• Going out and coming in

    8930043700_df73058f5d_z

    This week I’ll have been at St Mary’s for nine years. It is the anniversary of my installation on Sunday. And this year I’ve decided to give myself an anniversary treat.

    When I came to St Mary’s there was much to try to understand and much to take in. Just trying to get your head around how things work in a new congregation is always tricky. Every place does things almost the same. But almost the same means that every place does things differently. Slightly differently – and that’s much more difficult to cope with than learning something completely new.

    One particular conundrum presented itself to me on my first Sunday. How did we get in? Did the clergy and choir go in singing a hymn and then turn and greet the people or did we process in, turn, greet and sing a hymn?

    Trying to learn from those who ought to know, I took a couple of people aside and asked them. Their responses were enlightening.

    Person number one told me very assuredly that the choir and clergy processed in singing and then greeted the people.

    Person number two told me just as assuredly that the choir and clergy processed in, greeted the people and then we sang the hymn.

    This was less than helpful. As the days counted down towards my first Sunday I needed to know.

    The only thing I could do was ask another person and take their answer as the tiebreaker. And so I did.

    “Oh, Provost, we do whatever the Provost would like us to do,” was the answer.

    It was a slightly disturbing answer because one of the things that I knew I needed to be here was to be someone who didn’t have all the answers and who could let St Mary’s find a way of being where all the questions didn’t get thrown at the Provost to answer.

    However, without being able to get a definitive answer from anyone, I did in the end say what we were going to do in order to get ourselves into place.

    The trouble is, I’ve been regretting one detail ever since, particularly recently.

    What I said would happen is that we would process in. Then the choir and clergy would bow to one another from either side of the communion table, the clergy would turn, greet the people and then we would sing a hymn.

    It looks smart, it means we all start knowing what we are doing and we don’t flap about with music as we are processing.

    But the thing that has been bugging me recently is that it only really includes those who are at the sharp end of the church.

    We bow to one another to signify that God is present – that God is amongst us; that God is about us and within us.

    But what about the bulk of the congregation? Isn’t God in them too?

    This has been bothering me for some time and I found myself talking to Richard Giles about it on Saturday.

    Now, Richard Giles is one of the most interesting liturgists to have emerged in the last few years. And on Saturday he looked me in the eyes and said the magic words – “Well, if you are not happy with it, just change it. It isn’t too late….”

    And he was right.

    So, we’re going to change things from this Sunday.

    From this week, the choir and clergy will process in. They will then bow to one another from either side of the table. And then the clergy will turn and bow to the congregation who are invited to return the bow.

    We’re all in this together.

    The smallest of gestures can mean a great deal in the world of liturgical worship.

    We’re going to try this one for a bit and see whether it works. My last thought on the subject has served us well for nine years, but it is time for a change.

    Odd what Provosts give themselves as anniversary presents, isn’t it?

5 responses to ““Issues” is no more”

  1. Cedric Avatar
    Cedric

    Oh I well remember the day ‘Issues’ landed with a loud thud through the letter box. I had been ordained for over 10 years by then. And I reeled in reading it.
    Before then the general culture of conversation about sexuality in the Church was ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. And most bishops acknowledged that among their most able and effective clergy many were gay men, some in relationships, and often deployable in parishes where others would not contemplate living and working.
    But remember the context. This was also a period when AIDS was an international emergency and in Britain the Thatcher government sought to outlaw the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality through section 28 of the Local Government Act. And for sure, ‘Issues’ was a direct consequence of the passing of the amended Tony Higton General Synod private members’ motion declaring all ‘homosexual acts’ as sinful. The consequent noise of the shutting of closet doors was deafening.
    In my diocese the bishop asked one of the archdeacons to convene regular confidential meetings with a few gay clergy to offer them an opportunity to talk about the effects of all this on their lives and ministry. Some would not trust the Church to participate in such enterprises. Understandably. And huge numbers of vocations were thwarted and lost. And are to this day, as the toxic debates continue in the C of E in a social context which has changed beyond imagining.
    So thank you Kelvin, as ever, for your insightful questions.

    1. Beth Avatar
      Beth

      Cedric, I recall you speaking to the LGBT Network at the Cathedral about Issues and that it was reaffirmed by the C of E around about that time too. I wasn’t so aware of it when it was published (being about eight years old at the time and also a Roman Catholic), but I remember so clearly from what you said how devastating it had obviously been and still was. I remember thinking at the time of that reaffirmation, “oh, I can never go home”. It became so clear to me that the Church of England wasn’t somewhere I could feel welcome as long as it was allowed to stand.

  2. Ian Paul Avatar

    Kelvin, I can understand why you are glad that the offensive language of Issues has gone. Ironically, it was actually a statement written by liberals of the day; the main author was Richard Harries.

    And conforming to Issues was never the real question. The real question is conforming to Canons B30 and C26, so that the pattern of life of clergy should reflect the doctrine of the Church ‘according to the teaching of Jesus’. All Issues did was make that clear and unambiguous (though in an unhelpful and obsessive way) with regard to sexual intimacy. Ironically, it was the liberal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy which cemented Issues in place as a response.

    And of course, with Issues gone, the Canons remain in place, and the demand is the same. The good thing about GPCC is that it sets this one issue in the context of many others, which is much healthier.

    But on the question in hand—nothing has changed. You seem to have missed that.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      No Ian. It isn’t that I’ve missed that. It is that I don’t believe that.

      Issues was a massively offensive document that coloured absolutely everything the Church of England had to say about sexuality. Changes to Canons will look significantly different in the light of its removal.

      A great deal is changed by its removal.

  3. Mike Burnett Avatar
    Mike Burnett

    Jesus preached love, but he also forgave sins with the instruction ‘to sin no more’.
    Deciding not to sin when the sin in question is something that we enjoy so much that life may feel miserable without it, is a real sacrifice. It really is ‘bearing your cross’ to follow him. But that is what Christians are called to do.
    We may wish to question our translation of the Bible, or quibble over the exact meaning of a phrase we find challenging, but Christianity is not a ‘pick and mix’ faith where we just have to accept the bits we like and can ignore, or condemn, the bits we don’t like. We do not get to negotiate – we must take it or leave it.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Radio New Zealand News Interview

    Here’s a recording of me speaking on Radio New Zealand – they were doing a special Morning Report from Christchurch today – here’s what I had to say.

  • Radio New Zealand

    Just waiting to go on air on Radio New Zealand’s morning programme to talk about the Concert for Christchurch which took place last Monday here in Glasgow. It is Sunday there and they are just moving into autumn. Its amazing that I can be listening to their morning radio show online before I get their…

  • Church of Scotland Special Commission

    There is a piece in the Herald on and apparent leak of the report of the Church of Scotland’s Special Commission. This was the commission that was set up after the debate about whether a presbytery could induct a minister who is living in a civil partnership. The exact remit was this: “A Special Commission…

  • Seeing and hearing

    Its funny the difference that video can make to a conversation. I found myself earlier this week engaged in a meeting via skype. Now, I’ve used skype plenty of times for chatting to friends, but this was the first time I’ve used it for a businessy meeting. That kind of thing clearly can’t replace all…