Just before Christmas, something extraordinary happened in the life of the churches. Someone in the Church of Scotland leaked the full text of a proposed ecumenical agreement to a journalist from the Telegraph newspaper. I believe that the journalist in question had heard of the agreement, known as the Columba Declaration, and had contacted the Church of Scotland looking for comment.
This came as something of a surprise to very many people and was very wildly and inaccurately reported. In one report from a national news organisation there was a headline that suggested the Church of Scotland and the Church of England were making a “declaration of unity”. This was, of course, over-egging the pudding considerably.
The declaration came as something of an unwelcome surprise to a great many people in the Scottish Episcopal Church who were taken by surprise just a day or so before Christmas by the Church of England treading on our toes.
To be blunt, I know of no-one in the Scottish Episcopal Church who thinks it was ever remotely appropriate for the Church of England to negotiate an agreement with the Church of Scotland at all. It appeared to many and continues to appear to many as the height of rudeness and discourtesy for a Church of the Anglican Communion to negotiate an agreement with a church which is a dominant church in the territorial area of another member church of the Anglican Communion.
I have resisted commenting publicly on the agreement until now because I had not read it. Matters were not helped by the fact that the Church of Scotland gave out the proposed text of the agreement to a journalist and did not release it to the Scottish Episcopal Church despite the fact that it clearly concerns the SEC. This was unethical behaviour and compounded by the fact that the C of S and C of E didn’t even manage to get the name of the Scottish Episcopal Church correct in a press release.
The manner in which this all came out was unhelpful. However, there’s no point concentrating on that. The time has come to offer some kind of comment on where we are now. There are two issues which are of obvious concern – firstly what the agreement actually says and secondly what the consequences of the nature of this agreement are for the churches within Scotland.
In terms of content, there are a number of things to note.
In the paper “Growth in Communion, Partnership in Mission” which supports the Columba declaration there are statements about both communion and “apostolicity” which will make many who know and love the Church of Scotland scratch their heads a bit. For example, this statement:
We believe that the celebration of the Holy Communion, also known as the Lord’s Supper, is the feast of the new covenant instituted by Jesus Christ, in which the word of God is proclaimed and in which Christ crucified and risen gives his body and blood to the community under the visible signs of bread and wine. ‘In the action of the Eucharist Christ is truly present to share his risen life with us and to unite us with himself in his self-offering to the Father, the one full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice which he alone can offer and has offered once for all.’ In this celebration we experience the love of God and the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ and proclaim his death and resurrection until he comes again and brings his kingdom to completion.
Now, this is unsurprising to Anglican eyes – after all it is a direct quote from the Meissen Agreement with some of the churches in Germany.
But is this really what the Church of Scotland can corporately sign up to as what it says about the Eucharist?
The Westminster Confession of Faith does say rather clearly:
In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to His Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of Himself, by Himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same.
What does the Church of Scotland believe about the Eucharist? Is it one thing or the other? Or are presbyterian friends going to try to assert that it believes that in the Eucharist there both is and is not a sense in which the sacrifice of Christ is real?
I am aware that catholics within the Church of England synod are questioning the statement in the Columba Declaration which says: “We acknowledge that in both our churches the word of God is truly preached, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion are rightly administered.” They might well ask what this assertion actually means. They might also ask exactly what the passages in the supporting papers about bishops actually mean. They appear to suggest that a personal episcopate is not always exercised by a bishop.
The most interesting thing about the Columba Declaration is what it doesn’t say. The rationale for this agreement all along and the justification for the C of E entering into it is that these two churches are in some way alike by virtue of being “national” churches. The Columba declaration however makes no mention of this at all. Saying instead that the churches will:
…work together on social, political and ethical issues that arise from our participation in public life and be prepared to allocate resources to joint initiatives for addressing them.”
Well, which churches couldn’t say this?
It is a matter of great concern to Episcopalians in Scotland that an agreement which was predicated on issues relating to the particular status of the C of S in Scotland and the C of E in England has become an agreement which focuses on ministry and membership. I think we find ourselves in the Scottish Episcopal Church asking – “how did this happen?” The Church of England may indeed have things to talk to the C of S about. However, it is entirely misplaced and completely unwelcome for the C of E to be negotiating issues of ministry, mission and membership with the Church of Scotland. Again and again I hear Episcopalians complaining that this proposal is aggressive rudeness on the part of the Church of England. They are right. It is.
The question of exchange of ministries is something that Anglicans are very sensitive about. At a time of great fragility in the Anglican Communion, the Church of England should not be making its own policies in this area but doing so with others. It is abundantly clear that the Scottish Episcopal Church indicated in 2012 that it was not in favour of this kind of agreement and yet the C of E has persisted in negotiating one. No-one should be surprised that Scottish Episcopalians are concerned about it at this stage. Our position has been consistent.
The Church of Scotland is entitled to talk to whomsoever it wishes. However, it should not underestimate the ill will that this episode has generated. If it wants to form an agreement with the Church of England then it seems to me that it is entirely free to do so. If it wishes to do so in a way which seems to give a snub to the Scottish Episcopal Church then it can do so as it chooses. However, it should not underestimate the strength of feeling about this agreement – which I witnessed once again at first hand at a Regional Council in my own diocese this week. Should the Columba Declaration be agreed by the Church of England Synod and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in its current form then no-one should be under any illusions that it will do anything other than generate mistrust ecumenically in Scotland.
I think most Episcopalians would prefer the Church of England General Synod to say no to this agreement – not as any kind of snub but simply by way of acknowledging that something went far wrong in the process by which this all unfolded. It would be better to begin again from first principles than to sign up to something which has the potential to poison ecumenical life in Scotland for a generation. If the English synod does not have the guts to do that then it should at least find a way of delaying the agreement until other churches, principally the United Reformed Church and the Scottish Episcopal Church have had a chance to comment and any concerns raised be used to inform any way forward.
Two final things are worth saying.
Firstly, beginning again or modifying the agreement in the light of comments from other churches is a way of making something good of this. One of the best ways of killing an ecumenical endeavor is to sign an ecumenical agreement. If it is signed, sealed and delivered in its current state there’s a high chance that out of the sheer embarrassment at the process by which this has all unfolded, all parties will quietly but quickly forget all about it.
Secondly, it is important to remember that Anglicans in England can agree to this set of proposals because of the differences that are acknowledged between the churches. Presbyterians whom I know seem to be enthusiastic because they see themselves as being recognised as being substantially the same as the C of E. They shouldn’t be fooled. This proposal is akin to the Reuilley agreement not the Porvoo agreement. It is about churches which differ and not churches which are fundamentally the same.
It is clear that the intentions of all involved have been to form better ecumenical relationships. It is a matter of pain and sadness that the opposite seems to have been achieved. There have been personal losses and sorely tested friendships because of all this so far. The time has come either to start again or to pause for breath.
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.