What is in Kelvin's Head?

The SNP and Equal Marriage

18/07/2012

The SNP must be wishing that they had never opened the can of worms that is labelled Marriage Law Reform. However, the truth is, it isn’t really they who have opened it. Equal Marriage is simply an idea whose time has come. It just so happens that the SNP find themselves needing to address the question at a time which is perhaps not particularly fortuitous to them.

One way or another, Equal Marriage is coming. The choice the SNP must feel as though they are in the middle of making will appear to many however as not being a simple choice between allowing same-sex couples to marry or not. What they appear to be vacillating over is the kind of Scotland they want to project as the great vision for the future. Are we going to be seen as a progressive nation with a modern, can-do parliament enacting social legislation which has majority support behind it. Or alternatively are we going to appear to be run by a governing party which can’t seem to make its mind up and which will bow in submission to the loudest and most angry voices – in this case, that of Cardinal O’Brien.

It is worth noting in passing the complete contrast between Cardinal O’Brien and Prof John Haldane who appeared on Newsnight a couple of days ago as someone speaking from a Roman Catholic perspective. Prof Haldane seemed reasonable, intelligent and sane. (He is). He also appeared to be saying that so long as no-one was forced to marry couples whom they didn’t want to marry, he personally didn’t care what happened to gay folk and was more than happy that they had partnership law to regulate their relationships. Towards the end of the piece, he made a plea for civility in the debate which the cynic might have thought was directed less at the supporters of Equal Marriage so much as towards his own Cardinal.

Yesterday the SNP Cabinet rather foolishly seemed to be letting it be known that they would come to a mind on the Equal Marriage question yesterday and great expectations were raised. In the end they didn’t come to a mind and were left looking at best as though they’d never heard of a competent communications policy and at worst as putting themselves on the wrong side of history.

I don’t happen to think that the SNP Cabinet is necessarily going to do something which I would disagree with. We need to wait and see. They say we will have more answers by the end of the month and I’m prepared to wait for them and make my mind up on the basis of what they decide. I still think that Equal Marriage is very much the topic on the table and I think that the SNP would probably rather deal with it all sooner rather than later to better ensure that it does not get caught up in their independence referendum.

Yesterday was a not a victory for clear government communications nor the end of the culture wars surrounding marriage law in the 21st century world. However, the Scottish Cabinet could not have slapped down Cardinal O’Brien’s request for a referendum on the issue more clearly. It was a foolish idea to start with and has been shown to be so by those elected to take decisions on our behalf.

I long for the day when we have marriage law that allows same-sex couples to marry just like anyone else. And I’m going to rejoice in yesterday’s rejection of a referendum on that question as simply another step on the way.

And along with many people of goodwill, I look for more progress in this area.

And quickly please, Ms Sturgeon. Much more quickly now, please.

equal marriage, Scotland, snp

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