The LGBT Group at St Mary’s met on 18 February to prepare its response to the current Scottish Government consultation on the bill that it is proposing to bring in on allowing changes to marriage law in Scotland including allowing same-sex couples to be able to be marriage.
In case anyone is interested, here is the response that the group made:
St Mary’s LGBT group response to government consultation
Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!
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.
No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.
Thank you Kelvin and Sorry 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/
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.
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.
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.
Time for my annual Blog Break. I’ll not be blogging for July, but will be back at the start of August.
[starts 0900] Devotions (such as they were) and thinking about last night’s bizarre dream. Check webfeeds. Meeting with electrician and lighting expert re bulbs blowing at great height. Answer messages and e-mails. Several international ones re current Anglican position on The Usual Topic and about who actually said what at the big ACC meeting. Visit…
No sermon this morning – I was baptising again instead.Who would have thought that so many in the congregation would take up the invitation to come to church and the Young Church Garden Party in Victorian Fancy dress?I did not participate in the dressing up, though could be found dancing around a Maypole later in…
Well, the Church Times did not publish the letter that I sent them this week. However I can forgive them much in exchange for the following: 1 – publishing a correction to last week’s erroneous claim that the Scottish Episcopal Church had accepted the Windsor Report at the General Synod 2 – the headline: “Methodists…
Leave a Reply