What is in Kelvin's Head?

The Scottish Episcopal Church and the upcoming Primates’ Meeting

29/09/2017

There’s been a little flurry of articles in the press this week about the Scottish Episcopal Church.

“SANCTIONS LOOM FOR SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH’S PRO-GAY MARRIAGE VOTE”

“SCOTS ‘TO FACE CONSEQUENCES’ OVER GAY MARRIAGE”

“GLOBAL ANGLICAN CHURCH LEADERS CONDEMN SCOTLAND FOR ALLOWING SAME-SEX WEDDINGS”

And so on.

The only awkward thing about all these articles is that the Primates’ Meeting hasn’t happened yet. No-one has condemned anything and no-one really knows what is going to happen.

This press interest seems to have started in London in the middle of the week when someone gave a briefing to the likes of the BBC, the Telegraph and the Guardian. All three had identical stories which didn’t reference anyone in Scotland at all. It isn’t rocket science to come to the conclusion that someone in either Lambeth Palace or the Anglican Communion Office was briefing journalists against the Scottish Episcopal Church.

Now, the thing about this is, as our American Episcopalian friends would no-doubt testify strongly, that there are some things which put the Anglican Communion at serious risk. Off the record media briefings against churches in the Communion put the Communion at far, far more risk than any number of weddings of same-sex couples.

After all, Justin Welby’s own authority is undermined – seriously undermined, if people coming together can’t have any sense of confidence in those who work in Lambeth Palace and the Anglican Communion Office. Trust has been undermined this week and the Archbishop has the capacity either to regain it or undermine it further.

Once that is done, the serious business of listening to one another should begin.

For that is the point of the Primates’ Meeting – listening, not disciplining. When people talk about the Primates issuing sanctions, they have forgotten that the meeting is not a disciplinary body but is there to allow the Primates to listen to one another. The Primates have scarcely any power to discipline in any case. What can they do? There is no Canon Law that holds the communion together. Nor is there any legal mechanism that the Primates could take to chuck any of the churches out of the Communion. The Anglican Consultative Council is the only one of the fragile so-called Instruments of Communion which has a constitution and the constitution is there to hold people together not to break them apart. (And it is also regulated by English charity law and no-one wants the ACC to lose its charitable status because the Primates make an unlawful bid for power over an English charity that they are not the trustees of).

The truth is, no-one knows at this stage what the Primates will say or do. At least 16 of them are new faces who have never been there before.

One of them is the Most Rev Mark Strange, our own Primus. Mark will be able to speak directly about what has happened in Scotland. (He’s taking time to pray this week to prepare for the meeting and the Scottish Episcopal Church is praying with him).

The truth is, what has happened in Scotland is a model for how the Anglican Communion can move forward and move beyond the constant squabbles about human sexuality. Here in Scotland we’ve made conscience the thing that we argued about rather than what people get up to in bed. We’ve recognised that Episcopalians take different views about same-sex relationships and we have honoured all of them. We’ve said that conscience has to be respected.

Now the conscience thing is important to understand – for we have not simply made provision for the consciences of those who object to same-sex relationships being respected. We’ve also said that conscience clauses apply equally to those who do, sincerely and truthfully believe that God wishes to bless those same-sex couples who wish to be married in church. Those of us who believe in offering marriage to all couples have consciences too.

We’ve tried to make it so that individual consciences are respected. It was the only possible way we could hang together. Ultimately, that is the only way that the Communion can hang together too.

We have something to witness to that is good and godly and I’ve no doubt that Bishop Mark will be looking forward to sharing the good things that have happened in Scotland as we have discussed, wrestled, voted and prayed this through. Remember this – the Scottish Episcopal Church decided to stay together over same-sex nuptials and the Communion could decide to do exactly the same.

For myself, as someone who has been part of this argument for longer than I can remember, I would want to say to those interested enough to listen to what has been going on in Scotland, “taste and see that the Lord is good”.

What we are talking about are the best days of people’s lives. What we are talking about are wedding ceremonies that are full of love and grace and compassion and joy. What we are talking about is the sheer joy of welcoming diversity and setting our General Synod free from these squabbles to concentrate on the core task for our church of preaching the love of God to Scotland.

For the love of God is what we are about. The gospel is preached here. God’s grace is known here. And God’s love is shared here. And all this as much during same-sex weddings as any other time. We’ve seen it. We witness to it.

And nothing can separate us from the love of God. After all, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. And as it happens, I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor sanctions, nor off the record media briefings, nor primates, nor consequences, nor GAFCON, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Archbishop of Canterbury, consequences, LGBT, Mark Strange, sanctions, Scottish Episcopal

10 responses to “The Tim Farron Question and the Archbishop of Canterbury”

Bro David

09/05/2017

This brings up an interesting memory with the long-time leader of Changing Attitude England (CA). This leader was taken in by Andrew Marin, founder of the Marin Foundation (MF) when he visited the UK in conjunction with some big outdoor Christian festival you lot hold anually. Marin and his followers were attending Pride Marches/Parades around the US and getting their photos taken hunging GLBTQ folks in the marches. His foundation claims to be attempting to build a bridge between the LGBTQ community and conservative Christian communities.
Marin was invited to comment on the CA blog. He spouted his pablum message of love for LGBTQ folks. Then, in a comment, I point blank asked Marin if he believed that we LGBTQ folks were sinners and needed to repent and become straight. He refused to answer the question. He said that I was asking the “wrong” question. Then he gave this answer verbatim from the Marin Foundation website;
“We call these the “Big 5.” They are:
Do you think that gays and lesbians are born that way?
Do you think homosexuality is a sin?
Can a LGBTQ person “change?”
Do you think that someone can be gay and Christian?
Are LGBTQ people going to hell?
“The one common theme of these “Big 5” is that they are all close-ended, yes-or-no questions. Each of them must be answered with one word and they are all meant to end conversation. Based solely on one’s close-ended answers, it is easy to label, judge and dismiss the other community entirely. Thus we dehumanize a community based off of a word rather than create a productive conversation. In essence, by close-ended answers either the conservative or the LGBTQ community judges who you are, what you believe, whose team you’re on and how you should be treated.
“Rather than answering close-ended questions, The Marin Foundation seeks to elevate the conversation and continual fruitful dialogue, as tense as that may be. This is a model taken from Jesus throughout the Gospels. Of the 25 times Jesus was asked close-ended questions, only three times did he respond with a yes or no. These three times were only after he was arrested and admitting he was the Messiah. Prior to this, Jesus never answered close-ended questions with a yes or a no. Instead, he elevated the conversation.”
I spent the next three days searching the MF website and reading through articles and white papers. I realized that it was a ministry to the LGBTQ of wolves in sheep’s clothing. These people were trying to love vulnerable LGBTQ folks into their embrace, to slowly chip away at them until they had brought them to realize that their sexual/gender orientation was false, acting upon it was a sin and they needed to seek the help of Jesus to beome heterosexual and accept their gender assigned by birth.
I posted my findings on the CA blog and was promply chastized and barred from further posts. In a personal email from the leader of CA I was ripped a new arsehole and declared anathema. Sadly, even LGBTQ folks in prominent positions are taken in by these folks. I think that we need to continually ask the Big 5, of everyone, epsecially those non-LGBTQ folks who profess to be our allies and supporters, secular or religious.

Reply
Peter Davison

09/05/2017

Good column.
So who is entitled to express opinions on ethical issues? I’ve long understood it’s the duty of all of us to have INFORMED consciences and to obey them. We may wish to consult people we believe to be more informed than we are, such as our presumed leaders, but in the end, when asked, we should at least be ready to state, however firmly or tentatively, where we stand. As for our leaders, they may or may not be better informed than we are; but we also know that ‘experts’ may be people who know more and more about less and less – and that politics often intrude into our public morality. Much of ethics is situational. That said, Jesus seems to have had much more compassion for alleged ‘sinners’ than for those who chose to label them as such. And much of our present troubles seem to stem from our desire to label and scapegoat people who appear to be different. What would happen if we simply accepted people for who they are and learned to accept that love is indeed ‘a many splendoured thing’?

Reply
Graham Evans

09/05/2017

A very interesting new perspective and certainly a question that should be put to all the Anglican bishops who sit in the house of Lords.

Reply
The Rev Sr Helena Barrett, OSB

09/05/2017

Absolutely spot on, Kelvin. The ABC should be asked The Question until he is sufficiently exhausted to give a clear and honest answer (whatever it may turn out to be) instead of the usual yards of ecclesiastical flannel.

Reply
1. June B Butler
  
  18/06/2017
  
  “The ABC should be asked The Question until he is sufficiently exhausted to give a clear and honest answer…”
  
  Justin Welby wails piteously: “I’m not the pope.”
  
  Reply
the Rev. Grant Barber

09/05/2017

I always wondered how the preachers in Pepys’ diary could preach such long sermons. I think I understand better now. So glad we’ve already settled the matter in the Episcopal Church. (Oh, the answer can be a succinct “no, not sin just by its nature).

Reply
Bernard Silverman

11/05/2017

if I asked an archbishop whether deliberately stamping on someone’s toe is a sin they would give a direct answer. So they should be asked the Farron question over and over again until they do similarly. If the Prime Minister can do that so can they. Indeed the question should be “the PM thinks that gay sex is not a sin. Was she right?”

Reply
Alan Wilson

17/06/2017

Spot On…

Reply
Kate Odling

10/01/2018

Very interesting. I always think that if someone does not give a clear answer to a question that they have something to hide or that their true belief/thought would be unpopular. I think the ABC has looked very uncomfortable when any direct questioning about LGBT issues are raised. So someone should ask & not accept anything but a straightforward answer. My final thought is that we are all qualified to have an opinion – what’s wrong with that?

Reply
Bruce Gulland

15/01/2018

Whatever I think about the answer to the question, I did rather enjoy the style of your post – you had me on the edge of my seat!

Reply