• All may, none must, some should.

    The title of this post indicates the teaching that many Anglicans/Episcopalians would give to people when asked what Anglican teaching about the sacrament of confession is. It isn’t defined anywhere I don’t think though the practise of the church and canon law back it up.

    Ash Wednesday seems to me to be an appropriate day to say something about it.

    At most of our services in St Mary’s we make a general confession, usually for us near the start of the service. In its modern form, it goes like this:

    God our Father, we confess to you
    and to our fellow members in the Body of Christ
    that we have sinned in thought, word and deed,
    and in what we have failed to do.
    We are truly sorry.
    Forgive us our sins,
    and deliver us from the power of evil,
    for the sake of your Son who died for us,
    Jesus Christ, our Lord.

    Then, whoever conducts the service says:

    God, who is both power and love,
    forgive us and free us from our sins,
    heal and strengthen us by his Spirit,
    and raise us to new life in Christ our Lord. Amen.

    This exchange is a form of corporate confession. Together we get the chance to think about all that is going on in our lives that we would like to change for the better. We get to voice the idea that sometimes we do things that are wrong. We are then reassured of God’s forgiveness. Crucially, we have to assent to that with an Amen. (Forgiveness doesn’t just have to be given, it has to be received). And then we get on with the business of being joyful, hopeful and blessed in serving the world.

    I think that a corporate confession is important as it can also be useful to bring to mind those times when we are not simply involved in doing personal wrongs but are also implicated in systems and powers beyond our own immediate control. The idea that we are aware of those and want to change them is central, I think, to what it means to bring an offering of worship to a God who is holy and true and who desires the best for us.

    I wouldn’t say that the “All may, none must, some should” admonition applies to the corporate confession of the church. No indeedy. I think that is for everyone who is part of the church and everyone who wants to find a way, through the life of the church to live in friendship with God.

    The “All may, none must, some should” thing applies to people chosing to seek out a priest to hear their confession individualy. Sometimes people are surprised that this is on offer in the Scottish Episcopal Church, thinking that it is “just something for the catholics”. It isn’t, of course. We offer all the sacraments in this church – the whole shebang, and the sacrament of reconcilliation is one of them.

    I don’t find that it is something that very many people take up. I do find that those who do sometimes find it life changing.

    This is how it works.

    Firstly, it is canon law that if someone wants to make their confession and approaches a priest, the priest needs to offer to hear that confession or point the person to another priest who can hear it. (Yes, that’s the law!)

    If someone approaches me, I usually arrange to see them in my office first. I offer the person the chance to talk about what it is that they want to bring in confession and what it is about their life tha they want to turn around. They may ask for advice. I may have something to say. Sometimes something from the Bible will pop into my mind and I’ll share that. Essentially though this is about listening.

    Then we’ll go into church and I’ll hear a formal confession in a quiet corner of a chapel. I’ll wear a purple stole and we will follow a simple liturgy together. (Something like this one: http://www.bcponline.org/PastoralOffices/reconciliation.htm). The person brings to God the things that they want to confess. God will hear them. And then the absolution assures them that they have been heard and forgiven. Then we part, usually with me asking them to pray for me, a sinner.

    Now, the deal is that you don’t talk about what is said in confession. One of the gifts that God gives me is that I tend to forget what people say anyway. (I’ve heard other priests say the same). However it is important to know that the seal of the confessional is supposed to apply to the penitant not just to the priest.

    Of course, it doesn’t always work like this. I vaguely remember someone once stopping me in a railway station and asking to make a confession there and then. I heard it and he knelt to hear forgiveness and the world was still for the two of us whilst the bustle of daily life carried on all around. You see that kind of thing in other countries more than here but it happens.

    People often have questions about confession. “What if you hear a confession of someone who is about murder someone?”, “What if they’ve done X?”, “What if …?”, “Would you ever go to the police?”, “Would you ever withold absolution?”

    Almost always these are the questions that movies are made out of, not penitence.

    So there we are. It exists. And it changes life. And all may, none must and some should, as I said at the top of this piece and as the church goes on saying as it offers the sacraments to all the world.

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

  • Sermon – 30 January 2005

    I want us to meditate on the first of the readings this morning (Micah 6:1-8) and you might want to keep that text in front of you whilst I am talking. ?Hear what the Lord says:? Do we believe that we can hear what the Lord says? How easy it is to think that what…

  • To Dunblane

    To Dunblane this afternoon to meet with Bishop Bruce, the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church. I'm helping to convene this meeting which hopefully will include a discussion of a policy document that I have been working o­n this week – A Scottish Response to the Windsor Report.The document itself can be seen o­nline at…

  • Big Sing

    There is a Big Sing at St Saviour’s tonight at 7.30 pm More details on www.saint-saviour.org Not to be missed.

  • Sermon – 23 Jan 05

    I was away for part of this week in Perth at the diocesan clergy conference. I?d like to be able to fill the sermon this week with the wisdom that I was able to soak up there. However, things don?t always work out that way. I must be honest ? whatever wisdom was o­n offer…