What is in Kelvin's Head?

Taint

25/09/2013

The Church of England has a problem. Well, the Church of England has many problems, but the one that it is waking up to at the moment is that women bishops are getting closer and closer to it and it hasn’t quite worked out what to do.

Why does it have to do anything?

Ah, well there exists a settlement in the Church of England whereby the Church of England does not fully recognise as bishops those bishops in the Anglican communion who have been consecrated in other parts of the Anglican world who happen to be women.

Now this means that priests who have been ordained by such bishops cannot serve in the Church of England. All those claims that churches which allow the consecration of women as bishops make about being in full communion with the Church of England are deeply compromised by this.

The election of a female candidate to the episcopacy in Ireland is a joyful thing. It is right, I think, that all positions in the church should be open to both men and women equally. I long for this to have become normal so that we can then get on with talking about what kind of episcopacy we think the church needs. We’ve got so hung up on gender that we’ve not really been able to talk much about episcopacy itself. I’m one of those pesky people who is a passionate advocate of equality in this area who also thinks that it will make very little difference to the leadership that the church receives. My belief that women and men can lead the church equally is founded in a belief that women and men have the same capacity for both glory and despair as one another. My training convinced me precisely that women and men in the church need equal opportunities because I saw that women in leadership positions in the church are capable of exactly the same cruelty as men.

However I digress.

I find today an excellent post has been published from Will Adam, editor of the Ecclesiastical Law Journal and Vicar of St Paul’s, Winchmore Hill in the Diocese of London on the recognition of orders. I was unaware that the Scottish Episcopal Church had a different legal position with regards to the Church of England to the churches in Ireland and Wales, but it is so. A Church of England bishop can apparently refuse to receive the orders of someone ordained in Scotland for any reason but not those from Ireland and Wales.

However there also appears to be an argument in the same post (which I have to admit I don’t understand with respect to Scotland) saying that there is be no way that a Church of England bishop could automatically refuse to receive the orders of someone ordained by a bishop who happens to be a women provided they come from within the British Isles, though they could be refused from elsewhere. (If I read that right).

All of which must make Church of England legal types sit up and take notice.

I’m interested in this not simply from a legal point of view though. Some people in Anglicanism believe that women cannot be ordained and refuse to receive their ministry. I don’t think I very often encounter such people and in Scotland, our legislation on ordaining bishops is a done deal. If a diocese chooses a female candidate for the episcopate then that is that. If she has any problem ministering to anyone in her diocese then she can, if she thinks it will help, ask a colleague from the college of bishops to help her out. However, that is her choice and not anyone else’s. We don’t have legal “protection” for those who can’t accept women as bishops and we are not going to. And we thank God we don’t.

Amongst those who can’t accept women there has developed this peculiar mentality which people refer to as a theology of taint. It is sometimes denied to be such, but the fact remains that there are some who won’t recognise the ministry of those who have been ordained by women, never mind the women themselves. It looks like a theology of taint and it sounds like a theology of taint and frankly to me it is precisely a theology of taint.

What I’m interested in is that with respect of our current bishops in Scotland, all of them have either had a female co-consecrator present at their consecration, joined in consecrating someone with a female co-consecrator present or have been consecrated by someone who has had a female co-consecrator present at their own consecration.

What I wonder is whether those who apply the theology of taint believe that anyone at all (bishops, priests or deacons) now ordained in Scotland is legit.

Oh, and by the way an English bishop was present and joining in when this situation began. I was there – I saw it with my own eyes.

Where does this leave the Scottish Episcopal Church in relation to those who would deny the legitimacy of women to act as bishops?

(The bishop who happens to be a women who joined the SEC for a consecration was a delight and I attempted to teach her the gay gordons).

Do we, or do we not, remain in full communion with [all of] the Church of England?

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