What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • I respectfully disagree…

    I respectfully disagree with the latest College of Bishops statement on Aberdeen and Orkney and I do so in two respects.

    Firstly, there is no mention of a mediation process in Canon 53. If the College of Bishops wishes to use Canon 53 section 11 and subsequent sections, then they should follow the procedure laid down there and name the bishop who is hearing the dispute. The bishop in question should publish the terms under which they are going to determine the dispute and the date on which the hearing will take place. Canon 53 does not allow for the resolution of such disputes to be outsourced to other individuals or organisations. (Sections before section 11 do not apply to disputes within a diocese). The procedure outlined in Canon 53 Section 11 and the following sections is clearly a decision making process and not a process of mediation. (In any case, my personal view is that mediation processes are seldom appropriate in cases where bullying is alleged and where there are discrepancies of power between the parties involved).

    Secondly, anyone making a claim of bullying against a serving bishop or any serving bishop wishing to make a claim that they have themselves been bullied by anyone subject to the Code of Canons, should be explicitly invited by the College to make a complaint under Canon 54.

    Canon 54 can only be initiated by someone who is a member of the church. My view is that the College should make public appropriate arrangements for the bringing of a complaint by anyone who has subsequently left the church – specifically that the complaint would be passed to a (communicant) diocesan registrar or the clerk to the Episcopal Synod to be initiated formally.

    Making vague references to the “Disciplinary Canonical process” of the church in a press release is unhelpful. Canon 54 is what the process is and the College of Bishops should long ago have insisted that people use it to bring allegations.

    This is not the first statement by the College of Bishops with regard to these matters that has given me cause for concern. In a statement last December the College asserted that neither the Primus nor the College of Bishops had the power to suspend a bishop. The Code of Canons is very clear that bishops can be suspended and that only the Primus can do so and that this can only be upheld or not by the Episcopal Synod (which is the same body of people as the College of Bishops). The due processes governing how these things can come about are found in Canon 54 (Of Offences and Trials) and Canon 6 (Of Diocesan Bishops and their Jurisdiction and of Bishops’ Commissaries).

    For the last few years I’ve been a member of a review group which has been carefully considering whether the disciplinary canonical processes of the church need to be updated. In time, I hope that they are. However, the canons that we currently have remain in force. Bishops require clergy to take oaths to uphold the Canons. Bishops themselves take oaths that they in turn will uphold the canons of the church.

    I regard members of the College of Bishops as colleagues and friends and remain willing to discuss these matters with any of them or indeed with any member of the church. A number of the members of the College of Bishops have heard me say privately what I now assert here, that for the good of the whole church, the College of Bishops needs to return to the Canonical norms of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    I will not be discussing this matter with any journalists. The opinions expressed in this post are explicitly with regard to the College of Bishops and do not constitute a comment on anything that may or may not have happened in the Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney, about which I have little knowledge.

    The Code of Canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church can be found here: https://www.scotland.anglican.org/wp-content/uploads/Code-of-Canons-2020.pdf

8 responses to “Deck the hair…”

  1. (fabulous for an alleged evangelical) ryan Avatar
    (fabulous for an alleged evangelical) ryan

    Out of interest, is there a proper churchy rule or convention on the right time for Christmas trees to go up? Don’t know if the grumpiness in your post is personal or praepostorial

    Reply
  2. Kimberly Avatar
    Kimberly

    A properly churchy time for the Christmas tree to go up is at Chrismas. i.e. after the fourth Sunday of Advent and in time for the Midnight Mass.

    Grumpiness about Christmas in October is natural and appropriate, surely.

    Reply
  3. Anne Avatar
    Anne

    On a sliding scale of grumpiness which is worse, harumph or bah humbug?[PS M and S had hot cross buns in their bakery today]

    Reply
  4. ChickPea Avatar
    ChickPea

    Ah, Kelvin…….. I wonder, is there a link between the demoralising ‘Facebook’ notices bewailed in your last post and your enticing sentiments expressed in this ?

    Perhaps you need to create a little sunshine to tempt them – a little progressive development of the fly-fishing technique, the swish and flick of the wrist, the fleeting glimpse of temptation just enough in sight to, er, arouse interest……

    Maybe your own bedecked seasonal tree (call it an ‘Advent Tree’ to thwart the Christmas Tree Traditionalists – thereby launching yourself as a trend-setter) – such tree selected and styled with eagerness in longing anticipation of future festivities……..

    (You could call it ‘forward planning par excellence’, even, to gain bonus brownie points and thwart critics)…..

    Then, perchance, the ‘Facebook Fanatics’ may clamour to, er, beat a path to your door ?

    (Tho……. more to the point……. would you honestly be wanting them to ?……….is that really where Everyman finds his bosom buddies ?)

    PS. Put your dazzling Advent Tree prominently in your window and WE’ll all come round so’s you’re not lonely – how’s that for a Gloom-Buster to tweak the morale, eh ?

    Reply
  5. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    I think that facebook is just another meeting place and similar patterns of community seem to play out there though sometimes at a faster rate than in face to face communication. Certainly, the flirting, fighting and flummery as well as thoughtful the slow conversation that I recognise from off-line communication, is all present there too.

    Would I want to entice those who would be enticed by early Christmas trees, albeit dressed up in another name.

    I’d rather not.

    [BTW Anne – three Harumphs certainly trump a single Bah Humbug]

    Reply
  6. Rev Ruth Avatar
    Rev Ruth

    I think it is just attention seeking.

    Reply
  7. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Your new hair looks lovely incidently. Am sure you’re turning heads at that clergy conference.

    Reply
  8. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    Ryan, your faith in my hair is almost unbearably touching. At this clergy conference, however, it was trumped by the hair of the Rector of St Margaret’s, Newlands.

    He came to the conference whilst his hair did not, his having been shaved completely bald the day before.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • World AIDS Day Forum

    Here’s a video of a conversation I had with one of the members of St Mary’s last Sunday. Andy Winter was chatting to me about the way treatment and perception of HIV has changed over the years. We talked about new PrEP medicines, reducing stigma and the extraordinary news that the epidemic could be ended…

  • Sermon for Advent 1 – 29 November 2015

    Here’s the sermon I preached yesterday   You can’t beat a good quiz on the internet. Two minutes completing a set of multiple choice questions and some computer somewhere out there gives a verdict on what kind of person you are. Thus is was that this week I followed a facebook link and found myself…

  • Making Scotland’s Sex Trade Safer

    The recent death of Cynthia Payne provides a helpful reminder of the two-faced attitude to prostitution that we often hold. Ms Payne managed to cultivate a populist and almost comic Carry on Whoring image. She invited the great and the good to her home in Streatham and offered sandwiches and “services” merely in exchange for…

  • This ain’t persecution

    Getting a religious ad “banned” by a company that doesn’t show religious advertisements is evidence not of religious persecution but of the idiocy of the Church of England’s press office. We should be thanking God that religious (and political) ads are banned in cinemas.