What is in Kelvin's Head?

Back from hols and quick theatre reviews

16/01/2014
I’m back to work at St Mary’s today after a post-Christmas (well, post-Epiphany) week off. I’m writing this at the point just before I go into work, say morning prayer and open up the emails that have come in to me whilst I was away.

It has been a busy week. I managed to fit in a trip to Yorkshire to see family and a wee theatre trip to London.

Here are a few quick theatre reviews of what I saw.
- Matthew Bourne’s Swan Lake at Saddlers Wells – by some distance the most exciting thing I saw. I’ve come rather late to this one but loved it. (Except the ending which reminded me of Brokeback Mountain – how often gay couples only end up together when they are dead).
  Rating:
- Ghosts at the Trafalgar Studios – A very good production of this Ibsen play though I was surprised when I got in that I’d already seen a strikingly similar production of the same play at the Citz a while ago. Outstanding question – why did the maid and her father sound as though they came from Govan when they were supposed to be rural Swedes? Apart from that, all made sense and this was quite gripping.
  Rating:
- Not I, Footfalls and Rockaby – the Beckett trilogy at the Royal Court. This was the one I booked in advance and indeed the one that prompted me to book the trip. A rare chance to see Not I, not least because of how difficult it is – the actor hangs upside down on the stage and delivers a monologue “at the speed of thought” whilst the only illumination in the whole theatre is a tiny pencil spotlight on her lips. This was chilling, fascinating theatre that plays with your mind.
  Rating:
- From Morning to Midnight – a German expressionist piece at the Royal National Theatre. Brilliantly done. But should it have been done? I was far from sure. Reminded me of that terrible production of the Seven Deadly Sins that Scottish Opera did a few years ago.
  Rating:
- Mojo – a relatively new play at the Harold Pinter Theatre. This one didn’t work for me at all – far too shouty. Odd that the people in the stalls seemed to think it was hilarious and those in the Royal Circle didn’t. How does this happen?
  Rating:
Not a bad trawl. Add to that three big sung services in musical churches in London, a hour or so looking at favourite things in the National Gallery, some good food and good company and you’ve got a flavour of what I was up to.

I was in London for three nights, by the way and managed to come back without blisters.
Footfalls, From Morning to Midnight, Ghosts, Matthew Bourne, Mojo, Not I, review, Rockaby, Swan Lake

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