so? How can one have a debate if those leading the way do not state plainly their own position, whether for or against, or even undecided?

    I ask because I am aware – from my own experience in Ireland – that (very) senior Anglican clergy held views sympathetic towards change in the area of sexuality, yet publicly were unwilling to say so. In my opinion this is a position of the most despicable, rank hypocrisy. At least those who are vocal in their opposition cannot be accused of this. Private support is no support.

    What is their defence to this? Unity? Caution? Patience? Fine – one can seek to endorse all three and still hold a plainly stated public view.

    Reply
    1. Kelvin Avatar
      Kelvin

      I think you’ll have noticed me saying recently that I’ve a good deal more respect for those who disagree with me on this issue than those who claim (privately) to agree with me.

      The current bishops, unlike some of the predecessors are not in the habit of stating their own views on equal marriage. The church is the poorer for their silence.

      Reply
      1. Steven Avatar
        Steven

        Your reply suggests that a number of Bishops are privately supportive? I assume you have challenged them as to why they don’t state their support publicly? What is their response to this challenge? I simply can’t imagine a coherent position from which one could maintain silence. I am sure that I don’t fully appreciate their role and their desire to maintain unity, but I still can’t understand why this should be so. I am also sure that it is a terrible insult to LGBT people within the SEC and beyond.

        “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

        Edmund Burke

        Reply
          1. Steven Avatar
            Steven

            But what defence do these men give for their position?

  9. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin you write:
    ‘And today, as I see the peace of the church more seriously disrupted than I’ve ever known, I find myself reminding myself of my own vow.
    I will show in all things, an earnest desire to promote the peace, unity, and order of the said Church.’

    Well there is little hope of peace and unity in our church when such derogatory terms as ‘misogynist’ (woman hater), ‘homophobe’ and ‘arch conservative’ appear in this blog in reference to those who dare to take a more traditional stance on ethical matters. Such intemperate language does not make for peace. Can we not agree to disagree while respecting each other’s opinion without resorting to name calling.
    So who is doing the disrupting?

    Reply
    1. Kelvin Avatar
      Kelvin

      Ross – those are serious accusations.

      I used the word misogynist to describe the “headship” argument. I would stand by that description. It is worth pointing out that conservative opinion is far from united around the idea of men being given authority by God to have headship over women. I’m not aware of applying that to any individual. Can you point me towards that?

      I can’t find any use of the word homophobe in my blog either. Can you point towards any time I’ve called anyone a homophobe.

      I’m also struggling to find the use of “arch conservative”. I may have used that phrase but I don’t remember doing so – can you point me towards it?

      Reply
    2. Christine McIntosh Avatar
      Christine McIntosh

      I find myself worried by the phrase “a more traditional stance on ethical matters”, the historical implications for which are unpleasant to say the least. I wonder if we’re talking “traditional” as in the attitude to same-sex activity that pertained when I was young, or maybe even more traditional with regard to women who dared to be wise or outspoken?

      Reply
  10. Augur Pearce Avatar
    Augur Pearce

    At times like this I (as a non-episcopalian) am inclined to quote Richard Hooker: ‘Lest bishops forget themselves, as if none on earth had authority to touch their states, let them continually bear in mind that it is rather the force of custome … doth still uphold … them in that respect, than that any such true & heavenly law can be showed… . Let this consideration be a bridle unto them; let it teach them … to use their authority with so much the greater humility and moderation, as a sword which the church hath power to take from them.’

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *