• New statement on Civil Partnerships from the Scottish College of Bishops

    The College of Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church has issued the following statement which was sent to clergy on 29 November 2013 as part of a regular electronic clergy mailing.

    Blessing of Civil Partnerships
    The General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church in 2012 agreed not to adopt the Anglican Covenant. Since then, and within our own context, the College of Bishops has, on a number of occasions, considered how our church should best engage with those underlying questions of human sexuality which had given rise to the original idea of a Covenant. The College looks forward to the Church undertaking discussion of such matters as part of the process currently being designed by a group set up for that purpose by the provincial Mission and Ministry Board. The College in no way intends to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions. At the same time it recognises that the entering into of civil partnerships is a regular occurrence in Scottish society today.

    In a previous statement the College indicated that it was the practice of the individual Bishops at that time neither to give official sanction to blessings of civil partnerships, nor to attend them personally. The Church does not give official sanction to informal blessings but each Bishop would nevertheless expect to be consulted by clergy prior to the carrying out of any informal blessing of a civil partnership in his diocese. The College is of the view that a decision as to whether or not to attend such an informal blessing should be a personal decision of the individual Bishop in question.
    College of Bishops
    November 2013

    I warmly welcome the fact that individual bishops may now chose to attend blessings of gay couples in church in Scotland. It may seem like a small thing but the idea that the happiest day of a couple’s life was too toxic for a bishop to attend was always a terrible snub and I’m glad it is over.

    With regard to telling bishops about blessings, it doesn’t change much around here. I’ve tended all along to tell bishops about Civil Partnership blessings and indeed have been very pleased with their support and encouragement.

    I am uncertain how they can take the view that a blessing is informal when one is supposed to let bishops know about it but that peculiarity does not make much difference in these parts.

    Note that there was an official report in the Church of England yesterday which hinted that the church there might have discussions which might lead it to come to the view that its bishops might release guidance in a few years time about services which might “mark” relationships between same-sex couples in church but which are not supposed to be called blessings. There has simply never been that squeamishness about the word “blessing” in Scotland.

    As for the word “informal”, all I can say is that some “informal” blessings can be quite swanky affairs indeed.

    How different the situation is for gay Anglicans in Carlisle, our neighbouring diocese to the south from that which pertains over on this side of the border.

6 responses to “What institutional homophobia looks like”

  1. Edward Andrews Avatar
    Edward Andrews

    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.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      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.

  2. Fr Keith Avatar
    Fr Keith

    Extremely well put, Kelvin…

  3. Richard Ashby Avatar
    Richard Ashby

    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?

  4. Bryan Kerr Avatar

    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.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      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.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Synod Blogging 6-Canons

    John Richardson introduces the debate. We are back to our hobby – reforming Canon 4. This is the canon that deals with the election of bishops. We love revising this. We do it often. Aberdeen have proposed an amendment but then have to be encouraged to propose it. Indeed, they don’t. The changes to Canon…

  • Synod Bogging -9 Friday Morning

    In the surreal film version of General Synod, everyone arrives this morning wearing name budges, each of which says “I am Lexie Plumtree”. In reality, the day begins with the presentation of the Golf Cup. There is a rumour in the benches around me to the effect that next year it is going to be…

  • Synod Blogging8- Liturgy

    Liturgical formation. We have the chance to talk about what makes good liturgy. We talk a lot about the choice of hymns at the Synod Eucharist. We move on to discuss the new Manage Liturgy. Andrew Barr tells us it is taken as read that marriage is by definition something between a husband and wife;…

  • Synod Blogging -7 child protection vulnerable adults.

    During the preceding coffee break, the convenor of the Liturgy Committee tells me that I an sitting in a dark corner. I presume he is taking about the lighting in the hall as he is taking photographs. When back in my place, I start to wonder. Is it really that dark? Was he trying to…