• Same-Sex Blessings Authorised for Trial Use

    Through the wonders of the internet, I was watching last night as the US based Episcopal Church General Convention voted to allow a formal liturgy for Same-Sex Blessings to be authorised for trial use in such dioceses and congregations which chose to allow them.

    It was an undramatic moment, it has to be said – they managed to get themselves into a mire of procedural motions before the vote which was clearly testing everyone’s patience.

    No-one who has followed the goings on of the US church will be at all surprised by this development though I suppose it might well be a moment when some of the shrill grumpy voices pipe up.

    Here in Scotland, interestingly, we don’t seem to be going down the line of producing a special liturgy for same-sex couples to be blessed with. The gay community in Scotland owes a great debt to my ecclesiastical neighbour the Rev David McCarthy for suggesting some years ago in a Synod debate that if one simply chooses option A at each stage of the Scottish Episcopal Marriage Liturgy you get a service which curiously does not mention gender much at all. A little massaging of words like wife, husband and marriage and you have a liturgy ideally suited for blessing same-sex couples.

    Certainly, I’ve known a couple of couples recently who are indebted to Fr David for having made this suggestion. It is ingenious and has meant that there is no great pressure building up in our church to produce a formal liturgy of blessing separate to the marriage liturgy. I’m not sure that they actually toast “The McCarthy Liturgy” at their wedding breakfasts, but perhaps they should do.

    I think that it is all to the good that we are not going down the line right now of producing a separate liturgy, particularly in the light of current conversations about equal marriage which are taking place in the political sphere and with which many people from the churches are engaged.

    I have to confess to thinking that the actual liturgy that the US based church has authorized is a little unexciting. Maybe though, that is the point. If you devise a dazzling liturgy for blessing gay couples, everyone else will want one too.

    You can find the blessing service online. (Go to page 67 to find the liturgy). Strictly speaking, that is the version that went to General Convention – it has been modified a little since then. I can’t find a clean version of the newly authorized liturgy, but no doubt one will appear soon. If you know of a link to such a file, do please post it below.

    So, what do you think?

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

  • Guest Sermon Slot

    I'm not preaching myself today, but thought that I would include a guest sermon. It is 40 years since Martin Luther King stood and gave the following speech Delivered o­n the stepsat the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC o­n August 28, 1963. It bears re-reading all these years later.Preaching to change worlds by.”I am happy…

  • 100 Things About Me

    I've added a section to the site called 100 Things About Me.  It can be found in the new menu o­n the left. I'd be interested in anyone who has trouble accessing the menu as it is part of a new menu module that I added last night to the site. In case anyone is interested,…

  • Union

    Last night two of the churches in Bridge of Allan ceased to exist. Chalmers Church and Holy Trinity Church are no more. They came together in a Service of Union in the building formerly used as Holy Trinity yesterday evening – a service which I was surprised not to be invited to. Union seems to…

  • Blood and Custard

    I never intended the colour scheme of this site to last as long. I just changed a very basic template from lime green and purple to the current blood and custard. It took me rather longer than I expected and the theme is far from finished. I may stay with the colours however, or at…