• Samuel Seabury Day – God Bless America

    Seabury
    When I walked into Grace Cathedral in San Francisco last year to begin a three week visit as part of my sabbatical, I was hugely struck by this scene that was one of the large murals on the right hand wall of the nave. It is a scene that takes place in Scotland – the very scene that ties the Scottish Episcopal Church to the US-based Episcopal Church.

    What’s going on in this picture is the consecration of Samuel Seabury as the first bishop for the American church and today – 14 November is the anniversary of that event which took place in Aberdeen in 1784.

    When I first became a Scottish Episcopalian, the consecration of Seabury perhaps had less significance than it does today. It is one of those events which one used to think of merely as a historical anomaly – the Church of England refusing for political reasons to consecrate a bishop of an independent American church and the Scottish Bishops willingly doing it instead. However the great upheavals in the Anglican Communion have taken place since then and Seabury’s consecration seems now to be much more significant.

    One of the things that bewilders American Episcopalians is why the Church of England seemed to abandon them during these upheavals. It is all the more painful for ordinary Episcopalians over there because they have looked with a fondness on so many aspects of what they believe English Anglican life to be. Indeed, one might suggest that this fondness might almost border on religious idolatry if religious idolatry wasn’t really very un-English in itself. I lost track of the number of people who sidled up to me in the states (even in uber-inclusive San Francisco) and enquired about my men and boys choir (which, of course doesn’t exist) or talked in devotedly hushed tones about that Christmas Service from King’s (which I actually think is a dreadful pickled mess of a liturgy). All things English have given many Episcopalians in the US a sense of rootedness which meant that they simple couldn’t comprehend the behaviour of the Church of England in general and Rowan Williams in particular over Gene Robinson’s consecration. (“He didn’t even come and see us….”)

    Of course, US people look over the Atlantic through rose-tinted glasses in the same way that if I’m not careful I look back with rainbow tinted lenses. If Americans realised that there is an uncomfortable presumption that Britain still Rules the Waves over here long after British dominance of the world then it all might make a bit more sense. More than that, I found that Americans generally believe American foreign policy to be a source of good in the world that others fail to see. The presumptions of a right to rule, a right to dominate, a right to use military might to establish economic superiority have some of their roots in a British colonial sensibility. America inherited from us more than a devotion to dull carol services.

    I was incredibly moved to see Samuel Seabury’s Scottish consecration represented so faithfully in SF. Those bishops gently resting their hands on his head and invoking the Holy Spirit represent a church that the C of E was literally not prepared to touch.

    Here’s to the links between the Episcopal churches of the US and Scotland. We love you now, even if the Church of England doesn’t. We loved you back then when the Church of Englandshire certainly didn’t.

    God bless America and God bless the church founded by Samuel Seabury with a helpful nudge from Scotland.

    And by way of marking the day, here’s an interview I did with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori,  Presiding Bishop of the US-based church in 2010 when she visited our synod.

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