• Samuel Seabury Day – God Bless America

    Seabury
    When I walked into Grace Cathedral in San Francisco last year to begin a three week visit as part of my sabbatical, I was hugely struck by this scene that was one of the large murals on the right hand wall of the nave. It is a scene that takes place in Scotland – the very scene that ties the Scottish Episcopal Church to the US-based Episcopal Church.

    What’s going on in this picture is the consecration of Samuel Seabury as the first bishop for the American church and today – 14 November is the anniversary of that event which took place in Aberdeen in 1784.

    When I first became a Scottish Episcopalian, the consecration of Seabury perhaps had less significance than it does today. It is one of those events which one used to think of merely as a historical anomaly – the Church of England refusing for political reasons to consecrate a bishop of an independent American church and the Scottish Bishops willingly doing it instead. However the great upheavals in the Anglican Communion have taken place since then and Seabury’s consecration seems now to be much more significant.

    One of the things that bewilders American Episcopalians is why the Church of England seemed to abandon them during these upheavals. It is all the more painful for ordinary Episcopalians over there because they have looked with a fondness on so many aspects of what they believe English Anglican life to be. Indeed, one might suggest that this fondness might almost border on religious idolatry if religious idolatry wasn’t really very un-English in itself. I lost track of the number of people who sidled up to me in the states (even in uber-inclusive San Francisco) and enquired about my men and boys choir (which, of course doesn’t exist) or talked in devotedly hushed tones about that Christmas Service from King’s (which I actually think is a dreadful pickled mess of a liturgy). All things English have given many Episcopalians in the US a sense of rootedness which meant that they simple couldn’t comprehend the behaviour of the Church of England in general and Rowan Williams in particular over Gene Robinson’s consecration. (“He didn’t even come and see us….”)

    Of course, US people look over the Atlantic through rose-tinted glasses in the same way that if I’m not careful I look back with rainbow tinted lenses. If Americans realised that there is an uncomfortable presumption that Britain still Rules the Waves over here long after British dominance of the world then it all might make a bit more sense. More than that, I found that Americans generally believe American foreign policy to be a source of good in the world that others fail to see. The presumptions of a right to rule, a right to dominate, a right to use military might to establish economic superiority have some of their roots in a British colonial sensibility. America inherited from us more than a devotion to dull carol services.

    I was incredibly moved to see Samuel Seabury’s Scottish consecration represented so faithfully in SF. Those bishops gently resting their hands on his head and invoking the Holy Spirit represent a church that the C of E was literally not prepared to touch.

    Here’s to the links between the Episcopal churches of the US and Scotland. We love you now, even if the Church of England doesn’t. We loved you back then when the Church of Englandshire certainly didn’t.

    God bless America and God bless the church founded by Samuel Seabury with a helpful nudge from Scotland.

    And by way of marking the day, here’s an interview I did with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori,  Presiding Bishop of the US-based church in 2010 when she visited our synod.

11 responses to “Providence and Vocation for Liberals in Public Life”

  1. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    I was one of the Lib Dems who did foresee the calamity in 2015 and actively campaigned to get the party to change leader – after 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 it wasn’t difficult for anyone to see, but it was difficult for many nice Lib Dems to own up to the fact that they had allowed it to happen. I failed, but I don’t think it was part of anyone’s plan that I did (except possibly Ryan Coetzee and a few other true believers).

    There’s a lot in your points I can agree with, particularly regarding the naivety of referring to God’s plan, when many Christian’s have a view that his/hers/its plan is to let us get on with it and find our own way to salvation. However, the most interesting question is when you say “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.” Do you really mean that you have the right to force someone else to marry you who doesn’t want to and believes it is wrong, even though you have the right to and can get someone else to do the same job for you? Do individuals have the right to insist on being married by the registrar of their choice, or just the right to get married? Are you not perhaps just a bit assuming that your tree is that bit taller than the other guy’s?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories. I think that the equal rights tree is bigger than my tree and the registrar’s tree.

      I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them, not least because I don’t think it is a very real question – few people want to be married by someone who doesn’t want them to be married. I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        I think you are rather changing your ground here from your original piece. You started with “The trouble is, these are not side issues, these are my rights.”

        You have now moved onto “I think that people should be able to expect individual people who represent the state not to discriminate against them in any of the protected categories.” So we now have a right to expect, but only against a person who works in the public sector, and even if it is against that person’s conscience and only if you are in a specially protected category.

        It gets even more tenuous then as you accept when you then say “I don’t claim that individuals should be able to force registrars of their choice to marry them.” So the right is not to a person wanting to be married at all.

        Finally we get “I do think that local authorities have not simply the right but the duty to remove public officials who can’t serve every member of the public due to their personal prejudices.” So the right is not to an individual at all, so definitely not “your rights” but to a public sector organisation. Hardly a human right, more of an employer’s right by your own statements.

        I rather think that your equal rights tree, however high you think it is, has decidedly peculiar roots.

        1. Graham Evans Avatar
          Graham Evans

          David, I thought most liberals accepted the view that in the provision of services to the general public, whether provided by the public sector or private sector, a policy of non-discrimination was an essential ingredient of a progressive society. I accept that there is a notable exception to this rule in terms of the provision of abortion, but this arises from the broad range of medical procedures undertaken by one type of doctor or another. Surgeons are specialised medical practitioners, as are nurses who assist them, so it is most unlikely then anyone who opposed abortion on conscience grounds would actually be faced with having to refuse to conduct an abortion. The provision of most services to the general public is also a specialist activity, and no-one forces people to engage in any particular activity. The idea that a registrar should be able to opt out of undertaking a civil gay marriage represents the thin edge of a dangerous wedge. If such people wish to opt out of doing so, then they should act as part of a religious community, such as a deacon in Anglican Church, which has the legal power to conduct religious marriages, are still recognised by the State.

          1. David Evans Avatar
            David Evans

            Quite simply Graham I disagree with your view that this is a level of discrimination in the provision of a public service of anything like the scale you imply makes it essential that every individual has to comply with it. The “go with it or get out” philosophy demanded of the state by so many in pursuit of their personal view of their rights is to my mind a greater threat to liberty than the fact that Fred or Freda don’t agree with something and don’t want to do it but George, Georgina, Harry, Harriette etc etc etc etc can do it instead. Ultimately you aren’t stopping someone from exercising their right; you are preventing someone from imposing their requirement on someone else.

            However, I note Kelvin hasn’t responded to my substantive point and I await that with interest.

  2. Iain Brodie Browne Avatar
    Iain Brodie Browne

    Firstly thank you for your posting.
    I have been expressing my concern elsewhere that the main voices we have heard in the debate about Tim’s faith have been firstly from those who think that it wholly a private matter and because his opinions are sincerely held and are derived from his faith the rest of us should back off and secondly those who seem to imply that having a religious faith at all is a negative factor. Until your contribution I am not aware that anyone has directly addressed the issue from different Christian understanding.
    I cut my political teeth at the end of the 1960s opposing the all ‘white’ rugby and cricket tours from South Africa. The dominant voices from the churches were from Trevor Huddleston and David Sheppard. They effectively contested the assertions of those who told us (and they did) that apartheid was part of God’s plan.
    Earlier in that decade Michael Ramsey spoke up clearly in support of what was then called homosexual law reform. David Steel, who pushed through the 1967 Act did so at a time when he was regularly introducing Songs of Praise.
    I regret that equal marriage and the removal of other discriminations against gay people –including the issue you raise about Registrars- have not been as effectively championed by Christians as those earlier reforms. It is fair to say that in the minds of those who you describe as ‘decent people in society’ Christians are seen as opposing these reforms. The priority for the churches appears to be to gain protection for those who oppose such reforms. Imagine if that had been the approach to apartheid.
    My own experience gives me hope that things are changing. Our local church got a new vicar who immediately began to pray for the defeat of the Equal Marriage legislation, got up petitions and lobbied. His views on women priests were no more in tune with ‘decent society’. In common with many churches these matters had not really been properly discussed. It was heartening how many members did openly contest his views and a significant portion of the congregation felt so strongly the eventually relocated to other churches. There is a good deal more support for liberal values amongst church goers than is popularly conceived.

    My view is much the same as expressed in the Independent’s editorial this morning which endorsed Tim but added the rider that : ‘It will be for Mr Farron to make clear to party members, the public at large, and this newspaper, that his faith can indeed be reconciled with a liberal view on matters of birth, marriage and death.’ If faith is the opposite of certainty then I have enough to believe that can be achieved but if would be of assistance not only to Tim but to others struggling to reconcile their faith with liberal views if more church leaders provide a Christian narrative as effectively as did Michael Ramsey and Trevor Huddleston did in their day.

    http://birkdalefocus.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/influencial-divine-former-libdem-ppc.html

  3. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    Personally, as a non-Christian, I find the attack on Tim Farron’s Christian faith distasteful, even disturbing. With the issue of gay marriage, something I wholly support, it is clear to me that Farron was trying to protect freedom of religious thought whilst also legislating for LGBT equality. There is nothing illiberal about that. Freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental human rights, and something liberals should defend. Any definition of liberalism which does not include freedom of conscience, is one I have no interest in supporting.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks for commenting, Andy.

      I’m not aware of people attacking Tim Farron’s faith. I am aware of people questioning whether someone who apparently has anti-gay views is an appropriate person to represent the Lib Dems as leader.

      When it comes to the vote about the registrars, that can either be interpreted as defending religious thought or as defending discrimination. I come to the latter view because if I substitute a couple who are gay for a couple being say mixed race (something many people would once have objected to on religious grounds) then I see clear discrimination at work.

      It is a strange day when people are arguing (as some are) that the leader of the Liberal Democrats has the right to hold distasteful views about gay people in private so long as he defends their rights in public. He does have that right but not the right to be taken seriously as well.

      1. David Evans Avatar
        David Evans

        Sadly there have been many who have been attacking Tim’s faith, some directly and some more with disdain. Comments such as listening to his sky fairy are not uncommon. Also portraying his views as apparently anti-gay are without doubt over egging it massively as opposed to the simple fact that as a liberals we should all have views which take into account the “balance of fundamental values of liberty, equality and community” and that this inevitably leads to differences of judgement on lots of individual issues, but do not undermine the fundamental decency and liberalism of many people like Tim, who have proved it over a great many years.

  4. David Evans Avatar
    David Evans

    Kelvin,

    It is a great disappointment to me that you have not come back to me with any further reasoning in response to my post on 30 June 02:19. Have you changed your views, reinforced them with new vigour or simply moved on?

    1. Graham Evans Avatar
      Graham Evans

      David, perhaps you could clarify what your substantive point is. Having reread the whole thread it’s certainly not clear to me.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Blog trouble

    Have been having trouble with accessing my blog from home, which is now hopefully resolved. That is why there have been no updates. Went to see Angels in America at the Citz last night. Well the first half anyway. It was some of the best theatre I’ve seen – so much so that during the first…

  • A new bishop for Aberdeen and Orkney

    Warmest of wishes to the new Bishop Elect of Aberdeen and Orkney, the Very Rev Bob Gillies. Bob was my rector when I was exploring my vocation. He is one of the people without whom, I very certainly would not have been a priest. Here is how our first conversation began: Me: Er, excuse me,…

  • Riling the Nuns

    Oh no, I’ve managed to rile the nun-lobby in my previous post. You never know who you are going to upset when you start blogging. It was my comment about three nuns sitting around singing kum-by-yah that did it. And I was quoting someone else too. For the record, a good deal of my training…

  • Back to work

    Back to work yesterday. Today was spent answering or dealing with all but 12 of the 150 e-mails that were waiting for me. (None of those 150 were spam, either). I had a lovely holiday, thank you for asking. It is one’s duty to be able to say that you have enjoyed a lovely holiday…