What is in Kelvin's Head?

A Welcome Forest of Deans

11/01/2016

Last weekend an open letter emerged from within the Church of England which asked the two archbishops in England to take a message to the Primates’ Conference acknowledging that the Church has failed in its duty of care to LGBTI members of the Body of Christ worldwide and calling for repentance.

The whole letter is here: https://lettertoarchbishops.wordpress.com/

Others were asked to sign it to show their support and my name was one of the first to be added on Sunday morning when I heard about it. (It was addressed to Our Archbishops which was a bit problematic but sometimes you just have to go with the spirit rather than the letter of the law).

I was particularly encouraged to see that this letter originated from a couple of people from within the Evangelical tradition in the church.

I was also encouraged to see how many Deans of Cathedrals in England had signed the letter.

Here’s a map showing in green those deans who have signed.

There may be errors to correct or amendments to make – please let me know in the comments below. Nothing should be presumed about the red dots other than that there doesn’t seem to be a record of a dean there who has signed. Some cathedrals may be looking for a dean and some deans may be out of contact and not have heard about it. Some names may yet be added.

I believe that Durham has no dean in post at present so have marked that in a different colour. I’ll change any others that are like that if anyone lets me know in the comments below.

There are two cathedrals in London which seem to be on top of one another on the map – both of them are marked in green.

Rather encouraging to see the green shoots of inclusion springing up, I think and to see leadership coming from England’s cathedrals.

[google_maps id=”14812″]

UPDATES
Worcester added (missed off in original list)
Wells and Durham marked as vacant.
Southwell marked as vacant.
Rochester marked as vacant.

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

Benj

17/02/2016

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’?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  17/02/2016
  
  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.
  
  Reply
Richard

18/02/2016

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.

Reply
Iain McLarty

18/02/2016

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.

Reply
Jeremy Bates

18/02/2016

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

Reply