What is in Kelvin's Head?

Last Year’s Predictions

31/12/2015

Each year I try to make some predictions at New Year. And each year I take a look back on Hogmanay to see how I did.

Here’s the rundown of how I did last year.

1 Those who voted YES in the Scottish Referendum will continue to behave as though they won. This may be unhelpful.
2 Those who voted NO in the Scottish Referendum will continue to behave as thought he referendum never happened. This may be unhelpful.

Well, I think I got these both right. I don’t see much sign that we’ve moved on from the referendum. Alan McManus’s magazine article was a breath of fresh air, but a rare one.

3 There will, I fear, be a Tory Prime Minister at the end of 2015.

Bang on with this one.

4 The Liberal Democrats will retain 10 – 14 seats in the House of Commons.

Well, I got the detail wrong – the Lib Dems did even worse in the General Election. When I made this prediction, most people were predicting a Lib Dem presence of 30 – 36, I think. My prediction of electoral catastrophe was just not taken seriously by those whom I know who should have taken it most seriously. I’m claiming this as a very near miss.

5 Nick Clegg will lose his seat and be Lord Clegg by the end of the year.

That’s a miss. Nick Clegg kept his seat if not his party.

6 The Labour Party will not be led by a Milliband by the end of the year.

Well I didn’t see Jeremy Corbyn coming but it was clear to me that Ed Milliband wasn’t going anywhere fast. Remember though that right up until the General Election, most of the polls predicted a hung parliament and uncertainty about who would be the PM.

7 The Church of Scotland will begin a new procedure under the barrier act to determine whether to accept ministers in same-sex partnerships who are married (ie not merely in Civil Partnerships).

Got this one bang on. Presbyteries have just voted by a narrow majority to send this back to the General Assembly for decision in May.

8 There will be legal victories for those seeking to extend Civil Partnerships to straight couples.

Well, we’ve not see as many legal victories as I expected. However, we’ve got a rather uncomfortable consultation just completed in Scotland in which the Scottish Government announced before consulting, that it didn’t want to do what a lot of people want them to do. I hope it sticks to its guns though and refuses to allow straight couples (or indeed future gay couples) Civil Partnerships.

9 Elizabeth Warren will become a household name.

Well, this one didn’t really come to pass. My fantasy of a dream Hilary/Elizabeth ticket doesn’t look like becoming a reality either.

10 (Some) straight liberals will lead the charge (such as it is) for (something less than) LGBT equality, (sometimes). Believe it or not, I’m excited by this and it is an improvement. [Remember that in 2011 I predicted that “No straight liberal in the church will feel the need to sacrifice anything at all for the gay friends they purport to support.” Things are changing a bit].

I’m claiming this one as a win. I could feel it all around me at Greenbelt but I’ve felt it in other places too. Increasingly, the things I’ve been fighting for are becoming mainstream. Deo Gratias.

11 Advances in e-learning in churches.

This one is a miss. I’ve dabbled a bit myself but there’s no real sign of denominations doing what they need to do if they are going to teach their people any better in the future than they have done in the past.

15 responses to “The Scottish Episcopal Church and the upcoming Primates’ Meeting”

Christine

29/09/2017

Well said!

Reply
1. Andrea Maier
  
  30/09/2017
  
  Concur!
  
  Reply
Lionel Deimel

29/09/2017

We can hope that new primates will change the ethos of the Primates’ Meeting. I’m making no bets on it.

Reply
Phil Groves

29/09/2017

100% agreement.

Reply
Eamonn

29/09/2017

Beautifully balanced – and witty, too! Well said!

Reply
Meg Rosenfeld

29/09/2017

It’s happening here in the USA and unless you believe that our current president represents God’s punishment (personally, I think God wouldn’t be so tacky) we haven’t blown up yet. As you say, it’s about goodness and love–how radical can we get?

Reply
Wayne Kamm

29/09/2017

Thank you for an excellent statement!

Reply
Tobias Stanislas Haller

29/09/2017

Well said. Most of the Primates have only limited authority even within their own provinces, and absolutely no authority outside them. Trying to turn international Anglican conferences and meetings into disciplinary bodies is the stuff of fiction. All of that sort of pre-meeting hoopla makes the real work of the meeting, in terms of open dialogue and interaction, much more difficult.

Reply
Drew_Mac

29/09/2017

Well said! There’s been lots of blogging recently about the sensitive consciences of those who inexplicably claim they will be ‘forced’ to marry same-sex couples. At the same time I’m being forced to send loving committed and legally married same-sex couples away without even a formal blessing. Respect for conscience should cut both ways.

Reply
Andrew Bowdler

30/09/2017

Kelvin, listening can – and often does – result in disciplining. To try to separate them, as you have in your original piece, is therefore to miss the point. With the enormous divide that exists on this particular issue, one or other side is ultimately going to have to be ‘disciplined’ – and, no, discipline doesn’t have to be harsh or violent. It can equally be gently persuasive.

Reply
1. Jo
  
  30/09/2017
  
  Isn’t the lesson from both TEC and the SEC is that no-one need be disciplined for following their personal conscience; the issue only arises when one side seeks to force the other to act against their conscience and only one side is doing that.
  
  Reply
2. Cynthia Katsarelis
  
  03/10/2017
  
  There’s no “gently persuasive” way to say that my spouse and I aren’t loved by God and our sacramental marriage deeply infused with God’s grace.
  
  Discipline should be to those who have supported criminalization of LGBT people.
  
  Reply
3. Richard Ashby
  
  03/10/2017
  
  Why should ‘listening’ result in disciplining? It should lead to understanding of an opposite point of view and respect for another’s conscience. Neither the primates nor Lambeth nor the Communion has any power to ‘discipline’ anyone and neither should it. We aren’t Roman Catholics and we don’t have a
  Pope. The Scottish Episcopal Church allow the exercise of conscience on both sides. The problem is that too many Christians want to impose their rules over against another persons conscience. That’s just not right.
  
  And what’s the point anyway? The ‘consequences’ haven’t changed the mind of the America Anglicans, the prospect didn’t stop the Scottish Church, it’s not going to stop Canada or South Africa.
  
  Reply
  1. Andrew Bowdler
    
    11/10/2017
    
    No society or organisation can allow diametrically opposing opinions on the same issue to be held with the same validity, Richard. They can, and often will allow for debate and ‘listening’ but in the long run, one opinion of the other has to be accepted over and against the other. Those who continue to hold the unsuccessful opinion will then have to accept the other, or face ‘discipline’ in one of a number of forms. When said society allows meaningless phrases such as ‘hate crime’ to brandied about with no legal or linguistic definition to support them, that society opens itself to a form of anarchy.
    
    Reply
    1. Richard Ashby
      
      11/10/2017
      
      But I thought that that the CofE has ‘two integrities’ on women as priests and bishops. What about ‘mutual flourishing’. In your view this is obviously impossible in long term (actually I happen to agree with you on that.) but what’s sauce for the goose etc
      
      We are supposed to be living side by side with these tensions. The Scottish Church has said that no one is to be forced to marry or not marry same sex couples. I know some people think that is impossible, I’ve been told so by members of ‘Christian concern’ etc. But we cannot allow these people to dictate to us what we hold by our consciences also to be true.
      
      Reply