What is in Kelvin's Head?

Why outing [some] bishops must remain an option

07/10/2014

Last weekend, an extraordinary letter was published in the Sunday Telegraph. It came from 300 Christians, mostly Anglicans who were offering support to their bishops should any of them decide to come out.

It was described by some as a love letter to gay bishops.

I had the chance to sign the letter and, though I have a great deal of sympathy with its aim, found that I didn’t feel that I could do so because the letter itself contained a line that I disagreed with. It said that those signing the letter were against involuntarily outing bishops. Though I don’t believe anyone should be outed for being gay, there are some circumstances where I think outing is justified and for that reason, I declined to sign.

I’ve since been accused on twitter by an someone of advocating a campaign of intimidation that is “pure hatred”.

This is nonsense, of course, and came from someone who hides behind an anonymous twitter account.

But it is worth looking at the issues again.

This is what the letter said:

We are lay and ordained Anglicans in the Church of England and other Provinces, who publicly affirm the episcopal ministry in its purpose and diversity.

We recognize that there is a cost to those who respond to the call to be a bishop. This is especially true for those who are not heterosexual and have kept their sexual orientation private. There is growing pressure on gay bishops to come out publicly. The signatories to this letter do not advocate the involuntary outing of bishops.

We write to assure those bishops who may choose openly to acknowledge their sexual orientation as gay or bisexual that you will receive our support, prayer, and encouragement.

Sadly, we live at a time when those who are honest about being LGBTI and Christian are treated with hostility by a vocal minority within and outside the Church.

We have no doubt that the vast majority of Anglicans will welcome and embrace those of you who are gay or bisexual for your courage and conviction if you come out: weeping with you for past hurts and rejoicing in God’s call as witnesses to Christ’s transforming love and compassion.

If you stand out we will stand beside you.

Yours in Christ

My problem came with the line “The signatories to this letter do not advocate the involuntary outing of bishops.”

You see, the trouble is, I think that must remain an option. I don’t like the idea of outing bishops and certainly have no plans to do so. But it must remain an option.

The reason I’ve come to that view is the Keith O’Brien affair here in Scotland. In short, Cardinal Keith O’Brien was conducting a vitriolic campaign against the rights of gay folk whilst himself apparently having secret gay relationships.

It was a devastating affair not only for his own church but for all Christians in Scotland. It was not merely Roman Catholics who were ashamed of what was revealed and it is not merely Roman Catholics who are troubled by the suggestion at the time that Keith O’Brien may have made appointments that were influenced by his private life, a claim which has never really been put to rest. My friends who are Roman Catholics still speak of their distress at what has happened. Some complain about the lack of any open investigation and many have questions about the involvement of the Roman Catholic Church’s Media Office in promoting what they see as an anti-gay message in Scotland.

Before this took place, I probably would have signed a letter like the one that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph. However, now, having seen what has happened here amongst my friends, I can’t sign it. Sometimes, as a last resort, outing is necessary. If someone who is gay uses a position of power to attack other gay people and who is living a life inconsistent with the message being preached then I’m afraid that it may be the best thing for them to be exposed and removed from office.

When I weighed up whether to sign the letter or not, I simply asked myself whether it would have been better for Keith O Brien to still be in post, still campaigning against gay people, still bringing Christianity into disrepute by his message, whilst some people privately knew what was going on. (Incidentally, I was one of those who did know stories about Keith O’Brien before this broke). My conclusion was that the greater good would not be served by him still being in post. I don’t think he as an individual would be best served by his remaining in post.

So, my reluctant conclusion is that outing people in power must remain an option.

It also must remain an option to out straight leaders who claim in public to be supportive of gay folk but who privately act against them.

You are at no risk of being outed if you simply happen to be gay and happen to be in power.

Should you act against other gay folk, campaign against them and work to limit their human rights, then it seems not unreasonable for your own life to be exposed to public scrutiny.

I have great sympathies with what those signing the Telegraph letter were doing. Should any bishop decide to come out I’d be first in line to offer support, encouragement and advice on what it means to be gay and have a very public role in the church.

However, that one sentence meant that I couldn’t actually sign on the dotted line.

And though it may make other people, like my anonymous twitter troll, very cross, I’ve no regrets about that at all.

Keith O’Brien, LGBT, outing bishops

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