What is in Kelvin's Head?

A Christian Country?

28/04/2014

I’ve been watching the various debates about whether “we” live in a Christian country with interest over the last 10 days or so. I’m inclined to agree with the notion that the UK clearly has such a great heritage from the Christian tradition that it makes sense to speak of it as having been a Christian country. I also think that we have moved beyond Christendom and that it is obvious that the UK is not a Christian country in the sense of being a country of people who are either united by Christian belief or practise.

What surprises me a little is how little comment there has been about this in Scotland. After all, in Scotland we are currently thinking very precisely about what kind of country we want to either be or belong to.

I remain unpersuaded by the case for independence for Scotland. I don’t think myself that separating from the rest of the UK would be good either for Scotland or for everyone else involved. However, I rather like the fact that in Scotland we are talking about what kind of country we hope for. There are clearer lots of people who want a fairer society. However, I’ve no real interest in building a Scotland that is fairer than England. I want a fairer society for everyone. Compassion has no borders. I care for the poor family in Carlisle as much as the poor family in Aberdeen. (Carlisle is nearer in any case).

What interests me most this week though is that there has been so little discussion of whether Scotland should be a “Christian” nation if independence were to come upon us. I’m quite clear myself that if there is any talk of a draft constitution for Scotland it must be a secular one. I have no problem being part of a historically Christian country and working to make it more secular. I do however have a big problem with starting up a new country and writing Christianity into the constitutional definition of what that country is.

Should independence become a reality, then we have to have a real debate about what kind of country we are talking about. I certainly don’t want to be part of a new country which has a National Church written into its constitution. Members of the Church of Scotland can’t presume that the rest of the Christian communities are going to back any attempt to keep their particular position in society. Similarly, it cannot be presumed that issues like eduction funding will be unchanged in a new country. The settlement by which the Roman Catholic Church is funded by the state to run often excellent schools can’t simply be presumed to be what the people of a new country will want.

I’m very aware that some want to make a case for an established or national church on the grounds that a broad, moderate church is a force for good in society. However, I think that the mainstream Christian churches are currently presumed to be promoting a morality that people who think they are good, decent, upstanding members of society simply abhor. I don’t think there is a long term future for churches to be established or privileged in any way by the law if they are associated in the public mind with discrimination against woman and people who happen to be gay.

In England, I suspect that disestablishment will come about by erosion. In Scotland where a new constitution is on the table, things may be rather different.

I think that a secular Scotland is probably one in which churches like my own will thrive. We all have things to fear from anything else.

7 responses to “Newsnight Scotland”

ryan

15/02/2011

Great stuff! Compares favourably with Fr.Gadgetvicar’s Holy Week appearance a few years back although I’m not sure if, personally, I’d rank it up there with Italian Vanity Fair 😉

Good to see the LGBT Network and Stonewall too – and encouraging that, unlike what would have happened a mere five or six years ago, the BBC didn’t feel the need to rope in some spokesman for a homophobic lobby in the interests of ‘balance’.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  15/02/2011
  
  Thanks Ryan
  
  On your last point, I think its interesting that in those five or six years, the opinion polls have been overturned. (That’s what John Curtice was telling us). The BBC can deal differently with the issue now because its not just a hypothetical issue that holy people are arguing about but a mainstream issue that the majority want but which politicians are wary of.
  
  I took the view a few years ago that campaigning for these issues was more fruitful within society generally rather than simply going over the same ground again and again in the church. I’m proud to be a tiny part in the process that has brought about that change in opinion. That’s a process that is now bearing fruit. The end of the process is equality and justice for all inside and outside the church.
  
  There are still debates to be had in the media where a pro/anti debate is what they are looking for and the balance argument comes into play. Indeed, I’ve turned down a request to do just such a media debate this week. I don’t think it takes people very far. Incidently, that was my view 6 years ago when I turned down the chance to debate with Fr Gadgetvicar on Newsnight during Holy Week.
  
  Reply
SomeRandomBint

15/02/2011

I very much enjoyed your discussion last night – especially when you re-iterated the fact that being against homosexuality ISN’T the standard Christian view of the matter. I’ve been told I’m not a true believer because I refuse to see the harm in others being in relationships with others of the same sex. I also don’t see the validity of the argument that it’s the thin end of the wedge, and opens churches to the possibility of legal action if they refuse to perform these ceremonies. I don’t see the difference between this choice, and the choice of celebrates as to whether they perform ceremonies of divorcees. There’s much talking still to be done on the issue, but I wanted to thank you for presenting such a measured view of the opinions of those of us who are Christians AND inclusive of all sorts of people.

Reply
David McCarthy

16/02/2011

Kelvin was standing as a candidate in the election when Newsnight called me in 2005 – as it happens I was at his house drinking tea. They were very surprised that we were being quite so convivial.

I felt it a pity that an another point of view was not represented the other night – it was hardly a discussion, more a presentation of one side’s opinions.

Reply
kelvin

16/02/2011

Sides? When did we begin to have sides?

Reply
ryan

16/02/2011

”If you are not with me, you are my enemy!” as Darth Vader and evangelical posterboy George W Bush are fond of remarking 😉

Also , even you, David, say you are in favour of civil partnerships, a view shared by many conservatives. So despite the presence of ‘Christian’ Institute lying bigots, they are largely a loud insignificant minority (even, happily, in your congregation!) and not the legitimate ‘opposing point off view’ . Curious (or not so much) that the BBC had stephen green on in the past, but never felt the need to have antisemitic, racist or sexist speakers to provide ‘balance’ on certain issues.

Reply
Sammi del brocco

16/02/2011

Really enjoyed watching that, and thankyou for standing up. I am gay and have been with my partner for 7 years and to me civil parnership is not a marriage we should be able to get married just like everyone else. as for me marriage is all about committing,loving and spending the rest of your life with some one you love regardless of gender, are we all not human beings and supposedly have human rights? Once again thankyou very enjoyable viewing.

Reply