• 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 “Here or there?”

  1. Gary Avatar

    Up there. High altar. No doubt.

  2. Tom Allen Avatar

    I am very much with Richard Giles on this one – there should liturgically only be one main altar – ideally this is achieved by romoving the former High altar and dedicating that space to some other purpose – where that is not possible as in historic cathedrals then it should be left dormant (covered in a simple cloth perhaps) and only the altar which is being used for worship should be dressed since this is in fact THE altar.

    Despite all the reservations about removing former altars in the end it solves long-term problems, and provides a single visual focus for Eucharistic worship. At times when a high altar is needed then the new altar can moved there.

    This kind of fuzziness illustrates that our liturgical practice has become dominated by hertiage criteria.

    I am about to replace our main altar with something moveable and aesthetically more appropriate, but am facing a Registrars ruling that the current altar (and former eastward facing number more recently provided with wheels and moved to the chancel!) must be burnt, and that the wood frontal cannot be used for a screen.

    Dont’ we get ourselves tied up in knots!
    Tom

  3. Stewart Avatar

    A thought came to my mind this afternoon. At the Creed we all face east. This results in the choir turning their back on the Nave Altar and in most cases put the High Altar in their sight.

    Considering Tom’s comments, another thought thinking about some English Cathedrals which have multiple altars around the building, it is not usually possible to see more than one at a time. Some have a chapel behind the High Altar – behind a screen.

    Turning back to St Mary’s – all the action at the 10:30 service is centred and focused around the Nave Altar. However there is still the High Altar, the Pheobe Traquair Reredos and Gwyneth Leach mural of Our Lady at the East End. To my mind their presence enhances the worship around the Nave Altar and does not detract from it.

  4. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    The Altar is a table, where we commemorate a meal together. Clearly (to my mind) we should all be sitting round it, as we do (more or less) at present. The table reminds me that Jesus instituted the Last Supper when he was among us (HERE), not somewhere else (THERE).

    I very much hope that the Altar in St. Mary’s can be left where it is.

  5. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    It seems to me curious that the practice that I inherited was to light and dress the high altar whilst using the nave altar. It makes no sense, except perhaps to highlight St Mary’s puzzling parallel worlds of deep conservatism mingled with radical liberalism.

    Whist tending to agree with Andrew’s sentiments, it is worth remembering that the nave altar could hardly be said to have stayed in one place these last 20 years.

  6. Elizabeth Avatar
    Elizabeth

    Here. Both. Loving the paradox.

    But maybe I only say that beccause the only church I’ve regularly worshiped in where there are clearly two visible altars is St Mary’s and that’s what I’m used to. I’ve never found it distracting that the high altar is dressed and lit, even though the nave altar is where the action is, so to speak. But then, would I notice if the high altar wasn’t dressed and lit? Probably not.

    I do love the nave altar, peripatetic as it is!

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…