Over the next couple of days, the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church will be meeting in Edinburgh.
There’s a huge amount of business to get through over the three days. I’ll be there as a member of synod thinking through how I will vote on all the motions.
Even though there’s a very wide ranging set of motions to vote on this year, I’ve little doubt that a lot of attention will be spent on Motion 14 which will be heard on Friday morning in a session timed to last just over an hour, and which will begin at 9.25 am. There’s another motion that will be considered during that hour which deals with how we make changes to our liturgies, an important matter given the notion that the liturgies are a primary way we talk about doctrine in the polity of the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Motion 14 is the motion which relates to whether the Scottish Episcopal Church will be able to move to a position whereby those clergy who wish to do so can be enabled to perform marriages for same-sex couples who desire to get married in our churches.
The reason that this motion is being given relatively little time for debate this year is that we had an enormous debate about the principles of dealing with this question last year. For almost a whole day, we debated the way in which the church would face this question. Last year the synod was commendably clear and there was a huge majority in favour of introducing this year’s legislation in the way that it is being introduced.
What Synod decided last year is to ask this year and next year’s Synod to consider removing the first clause of Canon 31. This clause currently defines marriage in a way which has led our bishops to rule not only that same-sex couples cannot get married in our churches but also that our clergy and lay readers cannot who wish to marry partners of the same sex cannot do so without fear of losing their license to minister. I’ve always maintained that this was a cruel and unnecessary ruling that has caused real harm to individual people within our churches. I remain of that view.
The idea for moving forward is to remove the clause from the canon which is said to prevent marriage between same-sex couples and replace it with a clause which will protect the consciences of everyone in the church by affirming that “no cleric of this Church shall be obliged to conduct any marriage against their conscience.”
I’m in favour of moving forward in this way. In some ways I would have preferred another solution – I’d have preferred the Scottish Episcopal Church to have made a more positive statement affirming equal marriage. However, I can live with this and can see the value of a solution which does not force people to make statements about marriage which they don’t agree with.
That is all that we are doing – if we agree to this change, we are moving to a position where we don’t insist that everyone believes the same thing in the face of a quite obvious reality which is that we don’t.
But there will inevitably be people who want to hear “a biblical case” for making this change.
It is simply the case that there are people who think that the bible says that gay marriage is sinful and there are (surely a majority in our church now) many people who don’t.
The primary way in which justice has been denied to those of us who are gay has been to call for theological reports or biblical cases to be laid out in favour of marriage equality.
We must be clear this time – the Scottish Episcopal Church, if it makes this change, is saying almost nothing about gay people. What it will do if it moves forward is make a statement about what kind of church we are and acknowledge the simple fact that we don’t all agree.
It does not seem to me to be a particularly big deal for those who are opposed to same-sex marriages to exists in full communion with those who want to conduct or enter same-sex marriages. The reason I don’t think this is a particularly big deal is that we are already as a church in full communion with Christians who can do just that. The man or woman on the Auchtertochty Omnibus who is an Episcopalian is currently in full communion with the married gay couple in Stockholm and the married gay priest in Glasgow, Virginia, USA. The argument that such a person cannot also be in full communion with a married gay couple in Stockbridge or a married gay priest in Glasgow, Lanarkshire is, to say the least, a bit odd. Does geography trump morality for those with anti-gay views? If so, how on earth does that work and does anyone want to offer a “biblical” reason why?
Those who seek for a “biblical” answer to questions about same-sex marriage might probably need to redefine the question. After decades of discussion, no slam dunk biblical argument has appeared that will convert someone from an anti-gay to a pro-gay position. What is happening though is that as every year goes by, more and more people in society and in the church are simply coming to believe that gay and straight people should be treated alike. Whilst changing canons seems grindingly slow, the change in public and ecclesiastical opinion has come so fast that it seems to some of us to be being ushered along by the wind of the holy spirit. (Justice movements work that way).
Those looking for biblical inspiration for what’s going on in the Scottish Synod over the next few days would be better looking at some of the different ways of dealing with conflict in the early church rather than looking for something new in Leviticus or in the story of David and Jonathan. Those texts are distractions from the central question which faces us which is not in fact about whether we recognise same-sex marriage but about whether we recognise one another, with all our different opinions on this question as being so beloved of God that we are forced not to make one another subscribe to statements which we all know that not all of us can unconditionally affirm.
I think the most useful biblical case for what I hope happens in the next few days is to be found in the fifth chapter of the book of Acts – Gamaliel’s response when the early Christians faced the prospect of being wiped out by the authorities.
“…if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!”
I think that’s the bibilical case for what we’re trying to do. Much more so than arguments which seem determined to apply one particular purity law of the past without dealing with any of the others.
People have worked hard and made hard compromises to come up with a solution to this in Scotland that will allow all to thrive. If synod rejects it I suspect there will be far more future conflict than we can imagine. This is, quite simply, the best way to keep the church together.
May God bless those who who meet in synod in Edinburgh this week. And may Gamaliel inspire our thoughts as we vote on Friday morning.
37 responses to “Keeping the faith”
It was an inspiring recitation. Following the English translation in the service sheet provided added insight to the life of Mary. All the more so as the cathedral is dedicated to St Mary. You are reminded of Mary every time you walk into the building with the Gwyneth Leech mural over the High Altar.
Kelvin is quite right. The very self-righteous defenders of the Bible (including the ones who trolled a brave young Muslim woman, for days, with the most vile language, and those who did not reprimand them) totally ignored the Biblical instructions for raising concerns with a brother in faith (Matthew 18:15; 2 Tim 23). Very practical instruction too! As anyone who has ever lived in community can verify. Could all these obsessive men *please* stop trying to divide our communities in Glasgow. We will not be divided. At the first sign of trouble we rush out to embrace one another. These abusers have much to repent of, even if *just* standing by while others throw stones.
I HATE it when the wrong tune is picked for a hymn … it is simply an abomination before God.
However, helping people to think about how we share hospitality, welcome and learn from each other is the WAY of God! Blessings on you Kelvin.
Some reasons why this time was different:
1. The other quaran recitations you mentioned happened at Nine Lessons and Carols, or special ecuminical and interfaith events. While 9L&C was originally a modified Evensong, nowadays it’s usually considered a seasonal community musical recitial with a religious tinge, so having a Muslim from the community recite something from their faith would seem natural enough. Civic and interfaith services will likewise naturally include representatives of every faith in the community. By contrast the Eucharist is the central act of Christian worship and people expect to hear ONLY Christian doctrine proclaimed in the Holy Eucharist. In other words, this was the wrong venue for showing hospitality to Muslim neighbors. You did not intend to practice syncretism, but I think the outcome was syncretic despite your good intentions.
2. Post Brexit (and post Trump) British Muslims are now seen as alien invaders rather than fellow members of the community.
3. Because hostility to Muslims is now fashionable, the Express and rest of the gutter press decided that this was a story worth reporting. Since conservative Americans often read the online editions of the British gutter press, the story then went global.
4. Because you are gay and out, your every action is scrutinized for any possible hint of heresy by GAFCON and Co.
Of all these reasons, only reason #1 is a legitimate criticism, but I hope you do think about criticism #1 as well as defending yourself from other, illegitimate criticisms.
Thank you for your comment Whit J – all the more because it is a thoughtful criticism.
I’ve plenty to reflect on about the how and the when we do things like that and I do hear loudly and clearly that many people think this was an inappropriate context. Though of course, I’d be bound to say that some are saying that the Eucharist is precisely the place indeed there are some saying that is what it is for.
I’m not going to get into a back and forth with all the comments on this post and I’m deliberately not letting through things that have already been said but be assured that I’ve heard the criticism and will reflect on it not simply now but over coming months. (I’ve learned a lot about where God is this week that will take a long time to process). I’m grateful for the way you’ve made your point.
I think there is a good deal in what Whit J says, although I am not sure the effect actually was syncretic. I think one does perhaps have to be a regular worshipper at St Mary’s to understand how totally orthodox the worship there is, and how much Jesus is the focus of worship – how utterly unlikely it is that anyone there would make the mistake of thinking he was not revered by the congregation as a whole as very God from very God. It would be impossible for them not to realise that all the clergy there rejoice in this belief. The congregation saw the words of the Qu’ran in an English translation which portrayed that book’s far-from-easy-to-follow account of Islam’s view of the conception of Jesus, in which there was nothing offensive, and heard a very beautiful voice singing in a strange and glorious language. These were clearly indicated to be the beliefs of another faith. We certainly neither saw or heard or understood any insult to the person of Christ. I am sure none was intended, either. Whereas, and this bears repeating, I am totally sure that many of those commenting (not of course by any means all of them, and nobody whose comments are published here) simply wish harm to relationships between the great faiths in Glasgow.
I have spent my whole adult life in dialogue with people of other religious traditions, it has been deeply rewarding. However I feel that what happened at this service was profoundly wrong. When we are truly ourselves we allow other people to be profoundly themselves. The truth of Christianity is not compatible with any other religion. To avoid that incompatibility is to avoid reality. Worship of Jesus is the fountain of our faith the Qu’ran is opposed to that. I love Jesus and therefore cannot conceive of reading the Qu’ran in an act of worship – no problem doing so in other contexts but not in worship. I am profoundly disturbed that you cannot see this Kelvin.
There are so many things aren’t there, not just around this issue which we hold dear in faith and which we can’t see from another perspective?
I can hear and see that people are upset by this and clearly there are many people not upset by it too. And obviously, at least I hope obviously, I love Jesus too.
The trouble with religious questions and the questions that religious people have I think is that so often that our love for our faith can make it impossible to comprehend others who also claim to love the same faith but who take different views about things. We can hear them claim that love but be intellectually unable to process it because it leads them to different conclusions.
I’ve found the same thing to be true in the sexuality debates very frequently though I perceive that to be changing sometimes now. Similarly with other identity issues and some political issues. Israel/Palestine conversations for example often seem to be conducted (when they are conducted at all) by people who seem to behave like ships passing in the night.
I happen to have views about Church Schools which are pretty intransigent and negative. You are one of the few people, no the only person, who ever made me really think there might be a point of view about them other than mine which might have an integrity I could respect. And I’m very grateful for that.
Kelvin, thank you for your reply. I have enormous respect for you. I have no doubt that church schools can be argued against from perfectly respectable positions. Worship of Jesus is simply a different order, it cannot include a reading from the Qu’ran. Worship is one thing, study, dialogue, relationship something else.
I am really grateful to Richard for the phrase “When we are truly ourselves we allow other people to be profoundly themselves” which reflects my experience of interfacing with sincere people of other faiths. Is a Christian Eucharist a place this should happen? I can understand some Christians feeling it is not, but as long as everything was clearly labelled as what it was and the integrity of the liturgy was intact, I can also understand some feeling it is.
Brother Kelvin,
Although I do not agree with allowing the Koran to be read in our Christian churches, I truly appreciated your firm and resolute stand for the deity of Jesus. He is our great God and Savior and I love Him very much. Blessings from Tennessee.
Just as a perhaps amusing point of reference, the 1982 hymnal of the Episcopal church in the USA has “Brightest and best of the STARS” (caps mine) “of the morning,” apparently so as to avoid offending any daughters who might be present, and the two tunes included are “Morning Star” by James Proctor Harding (1850-1911) and “Star in the East” from The Southern Harmony (1835). The Harding tune was also in the 1940 Hymnal, wherein the word “sons” was still used.
I am not clear as to whether the hospitality at St Mary’s anticipates infinite extension of parallel lines between Islam and the Church in Glasgow. Are you planning some opportunities for Glasgow Muslims to understand the Christian faith and prepare for Baptism and the glorious liberty of regeneration by the Holy Spirit? (In whichever order; no axe about that!) As you move around the Glasgow community and meet more Christians of Islamic background, why not invite such to participate in groups for new Muslim enquirers? The testimony of an ex-Muslim can express vibrantly “How I know He lives” (as your SA brethren would sing). You might find not only new hearts from a divine work of grace among your Muslim neighbours but in other neighbours too. Amen. Inshallah!
There are a small number of people in St Mary’s who are converts from Islam to Christianity just as there are a small number of people in local mosques who are converts from Christianity to Islam.
St Mary’s regularly puts on events and courses for people discovering and exploring Christianity. Most living religions do the same thing.