What is in Kelvin's Head?

Here’s to you, Bishop Robinson

05/01/2013
The Church of England is in full brouhaha mode today over gay bishops once again. Before saying anything about that, I think it is important to give a shout out to the Rt Rev Gene Robinson who is retiring today as Bishop of New Hampshire. It was obvious when he was elected and consecrated that the issues which excited people so much about him were going to be coming to churches all around the world. So it has proved.

I caught up with Bishop Gene in September in San Francisco. He was the preacher in Grace Cathedral whilst I was there on my sabbatical trip. I could see him trying to work out who I was from across the sanctuary. When I reminded him that I was the person who invited him to celebrate the eucharist in Glasgow during the Lambeth conference, a time when he was said to be banned from every altar in England, his face lit up. Indeed, he described the visit to Glasgow as a “lifesaver” at a very low time.

I’m grateful to him for his ministry here, one of the most electric Sunday mornings since I came here. I’m also grateful to him for keeping the faith, preaching the gospel and standing up to injustice. And yes, I’m proud of having known the first out gay man in a partnership (marriage now…) who became a bishop.Â So, here’s to you, Bishop Robinson, Jesus loves you more than you can know. And I’m thankful for what you shared about that love whilst Bishop of New Hampshire.

Bishop Gene seemed full of beans and pleased to be alive. He has good cause. When I stood next to him in 2008 in St Mary’s there were serious threats being made to his life and he couldn’t even distribute the communion elements because there was a fear that someone would stab him. Thank God things were more relaxed when I saw him recently. It was the Feast of St Francis in San Francisco itself and he and I got involved in blessing dogs, cats and a rather lively macaw.

It is abundantly clear today that it is not all about Gene Robinson any more. The compromise that has been announced in England in the last 24 hours only turns the clock back by about 18 months and I’m genuinely surprised by all the excitement in the media about it. Nothing has changed since yesterday. The key facts remain the same:
- The Church of England behaves badly to gay people in leadership
- The public discourse of the Church of England at major festivals is dominated by a prurient interest in Jeffrey John’s private life.
- The media don’t understand it but like the fuss and use any excuse to put nutters on the television
I see only two ways in which this could end. Either one side or the other will win or alternatively there will be an agreement within the church that different views about human sexuality may be held with integrity. I rather favour the latter. It would need some common understandings about sexual ethics that focused on fidelity, passion and love rather than this uninspiring display of public disagreement but I think that could be achieved.

I see no other options.

Here in Scotland, I think that it is quite likely that a majority of people in the church would agree with me though it has not been tested. Meanwhile, our College of Bishops and our Faith and Order Board continue to behave as though a winner takes all approach to these issues (whereby we are all supposed to have our actions limited by the opinions of some) is the answer to what is wrong.

The truth is, that attitude is not the answer, it is the problem. And somehow or another we need to move towards something more sensible, for our good and the good of all God’s holy church.

Amen.
bishops, Church of England, gay, Gene Robinson, LGBT

11 responses to “We should be wary of declaring martyrs”

Eamonn

08/04/2015

Agree totally. I find myself in a comparable position vis-à-vis the mass canonisations of the ‘martyrs’ of the Spanish Civil War, which assume that all those worthy of commemoration were on the same side.

Reply
Michael Russell

08/04/2015

Anyone killed for professing their faith is a martyr. ISIS is an equal opportunity martyring machine. The various faith communities targeted, including Islamic ones, should build common ground to dismember ISIS. I simply fail to see the point in quibbling about who is a real martyr and who is not.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  08/04/2015
  
  Is it your view that someone is a martyr for Christianity because they cannot recite a verse from the Qur’an?
  
  It seems to me that whilst some men and women of violence are being claimed to be martyrs if they should be shot by law enforcement agencies whilst pursuing paths of terror that there’s a huge amount to be gained by determining who is a martyr and who isn’t.
  
  Reply
  1. Bro David
    
    08/04/2015
    
    Not being able to explain a quranic verse was merely a way of discerning if someone was not Muslim. However, is it not just as great a presumption to think they weren’t martyrs, as to think that they were.
    
    The early church seemed to accept that all who were crucified or sent to the lions for their Christianity were martyrs. Perhaps not all did so as a statement of faith, but were nominal Christians caught up with the rest. But the church didn’t seem obliged to footnote who didn’t qualify.
    
    I’m not sure that I understand why your are hesitant. It seems a quibble. I don’t think anyone is leaning toward canonization here, just speaking of them as a whole.
    
    Reply
Jo

08/04/2015

The SEC still keeps the feast of Charles, King and Martyr. I don’t think we get to be too narrow in defining who is or isn’t a martyr.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  09/04/2015
  
  Actually, Jo – that’s not quite right. The SEC keeps the commemoration of “Charles I, King, 1649”
  
  There’s no mention of him being a martyr in the calendar (and the current calendar superseded and replaced the one in the prayer book). There are plenty of people who are named as martyrs such as Agnes the week before Charles or indeed “Charles Mackenzie of Central Africa, Bishop, Missionary, Martyr, 1862” the very day after Charles.
  
  It would appear that rather careful thought was given to whether to describe Charles as a martyr and though he is included in the calendar (not least for founding one of our dioceses) any notion of martyrdom is absent.
  
  Reply
  1. Jo
    
    09/04/2015
    
    Thanks for the correction, I hadn’t realised there was that detail of difference between the SEC and CofE.
    
    Reply
Father David

10/04/2015

Of course, King Charles was a Martyr and is commemorated as such on January 31st each year. The trouble is that Anglicans have no real mechanism for declaring people to be saints or martyrs. Having referred to two recent horrific incidents on the African continent where Christians were slaughtered simply for being Christians, I wonder what the Provost of Glasgow thinks about the Ugandan Martyrs of the 19th century and would you personally regard them to be martyrs? As you know 23 Anglicans and 22 Roman Catholics were killed by the Kabaka for refusing to submit to King Mwanga’s corporal intimacies. The Roman Catholics were beatified in 1920 and canonised in 1964 but what of our Anglican Ugandan brothers – where they equally to be regarded as martyrs, or would you deny them that honorific title?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  10/04/2015
  
  The Scottish Episcopal Calendar is again very clear: “Charles Lwanga and his companions, 1886, Janani Luwum, Bishop, 1977, Martyrs of Uganda”
  
  I have no idea why anyone would say that the SEC has no means of declaring someone to be a martyr. Not only do we have such a mechanism, we use it.
  
  Reply
Father David

10/04/2015

It would be interesting to know how this mechanism works in the SEC in deciding who is eligible to join the noble army of martyrs? Bishop Edward King of Lincoln is widely regarded as a saint South of the Border. I think it was Archbishop Lang who was asked how it was decided that Bishop King had reached sainthood status and the answer was that he was given a Collect, Epistle and Gospel to commemorate his saint’s day – 8th March, the day of his Heavenly Birthday.

Reply
Harry Campbell

19/04/2015

“We strongly condemn such atrocities, whether they are Ethiopians are not,” the Ethiopian communications minister Redwan Hussein told AFP.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/19/isis-video-purports-to-show-massacre-of-two-groups-of-ethiopian-christians

What a shame the Archbishop couldn’t have said something similarly inclusive about the victims of the Kenyan massacre, and all such massacres, without caring about what their religion affiliation may or may not have been.

Reply