• Sermon for Janey Godley

    She said, “I’ve been making lists”.

    I said, “Oh, right. Is that lists of people that need to be invited to the funeral?”

    She said, “Naw – not that”

    Someone came into the hospice room for something and we were distracted.

     

    I know that some of you might be a little surprised to find yourselves in church today.

    The first time she came into this church, she had been chatting to me outside and wanted to look around.

    But as we approached the door, she said, “I can’t come in”.

    Why not, I asked.

    Because it will fall down if I do.

    “Oh no Janey, in fact that’s not what we believe in here”.

    Janey had a complex relationship with religion.

    She told me in the hospice that she had mocked religion through most of her career. But, she said, “The thing is, no-one much knew that I always had a church I went to. The church was always a place of safety to me”.

    [And as she said that, I remembered a Sunday morning a few weeks before when I had smuggled her through the church to get her away from someone who was giving her grief in the street over her support for the trans community.]

    But it was complicated. Janey’s religious experience was complicated.

    Janey was baptised twice. She went into whatever church she could find without regard to what kind of church it was. She received the last rights three times. Somewhere or another there were Buddhists chanting for her when she died.

    And one of her favourite phrases was, “That would be an ecumenical matter”.

    The truth is, Janey was an ecumenical matter.

    Brought up amidst the worst of Glasgow’s sectarianism, which she hated, she had good reason to mock much religion. And yet. And yet she did somehow hang on to belonging.

    And some of her protestant forebears would have been surprised at her deep devotion to Mary, reflected in this service. The Hail Mary that we use in our prayers was a prayer that she held onto and prayed fervently and passionately. And many of those who heard her mocking the church would have been surprised to hear that she prayed every day.

    Janey Godless certainly wasn’t the whole story. And we have brought her to a place this day, a place  which shares in her inclusive values and a place that  proclaims that Jesus is risen from the grave. And we believe that God’s love embraces all the world’s waifs and strays and wanderers as well as the holy and the pious.

     

    She tried again. “I’ve been making lists”.

    “What? lists of things you want to do whilst you are in the hospice?”

    “Naw, don’t be stupid”

    A nurse came in with something. I had to go out.

     

    I met Janey in a couple of different ways.

    I was aware of her years ago. But then during lockdown I found on YouTube that she was making these funny wee videos. Voicing for us all what she thought was actually going on in other people’s heads.

    It was such a strange time. And it sometimes felt that Janey was producing these videos just to get me through the day.

    Because I thought it was just me that had discovered these videos at first.

    Little did I know that we all did.

     

    “She got me through lockdown” is something I’ve heard again and again.

    Janey was the voice of that time for me. And whilst the best government spin doctors in the world were trying to tell us what being 2 meters apart actually looked like, Janey cut through all the nonsense.

    Everyone understood what it meant to be 2 Alsatians apart.

    Big Isa, all the Sandras and me. We all understood it.

    Her direct way of communicating got through to people when the official channels were struggling.

    It is no exaggeration to say that it is likely that some people are alive today because wee funny videos from Janey kept them going through lockdown. And because we were able to make sense of the advice that was being given to us though those videos.

    There still are people around the world who admire the plain speaking message that Scotland had at that time. Some of them are still surprised at the kind of language that our former first minister seemed to be using on YouTube and have still not really grasped that Janey and Ms Sturgeon were not one and the same.

    Such is the internet.

     

     

     

    She said, “I’ve been making lists”.

    OK Janey. Lists of what.

    The room was quiet at last. She got her chance to tell me what she had been making lists of.

    “People,” she said. “People to forgive.”

    Janey, knowing that she was dying was making lists of people to forgive.

    And that’s what real religion and real humanity is made out of.

    Janey had a great deal to forgive. Bad things had been done to her.

    I asked her how she was going to forgive. She said that she was going to forgive everyone (including, she said, everyone who would be at the funeral) because her love was bigger than anything anyone had every done to her.

    That’s a lot of love, by the way.

     

    “So Janey”, I said. “Everyone? Can you forgive everyone?”

    “Yes,” she said. “Everyone”

    And what about American Politics, I asked, have you changed your mind about anyone. She smiled.

    Friends, Janey Godley died having forgiven everyone.

    But she still believed to her dying day, that Trump, is  a country mile away from being someone who should ever have come anywhere near power.

    So, what shall we say about Janey Godley this day?

    It is our job to remember her today with kindness and with affection. With thanksgiving and love.

    And I say this.

    Janey Godly,

    Daughter, wife, mother,

    And beloved friend.

    Defender of the vulnerable,

    Champion of God’s belovèd trans community,

    Fearless critic of tyrants, hypocrites and abusers,

    Janey Godley,

    Queen of comedy,

    Daughter of Glasgow,

    Doctor of the University.
    May you rest in peace.
    And Rise in Glory.

     

10 responses to “Response from the College of Bishops”

  1. Father Ron Smith Avatar

    Thank you, Fr, Kelvin, for making the contents of the SEC Bishops’ Response to the Letter from 50 people concerned about their attitude towards the openness of the Church to the prospect of its eirenic treatment of clergy and Church members – desirous of solemnising Same-Sex monogamous relationships in the context of Marriage.

    It seems to me – an outsider, but a member of the New Zealand Anglican Church – that the Letter has challenged your Bishops to positive action on behalf of Christians – and others – who consider faithful Gay relationships to be equally acceptable to God as those of heterosexuals. The Church, surely, must act to affirm faithful monogamous relationships on both sides of the spectrum.

    Let’s hope your General Synod will move ahead to affirm such relationships, so that the Church may get on with other aspects of its mission; knowing that human justice for ALL people is paramount in the propagation of the Gospel. If SEC is pro-active in this important matter, it can only encourage churches like my own – in ACANZP – to follow suit.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The General Synod is, to some degree, inhibited from sorting this out until the bishops themselves decide to back a proposal which would allow all to flourish in the church.

      The synod contains the bishops and they have an effective veto on canonical legislation.

      I’m baffled at the moment as to why they have not rallied around a position which allows all of us, both those in favour and those against, to act according to our consciences in this area. I think that this is a position which would re-unite the church again. I know those who disagree with me on the substantive question about lesbian and gay relationships who are as mystified and as frustrated as I am that we are taking so long to deal with this and who, like me, want to get on with the business of letting Scotland’s people know that God loves them.

      Everyone I know says they want to come to a resolution which does not de-church other Episcopalians. The position that the bishops have taken comes very close to de-churching some of us and I remain greatly concerned for the Province as a whole.

  2. Pam Avatar
    Pam

    From my reading, it’s a carefully worded document that attempts not to pre-empt what may happen at Synod. Talking to each other face-to-face is always better than written communication, in my opinion. This issue does need a resolution and I’m sure that people on both sides of the debate, in good faith, would want to honour each other. Bishops have a tough job but so do the people who don’t get the opportunity to attend Synod, for whatever reason.

  3. Chris Hansen Avatar
    Chris Hansen

    I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of being talked about by people who would rather not talk to me. This “listening process” that the C of E is going through is bull. They’ve been doing variations on that for years. Nothing comes out of it except more conversations. No progress is made thereby.

    The trick is to push the bishops to take a stand and do some prophetic leading.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The current process in the Church of England is related to the Cascade Process that we’ve had in Scotland.

      Some people have benefitted from the process here. There’s no getting away from that. It has been a good thing for some but by no means all.

      Some have felt very disappointed and upset that the bishops themselves now appear not to have been working in accord with the principles of the process itself.

      And some, like me who have been working for change in this area for years, were excluded from the design of the process and from its major set piece provincial event.

  4. FakePete Avatar
    FakePete

    I feel very angry reading that.

  5. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Dear Kelvin

    Interesting developments. Not much in that letter really.

    What would you do if you were Primus?

    The reality is the SEC has always (at least in my mind) been open to a more progressive stance on this kind of issue and yet does contain those for whom this would be (very?) difficult.

    Would you seek to maintain unity by some kind of compromise (CoE and women Bishops) or would you forge on ahead with prophetic change leaving those who didn’t like it to make their own choices (like the Episcopal Church)…?

    The New Testament Christians didn’t seem to care much for unity at the expense of integrity and justice.

    For my own part I think it is better for churches not to try and fudge this issue (look at the terrible mess in the Church of Scotland) but to agree a position and then firmly pursue same, come what may. People would not tolerate an institution that allowed a minority of people to adopt racist positions and so it should not really be any different for those who want to maintain positions that discriminate against same-sex couples.

    All this is – of course – easy for me to say.

    Steven

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      What would I do if I were the Primus? Well that’s a good question.

      The first thing I’d remember is that the Primus is simply the spokesperson for the College of Bishops and doesn’t have the authority that, for example, an archbishop might think he possesses.

      I would however as a bishop argue in a favour of a solution which allowed people to act according to their conscience in this area. I don’t agree that people should be forced to “firmly pursue” a particular stance over this issue. It isn’t who we are. In fact I think the problem at the moment is that people are being forced to pursue a position that they don’t agree with and that situation is unsustainable.

      The reasons for not forcing people to marry gay couples are these:

      1 – No gay couple wants to be married by someone who has been forced to do so but who would really prefer not to.

      2 – It would be illegal anyway and our canon law determines that we will abide by Scots Law.

      3 – We already have a precedent with divorce – no-one is forced to marry anyone who is divorced, they can chose whether or not to do so. I think that is a reasonable compromise and it has served the church well.

      4 – I don’t think anyone should be compelled to marry anyone and that is the situation that we currently have.

      However there are some positive things that a Scottish bishop could do at the moment. Although I agree that same-sex marriages cannot take place in churches or be done by SEC priests until there is a decision made by General Synod I don’t agree that it is the case that someone cannot affirm allegiance to the canons of the church because they happen to be in a same-sex marriage.

      I think de-coupling those two issues is urgent.

      I would argue in favour of an equal opportunities policy for the church.

      I would try to seek a way of bringing forward a synodical resolution which would allow same-sex marriage, allow those who don’t want to be party to it not to have to be and I’d argue in favour of that as a godly compromise that would allow us to get on with our gospel business of sharing the good news.

      If I were the Primus I would probably be encouraging the College of Bishops to allow me to say publicly that we regretted that some people had been excluded from the Cascade Process and I’d seek to commit the College to a more consultative leadership style. In particular I’d want to say that there should never be a process about people that did not include them in the design of the structures of the conversation. I’d want to say that we would never construct a conversation about the ministry of women without women being involved, we would never construct a conversation about ethnic minorities in the church without appropriate consultation with people who belong to ethnic minorities and I’d commit the church never to make the mistake that has been repeatedly made of constructing a conversation about LGBT people without their involvement.

      If I were wise, I’d be learning a lot more about the experience of trans people because I’d realise that trans issues are inevitably coming our way.

      Does that answer the question?

      1. Steven Avatar
        Steven

        Yes, it does rather. Thanks.

        For the avoidance of doubt I would not advocate forcing anyone to marry anyone. When I said it is better to adopt a position and then pursue that I meant in terms of whether or not to permit equal marriage in the SEC (which is not the same as saying that all priests would therefore be compelled to marry gay folk).

        We have just filed an equal marriage petition in Belfast, so thoughts and prayers all welcome!

        Steven

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • What if this is the end of the Eucharist?

    So, what happens to the church if this is the end of the Eucharist? Right now we lie in a very uncertain time. Very much thought is directed towards to a mythical time – “after this current crisis is over”. There is a deep desire to get back to normal that exists in both our…

  • Grace Received: communion on the battlefield

    Two hundred and seventy four years ago, as I write this, some members of the congregation which I now serve were in desperate straits. They had been following the fortunes of the Young Pretender for some time – hoping for the restoration of the Stuart cause. Some had, no doubt, been following developments from home.…

  • Daily Prayer Resources for Eastertide

    Here are the files you need for saying Daily Prayer at the moment. Kalendar for March – June 2020 New Life – The Lord New Life – Evening Prayer – Whole Week Compline in Eastertide

  • Daily Prayer Resources for Holy Week

    Here are the files you need for saying Daily Prayer at the moment. Kalendar for March – June 2020 The Suffering Christ – Holy Week The Suffering Christ Whole Week Holy Week Evening Prayer Compline in Lent