What is in Kelvin's Head?

On Being Threatened

09/06/2016

At the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church one seldom gets that many surprises. Very occasionally you get a vote that is closer than you expect but most of the things you hear are what you expect to hear. However, today I have to confess that I heard things that were genuinely surprising.

As is fairly well known, the Scottish Episcopal Church is currently considering amending its marriage canon in order to be able to keep the church together – specifically to enable the church to contain within it both those who wish to be able to marry same-sex couples and those who don’t wish to do so. There’s a chance that this might happen.

What we heard today is that the question has been asked of the Archbishop of Canterbury as to what, if any, the consequences of making this change might be. It would appear that the only consequence is very personal to the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

He met Justin Welby two weeks ago and was told directly by him that if the Scottish Episcopal Church goes ahead and makes this change then the Primus will himself be personally removed by the Archbishop from leading the World Anglican-Reformed Dialogue – an ecumenical series of international meetings.

It seems to me that we have come to a new place if the Archbishop of Canterbury is going to personally threaten the Primus of a province of the Anglican Communion if that province makes a decision.

There were a number of people at this afternoon’s synod meeting proudly wearing badges that said: “The Archbishop of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction in this realm of Scotland”. However, it seems to me that this Archbishop thinks that he has. (Not for the first time, I would note).

I asked a question about this today as I had heard the Archbishop himself say in public to the world’s press that he did not know whether there would be “consequences” (ie sanctions) against churches other than the US church which chose to move forward in terms of allowing gay couples to get married. This was in the press conference after the Primates’ meeting earlier this year. Indeed, the Archbishop said that he was simply one vote amongst the 38 Provinces and he could not predict how a future Primates’ Meeting would react to another province going down this line. What had changed since that press conference, I wondered, that made the Archbishop able to make this threat in private when he was so uncertain before the world’s press of what the consequences for other churches might be if they voted to bring about change?

The answer from the Primus this afternoon was that the Anglican-Reformed Dialogue convenership is in the personal gift of the Archbishop of Canterbury and not that of the Primates.

Thus, it seems to me that the crisis in the Anglican Communion has reached something new and genuinely shocking. It would appear that the Archbishop very precisely in his own role as one of the Instruments of Communion is now threatening individual Primates with sanctions if their own provinces vote for things that he as the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks that they should not do.

That is a serious development and one which should be noted by everyone. I can’t see that this can possibly be a postive contribution to keeping the communion together.

In all of this, our synod seems to me to be working to keep our church together and not force others to say what they do not believe. The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to be working on quite a different unity model whereby you can have your unity so long as you agree with him.

I think that the Primus’s response to all this was generous, measured and gracious. It was moving to hear him quote the Presiding Bishop of the US Episcopal Church who has spoken of these sanctions from the position of being descended from slaves.

If the Primus is removed from this position as a consequence of the decisions of the Scottish Synod he will join a large group of people who have been removed from a ministry either because they are gay or they support those who are gay or because they are associated with those who are positive about those who are gay. This is how homophobia works in practise. I am shocked that the Archbishop should make himself vulnerable to the charge that he (rather than the Primates or the ACC or the Lambeth Conference) works this way.

I am familiar with the experience of being told that you can’t do things because of these reasons. I stand in solidarity with the Primus and all those removed from a ministry because of their identity as gay men and women (and also those who cannot minister solely because of their gender). David Chillingworth is potentially a very unexpected victim of homophobia. We must all stand alongside him if it comes to pass.

If the synod does vote in favour of trying to keep our church together in this way then I think we’ll be offering the Anglican Communion a model that has gospel generosity at its heart. Far from something that individuals should be punished over (regardless of whether they themselves vote or don’t vote for change), I think we’ve something to offer the communion.

The votes we have before us are not really about human sexuality but about what kind of church we want to be. The Archbishop of Canterbury is gravely mistaken if he believes that threatening other primates in his own role as “first amongst equals” in the Anglican Communion will enable church unity.

The opposite is very clearly the case.

7 responses to “Whither the Kirk?”

Pausing Place

25/08/2010

I missed last night’s programme, but I thought your comments were interesting.

In a sense, perhaps it’s unsurprising if the SEC is inwardly more positive about itself than the CofS. My take is that in the recent past, at least, the SEC started from a lower common denominator, not being the “local” church in the same way as the Kirk, and so it doesn’t have to contend with others saying of it “look how the mighty have fallen” in quite the same way.

As to the health of the Kirk (and the SEC for that matter), I think we need to reflect on our self-perception and to consider carefully the points and places in which a dying church (congregation or denomination) should be allowed to die gracefully, and the ways in which we might see new life emerge from the rubble.

As a young(ish!), relatively new Christian I have seen examples of (both urban and rural) SEC and Kirk congregations where there are few signs of new growth, little to draw in younger (under 50 year olds, to pick a random-ish number) new folk, and much to sustain negative preconceptions of church as boring, irrelevant and so forth.

We as a faith community need to get much better at stepping up to the mark in our creativity and engagement with our society. The sad truth is that most young adults do not know and have not heard about Jesus Christ, and unless we engage with them in ways culturally relevant to them, and which do not presuppose previous knowledge (too often taken for granted) they never will.

It troubles me, but I do think it’s true to say that in the SEC and in the Kirk we have a church sustained by the traditions and cultural reference points taught to a previous generation. Culture has shifted radically, with the result that the same will not be able to be said in 20 years time.

Our challenge is clear. Whether the Kirk and the SEC can step up to the mark to address what it means to live out the Great Commission in the 21st century is less so.

Reply
Cal

25/08/2010

I didn’t really understand who this programme was aimed at, or even what its aim was.

Yes, numbers have fallen, but perhaps the small number of people who remain are there because they actually want to be, not because it’s the done thing on a Sunday morning.

And personally, I rather like the idea of a church “sustained by traditions”. Clearly the church has to be relevant to modern society, but in abandoning the traditions of worship then you lose the centre of why the church exists in the first place.

There was something very Presbyterian about the programme with its “we’re doomed” mentality. I find the SEC generally more positive in outlook.

Reply
John

25/08/2010

The only book the presenter seemed to have used in his research was ‘The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation 1800-2000’ By Callum G Brown – indeed Callum Brown was one of the speakers. The thesis of this well argued sociological study is that “quite suddenly in 1963 something very profound ruptured the character of the nation and its people sending organised Christianity on a downward spiral to the margins of social significanceâ€. That something he identifies as new media, new gender roles and a moral revolution which has dramatically ended peopleâ€™s conception that they lived Christian lives.â€ It could be said to have happened as â€œsex beganâ€ between the end of the Chatterly ban and the Beatles first LP as the poet Philip Larkin so famously put it.”
To balance this statistical decline the programme flagged up some of the “church without walls ” iniatives in a lame sort of way. All in all a most unsatisfactory programme that only told half the story.

Reply
Kenny

25/08/2010

Good crit Kelvin. My reflection at the end of the programme was, “Lord, we visited this stuff over 30 years ago, and have come out of it stronger and better Church in the SEC.” Hopefully, we stopped longing for ‘the good old days’ a long time ago!

Reply
MartinRitchie

26/08/2010

I thinking “Pausing Place” makes a good point about needing to creatively engage with society. From my own experience of working with a CofS congregation, this creative engagement is a weak spot for many.

As a counterpoint to the programme, interesting to note in the latest “Life and Work” a very positive article about a growing CofS congregation in Stornoway – and I mean really growing! So not all doom and gloom, and I’m sure there are many more examples of bright spots, just as there are in the SEC!

Reply
Graham Vahey

28/08/2010

If the C of S disappeared completely we would be at a loss. During the dark and bleak years of Thatcher’s reign she refused to visit Scotland for 5 years. When she did she expressed shock that we had Royal Regalia and ordered it to be removed immediately for safe-keeping to England. Her ‘Sermon on the Mound’ is now historical for its condescension to the Scots. She was none too pleased to be handed two reports on poverty in Scotland by the powerful Church and Nation Committee. Indeed, it was to this Committee that the population turned to for a moral lead during Thatcherism. When James VI (‘Jamie the Saxt’) became James I in England, the population turned to senior Scottish earls for a moral lead. Unfortunately, the Piskie Church does not give a moral lead in Scotland, apart from the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention in the recent past. The RC Church does pronounce on moral issues. Could it not be conceivable that all the major Churches could unite in a Committee to pronounce for Scotland on moral issues as the Church & Nation Committee once did?

Reply
Aldous N. Gaiters

01/09/2010

Speaking as a Nonjuror myself I am sure the SEC has a right to a moral voice in Scotland. Taking the US daughter church of the SEC as a model you could see where the fissures would appear. There is room for a modern liberal Christian voice, but even I an old Liberal myself, would have to fear that such a voice might appeal to only a select few.

Reply