What is in Kelvin's Head?

A Welcome Forest of Deans

11/01/2016

Last weekend an open letter emerged from within the Church of England which asked the two archbishops in England to take a message to the Primates’ Conference acknowledging that the Church has failed in its duty of care to LGBTI members of the Body of Christ worldwide and calling for repentance.

The whole letter is here: https://lettertoarchbishops.wordpress.com/

Others were asked to sign it to show their support and my name was one of the first to be added on Sunday morning when I heard about it. (It was addressed to Our Archbishops which was a bit problematic but sometimes you just have to go with the spirit rather than the letter of the law).

I was particularly encouraged to see that this letter originated from a couple of people from within the Evangelical tradition in the church.

I was also encouraged to see how many Deans of Cathedrals in England had signed the letter.

Here’s a map showing in green those deans who have signed.

There may be errors to correct or amendments to make – please let me know in the comments below. Nothing should be presumed about the red dots other than that there doesn’t seem to be a record of a dean there who has signed. Some cathedrals may be looking for a dean and some deans may be out of contact and not have heard about it. Some names may yet be added.

I believe that Durham has no dean in post at present so have marked that in a different colour. I’ll change any others that are like that if anyone lets me know in the comments below.

There are two cathedrals in London which seem to be on top of one another on the map – both of them are marked in green.

Rather encouraging to see the green shoots of inclusion springing up, I think and to see leadership coming from England’s cathedrals.

[google_maps id=”14812″]

UPDATES
Worcester added (missed off in original list)
Wells and Durham marked as vacant.
Southwell marked as vacant.
Rochester marked as vacant.

6 responses to “What institutional homophobia looks like”

Edward Andrews

19/04/2017

Yes, I noticed that as well. It is nothing to do with what was said on both sides (the internal conversation in the Kirk) everything to do with what was said or about people who are gay.
I would however put in a plea of mitigation for him in that he has to reflect what the institution can get away with. Personally I would have no problem if the so called Confessing Bunch (which an abuse of the name of the Church of Barth and Bonhoeffer neither of whom they would give house room) packed their traps and left, but John can’t say that because that is not policy, though I know a number of people who feel my way.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  19/04/2017
  
  I think the problem here is not so much what the institution can get away with but that the words he says are factually wrong. What the Assembly is being asked to do is not what he says the Assembly is being asked to do.
  
  As I’ve said, I recognise the pressures on someone in his position. But that’s kind of the point.
  
  Reply
Fr Keith

19/04/2017

Extremely well put, Kelvin…

Reply
Richard Ashby

19/04/2017

Since I don’t know the man I have no idea whether or not he is homophobic personally, but you’re quite right. That’s not what the report says. And in anycase why apologise for only ‘some’ of the harsh things. What about the rest?

Reply
Bryan Kerr

24/04/2017

Hey Kelvin,
Thanks for your post.
I think it is helpful as someone who is going into preparation for the General assembly.
I hear what you say … I for one, on behalf of me, my congregation (the one I serve now, the ones in which I have served and the one in which I grew up), and my denomination seek to apologise unreservedly for any ways in which we have treated those who are LGBTI in any way which falls short of mirroring the love of God.
John was in a challenging position, defending a report which had been leaked to the media before he could get his head around it fully. He may have been the secretary of the forum but our timescales mean this report would have been finalised in late January and, since then, as Principal clerk, he will have been through every other report going to Assembly.
Perhaps, we might see this as more of a need for a refresh of what the leaked report said in its entirety at a time when called for comment out of the blue, than anything else. I would imagine that might be close to the mark in this one!
Blessings.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  25/04/2017
  
  Thanks for your comments, Bryan.
  
  I’m struggling a bit with your interpretation of what happened. The report doesn’t call for “both sides” to apologise – that isn’t even it’s tone. And in the rest of the news report, the Principal Clerk is shown sitting at a table reading it.
  
  I do hear your desire to think the best of him – and honestly, this isn’t personal, I’m sure he is lovely.
  
  The consistent experience that I have is that the most difficult things that are said about gay people come from people who would claim to be supportive.
  
  A number of gay C of S clerics were in touch with me to affirm that they had heard these comments in the same way that I have outlined above.
  
  Reply