What is in Kelvin's Head?

Review of 2013 predictions

31/12/2013

I am wont to make predictions at new year. Here’s how I did last year.

1 – The UK will lose its triple A credit rating.
Got that one right – happened within weeks.

2 – The Scottish Episcopal Church will have poor statistical returns this year prompting very quiet wailing and gnashing of teeth except in Argyll.
Got that one right too – very poor statistical returns, particularly in Aberdeen and Orkney and Brechin. The wailing was all too quiet when we debated the statistics at General Synod though with the Primus seeming to indicate that either they didn’t matter or he didn’t care.

3 – At least one Church of England bishop (and maybe a pair) will be outed. (Only time I’ve retained a prediction from one year to the next).
Not yet. Not yet.

4 – The Scottish Parliament will vote for new legislation allowing gay couples to get married. (But no such weddings this year). The details of the new category of “belief marriages” will be substantially changed and much more heavily regulated than is suggested in the recent consultation response from government.
Basically another hit – Parliament did indeed vote for the new legislation though it isn’t completed yet. No weddings this year. Belief marriage proposals changed a bit, but not very much and there’s going to be a frightening amount of regulation which is not specified in the legislation.

5 – Sadly, I expect renewed campaigning for straight people to be able to enter Civil Partnerships with preparations being made for a legal challenge for 2014.
Yes – though the Scottish Parliament headed off the threat of legal challenge by promising a review. Another hit.

6 – The Coalition will have lower public opinion ratings by end of year due to public concerns as austerity measures bite. It will record one of the lowest public opinion rating of any UK govenment in modern times.
I think I got this wrong. There has certainly been a polarization in how the government is seen but they are holding up surprisingly well in opinion polls. My Liberal Democrat friends will be disappointed to hear that I think that this is because of the wiliness of Tories and not the power of the the Liberals in the coalition.

7 – The Church of Scotland will have a difficult General Assembly, but one characterised by fine speeches. They will approve a report which suggests having a theological study into blessing civil partnerships but not actual marriages of gay people. (This will please no-one who has any opinions about the matter and will thus be regarded as a success by those who don’t).
Well, I wasn’t far off with suggesting that they would not please anyone who has opinions about the matter but they dealt with it by saying that the Church of Scotland doesn’t approve of gay ministers but that local congregations could have them if they really wanted them. It was a foolish compromise that is already unravelling and a warning to us all.

8 – The Church of England will be unable to agree a way forward on opening the Episcopate to Women.
Well they’ve made some progress but they still are not there yet. Until they actually have a vote, I’m claiming this one as a hit.

9 – Justin Welby won’t put a foot wrong.
Well, he’s an impressive mover, far more so that Rowan Williams. I don’t like all he does but he has not come close to making the mistakes that his predecessor made. Appears to be wearing Teflon vestments.

10 – The new Bishop of Durham will come from a relatively small congregation in London.
Wrong – completely wrong.

So how do you think I did?

New Year Predictions

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