• Dear Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church

    Last weekend I signed the following letter which was sent to the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church. It was organised by a group of clergy in the diocese of Edinburgh. The fifty or so signatories were those who happened to learn of this over a couple of days last weekend. There will no doubt be others who would have wanted to sign it who simply didn’t hear about it.

    I expect that others may also post this on their own blogs. I’m not going to comment on it as I think it speaks for itself, other than to thank those who organised it for doing so. They and those who signed it restore my hope at this time.

    Dear Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church,

    We read with dismay the Guidance for Clergy and Lay Readers in the light of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014.

    We appreciate that we are bound by the law, and that until our canons are changed, we cannot legally perform same-sex marriages. However, we are disappointed by both the timing and the tone of the document. We have been urged by you to enter into ‘cascade conversations’ in a spirit of open and sensitive listening with people of all views on this matter. This document only makes this process much harder for us, even impossible for some. Far from acknowledging the reality of differing experience and views in the church, it gives the impression of a definitive answer to the question we have yet to discuss or debate. The document ought to make it clear that the restrictions it describes may be temporary, if the church decides to change its canons. Because of the confusion created by this document, we now believe that such canonical change should be decided in Synod as soon as possible.

    But we were especially dismayed by the section of the document which refers to clergy, lay readers, and ordinands, should they be in a same-sex relationship and wish to be married. In particular, we find the warnings to ordinands, both currently training and those who might be training in the future, to be unrepresentative of the generous and communal characteristics of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Even though our church has not yet agreed to solemnise same-sex marriages, they will nevertheless become a civil institution which we will recognise like everyone else under the law. It is our firm belief therefore that any prohibition on obtaining a civil marriage is outwith the moral and canonical authority of a bishop.

    We acknowledge that this process is one which creates anxiety for all church leaders, and bishops in particular. We empathise with the difficult situation that you as bishops are in, and reaffirm our desire to support you in your leadership of our church, and as fellow members of it.

    Nevertheless, some of us are now uncomfortable about solemnising marriages at all until such time as all can be treated equally, and all of us will continue to feel morally compromised in our ministries, and wish to make clear our continuing commitment to affirm and support all people in our church, and to recognise and rejoice in all marriages, of whatever sexual orientation, as true signs of the love of God in Christ.

    Yours sincerely,
    Revd Carrie Applegath,
    Revd Philip Blackledge,
    Revd Maurice Houston,
    Revd Canon John McLuckie,
    Revd Canon Ian Paton,
    Revd Kate Reynolds,
    Revd Martin Robson,
    Revd Malcolm Aldcroft,
    Dr Darlene Bird (lay reader),
    Revd Jim Benton-Evans,
    Revd Cedric L. Blakey,
    Revd Andrew Bowyer,
    Revd Canon Bill Brockie,
    Revd Tony Bryer,
    Revd Steve Butler,
    Revd Christine Barclay,
    Revd Lynsay M Downes,
    Revd Markus Dünzkofer,
    Revd Canon Anne Dyer,
    Revd Janet Dyer,
    Revd Jennifer Edie,
    Revd John L Evans,
    Revd Samantha Ferguson,
    The Revd Canon Zachary Fleetwood,
    Kennedy Fraser,
    Revd Kirstin Freeman,
    Revd Frances Forshaw,
    Revd Ruth Green,
    Revd Bob Gould,
    Very Revd Kelvin Holdsworth,
    Revd Ruth Innes,
    Revd Ken Webb,
    Rev’d Canon Mel Langille,
    Revd Kenny Macaulay,
    Revd Simon Mackenzie,
    Revd Duncan MacLaren,
    Very Revd Nikki McNelly,
    Very Revd Jim Mein,
    Revd Nicola Moll,
    Revd Bryan Owen,
    Revd Canon Clifford Piper,
    Revd Donald Reid,
    Revd Colin Reed,
    Revd Canon John Richardson,
    Revd Malcolm Richardson,
    The Revd Gareth J M Saunders,
    Very Revd Alison J Simpson,
    Very Revd Andrew Swift,
    Kate Sainsbury (lay reader),
    Patsy Thomson (lay reader),
    Prof Revd Annalu Waller

    Revd John Penman,
    Revd Tim Morris,
    Revd Anna Garvey,
    Revd Bill Eilliot.

5 responses to “The Primus’s Radio Interview about the Columba Declaration”

  1. Benj Avatar
    Benj

    I’m not sure Chillingworth gave a clear answer to Beattie’s question of what is wrong with the declaration beyond its discourtesy and rudeness. What does he mean when he says it is putting at risk the leadership of Christian faith communities at a critical moment in the ‘story of Scotland’?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I can’t speak for Bishop David but my view is that this debacle (the discourtesy and rudeness and the rest) has had a serious knock on effect on the ecumenical life of Scotland. To put it bluntly, trusts and friendships that have been built up over years have been very sorely tested. I think that this risks poisoning ecumenical life in Scotland for a generation and I’d say that does seriously compromise the way in which church communities and leaders will be able to speak to Scotland.

  2. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    It also speaks volumes for the contempt with which the Church of Englandshire holds for the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    You struggle to see the shining truth through his words because his words lack honesty and integrity. Not that anyone in Englandshire really cares- most probably haven’t even heard of the Scottish Episcopal Church and if they have, it will be as an unknown backwater entity. To sweep aside the Scottish Episcopal Church must have taken breathtaking arrogance.

  3. Iain McLarty Avatar
    Iain McLarty

    I can totally understand the SEC concern about the CofE barging into territory that isn’t theirs. However, there are perhaps a few things to bear in mind about why a relationship between the CofS and CofE is important where that isn’t really relevant.

    The first is that the CofS has a presence in England. Having spent a few years in a CofE congregation in Denmark I witnessed first hand how important the Porvoo agreement was in that context for enabling local worship and mission and similarly it could be hugely beneficial for the CofS congregations in England to be able to develop more formal relationships with their local Anglican partners.

    Secondly, there are a number of areas where the CofS and CofE are already working together and developing closer relationship such as on training and fresh expressions. These are areas where the relationships have developed naturally due to the two churches dealing with similar areas of concern and where there should again be no encroaching on SEC ground.

    Thirdly, the CofS and CofE work closely together in ecumenical circles through both CTBI and the WCC where both are significant players. It does seem strange that these two churches don’t recognise each other when their place in the wider ecumenical scene is so closely linked. That is not to deny the SEC’s ecumenical importance.

    Obviously no one is denying that the way this became public has been badly handled but I struggle to see what more can be down than the very sincere apologies and frank criticisms of what happened which have been offered. In terms of what real issues there are, I have yet to see anyone pin down specific parts of the Columba agreement which are concerning to the SEC, with all the comments either much more vague or else being fears about issues (such as interchangeability of ministry) which are not actually part of the agreement. In my experience (through ACTS, WCC etc.) the relationship between the CofS and SEC is one of the strongest ecumenical relationships and it would be very sad if this was jeopardised because of miscommunication rather than substance.

  4. Jeremy Bates Avatar
    Jeremy Bates

    It’s not just Scotland. A lot of people are struggling to see truth in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury these days.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • I speak:

    Saying that I will be voting no.

  • Michael Partridge:

    Wants Faith and Order board to keep the other options open. Should go into this prepapred to consider all kinds of answers

  • Colin Sibley:

    Feels an increasing sene of unease. Supports the motion as it would othewise mean closing the door. Wants us to be clear that this does not mean that we will sign up in the end. Asks if this creates a second class of communion membership which would lead to a split in communion. Also a…

  • Bob Harley:

    Supports the motion. Wants us to give the Anglican Covenant a try.