What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • 10 Unanswered Questions about Same-Sex Marriage

    Last week, at the General Synod in Edinburgh, it was announced that the Scottish Episcopal Church is to undergo a process of discussing what were referered to as “same-sex issues”.

    I’ve written about this before, and no doubt will do so again.

    For today though, here are some of the questions that are running around in my mind, most of which I don’t think were asked last week during General Synod and which I don’t think we have any answers to.

    • Once the Scottish Parliament has completed its legislative process and marriage for same-sex couples is legal in Scotland, what will be the consequences of a priest blessing such a couple in church. (NB – I can already, in some circumstances, bless couples entering into a Civil Partnership)?
    • Will all priests of the Scottish Episcopal Church be subject to the same discipline in this area or will different rules apply in different dioceses?
    • Will a member of the clergy who enters a civil marriage with someone of of the same sex have equality of opportunity in the church or will they automatically be ruled out of some appointments? Will there be parity between dioceses in this area and will the bishops have agreed a common policy?
    • If the Scottish Government were to subsequently proceed to allowing straight couples the possibility of entering a Civil Partnership, what would be the consequence of a member of the clergy entering a civil partnership and living in church-provided accommodation with their partner? Is that an acceptable moral choice in the church?
    • If it is not an acceptable moral church in the church for straight couples to live in a Civil Partnership when they have the opportunity of getting married, what standards apply to same-sex couples who might have a choice much sooner as to whether they live within a civil partnership or get married?
    • Is it acceptable for any member of the clergy to live with someone without having a legally binding committment to that person or not?
    • Is it acceptable (or even legal) for a bishop to refuse a licence to a priest on the grounds of their marital or partner status?
    • Would it be acceptable for a bishop to insist that clergy in same-sex Civil Partnerships should get married to one another once the opportunity arises for them to do so?
    • Does the peculiarly Scottish moratorium against bishops attending Civil Partnership ceremonies still apply and does it extend to civil marriage for some clergy and yet not for others?
    • Would a bishop support a priest who came to the conclusion that as the church has not made up its mind about who may get married, the right thing to do would be to declare a moratorium on marrying anyone (gay or straight) until the process of discussion about what marriage is had been concluded?

    I don’t think that any of these questions is a hypothetical question.

    Anyone with more questions or any answers?

    , , , ,

52 responses to “Inclusive Language – again”

  1. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!

    Reply
  2. Jimmy Avatar
    Jimmy

    Ryan, although you address your comment to Kelvin like I am not there. I assume you are referring to my poem, I can assure you that it does not crack me up watching you making any opinion you may have untenable.

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.

      Reply
  3. Jimmy Avatar
    Jimmy

    Thank you Kelvin and Sorry Ryan.

    Reply
  4. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    No worries! Was indeed referring to the v.amusing coming out day tweets at the side.

    I’m not sure there’s ever existed anyone, anywhere,at any time, of whom it could be said that *all* their opinions are ‘untenable’, so such rhetoric is dehumanising at best. Apropos nothing, I was moved to google the poetic stylings of the great David Brent. Who needs Auden? 😉
    http://murfinsandburglars.com/2009/04/14/bad-poetry-for-tuesday-david-brent-edition/

    Reply
  5. Peter Avatar
    Peter

    Kelvin; no, I think it distracts. It simp;ly reminds us that this is how your mind works: you make connections and delight in that sort of word-play. However, to sharpen up my point. Thank you for helping me to realise that, for some, ‘family’ is not a positive word in the way in which I experience it. For my part, this willl mean that I will be more careful about its use when others might feel excluded (and therefore hurt). Mutatis mutandi can you accept that I feel offended by what seems to be merely a casual linking between family and the f word? These are sensitive areas, but sensibilities are by no means confined to those who find family a painful or unhelpful concept.

    Reply
  6. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I am slightly nervous aboaut the alternatives to the 1982 Liturgy, not because I don’t share the inclusive sentiments expressed above (I do). I fear that, as so often in the history of the church, the steps we take to avoid one kind of mistake in the way we talk about God can lead us into another. The avoidance of pronouns as a measure to achieve inclusivity produces inelegant, strained and stilted English. How would it be if one were to use it in day-to-day speech? ‘I saw John this morning. I asked John’s how John’s health was. John said that John was over his flu, and hoped to be back at work on Monday’. This may not in itself seem to be a problem. But in fact, what very quickly happens when we adopt this idiom in addressing/expressing God, is that the very idea of a personal God begins to recede. My basic instinct is that the church’s language of pulbic prayer is properly anchored in that of the scriptures. There are dangers in departing from this. The perceived problem (rightly perceived) is perhaps better tackled by good teaching about the nature of God, than by linguistic contortions that produce stilted prayers, and possibly a less real and vivid idea of God.

    Reply
  7. Melissa Avatar
    Melissa

    About the family imagery – another reason to drop it in church is for the sake ones who, like me, do actually have the signifying family relationships.

    There is too much pressure on day to day life with children when that life is forced to serve as some kind of example or testimony or witness to the world – or more likely one’s church friends – about the nature of God.

    I think it sours love because in that kind of scheme loving children is more fundamentally a means to an end.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Primus

    The Scottish Episcopal Church has no Primus – long live the Primus.Pay attention now. Bishop Bruce resigned as Primus at the end of April, so he is no longer the Primus but still the Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney. The election of the next primus takes place at the next meeting of the College of…

  • Whoosh – into the skip

    Anyone who thought that I could not fill a skip with junk was very much mistaken. Whoosh – so much has been thrown out this week and mostly it feels very good to be rid of it.Now, with the skip filling up and confronted by 2 record playing turntables and a pile of old LPs…

  • Sing along now

    Where have all the dog collars gonelong time passing?Where have all the collars gonelong time ago?Where have all the collars gone?Down the back of the fridge every one.When will he ever learn?When will he ever learn?

  • Auctioneer's Visit

    Today’s excitement/trauma was a visit from the auctioneers in Falkirk who took very many goods and chattels away to be sold.Anyone wanting to buy the Kelvin Holdsworth Memorial Table and Chairs (at which he ate his daily porridge in Bridge of Allan) needs to make their way to the auction rooms in Falkirk next Wednesday.I’ve…