What is in Kelvin's Head?

Another Argument for Marriage

16/08/2012

I recently posted a link to a piece by a Labour MP about how he was planning to support moves towards Equal Marriage. Shortly after I posted that, someone kindly drew my attention to another piece by and MP that is worth a read, this time from a Conservative.

Take a look at this, and the pdf that it points towards:

http://www.johnhowellmp.com/constituency-campaigns/local-campaigns/gay-civil-marriage/333

It is from John Howell MP OBE and is a pretty good answer to his local “Christian” critics. It is fascinating to see people working out their own responses to this proposed change and see arguments for it coming from different sides of the political battlefield.

As with Tom Harris’s piece, I don’t actually agree with all of this. In particularly, I don’t agree with the current moves to make a distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. We’ve been proceeding on the basis that it is one institution which one can enter in either a civil ceremony or a religious ceremony. It seems to me to be unhelpful for Mr Howell to refer to “Gay civil marriage” as though that were the institution itself rather than the means of entering into the institution. He is also quite muddled when he says:

Although civil and religious marriages have some similar end results, I regard them as separate acts. In practice, civil and religious marriages are already regarded as two different things in much of mainland Europe and they convey different rights. Indeed, more and more couples here are opting for a civil wedding followed by a church ceremony. For historical reasons, the automatic fusion of the two ceremonies in the UK occurs only where the marriage is conducted by an Anglican priest.

That may be true in England (though I’m not even sure if it is entirely true there) but it is certainly not true when applied to the UK as a whole.

However, there’s far more in Mr Howell’s piece that I agree with than that I disagree with. It is particularly interesting to see the case being put by an elected Anglican, coming from a Conservative background. It chimes with David Cameron’s argument that he is in favour of allowing gay couples to wed not despite being a conservative but because he is a conservative.

All in all, I’d say this paper would be a model for bishops to think about. One does get weary of being told by bishops how supportive they are when they say nothing whatsoever in public. It is possible to express one’s opinions and to do so charitably without the sky falling on our heads.

Last word to Mr Howell:

Allowing gay civil marriage is not a fundamental change at all and will, on the basis of evidence from elsewhere around the world, have no effect on the structure of society or on religious marriage. Above all, whichever way you approach this issue, there is no evidence of any harm which such a change would create. I have listened carefully to the views that have been put forward and I have read in detail the points that have been made. However, I cannot help but conclude that no compelling case has yet been made against this rather modest change. Rather, its contribution to a tolerant society at ease with itself is something which all Conservatives should support.

Conservative Party, equal marriage, LGBT, politics

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