• Dear Deans – a Scottish Response

    Within the last week, a rather provocative blog post emerged about the experience of going to cathedrals. It was particularly focussed, I think on the experience of going to a cathedral in England. (You can find it here: Dear Deans – by A Reasonable Enthusiast).

    Richard Moy, its author writes rather articulately about going to many cathedrals and finding people there whom he perceives the cathedrals to be letting down by not engaging them with the gospel during their visit. “Could there not be a homily?”, he wonders and indeed, offers to send someone along to preach one if there’s no-one locally available.

    I find myself both agreeing with Richard and disagreeing with him at the same time.

    I think that here in Glasgow, at least at St Mary’s, we are in quite a different situation to the situation of the cathedrals in England, particularly with regards to funding. However once you hang the word cathedral outside a building it somehow takes on a whole bunch of expectations that arise from that world. We live with those expecations and also live in a situation where we’ve got to work really hard to gather together people who enjoy this kind of encounter with God so much that they will help to support it financially and with their time and talents. There’s a rather direct relationship between the congregation’s cash and the cathedral’s cash that does focus the mind and does make things different to places where the Church Commissioners hand out lots of dosh.

    Where I agree with Richard is that I think that it is true that there are a lot of big churches which don’t engage people particularly well with the purpose that the building was built for. I weary, for example, of guided tours that are about a building’s history that don’t weave faith stories into the tour. Here at St Mary’s, if I was showing any group around the building, I’ve a repertoire of three guided tours. The one I probably do most often takes in 7 places in the cathedral where I can talk about the seven sacraments and how this is a place where events of huge spiritual significance take place for individuals. Another wander around the building might involve me talking about the murals that we’ve got which brilliantly place gospel events in our locality. The annunciation is happening in a tenement flat just down the road. Of course it is.

    My third guided tour would be to look behind the scenes and take in a sacristy safari and a look into places that the general public don’t normally get to see.

    I simply can’t imagine doing a tour or teaching anyone else to do a tour that focused on the architectural aspects of the building or who gave which window in which year. The building has a purpose and when we’ve got visitors in, I do want to bring it to life.

    I am conscious though of some churches which have been re-ordered so badly to include drumkits and projection screens that all one can think about in them is to wonder who sanctioned such ugliness. If cathedrals maintain people who care about beauty then so be it. The beauty of holiness is a concept found, you know, in the actual bible.

    When it comes to services here, my presumption every week and at every service is that there are people who are there for  the first time and who don’t understand what is going on. We work incredibly hard at helping them to feel comfortable enough to participate and catch some of the wonder that has been woven into the fabric of the building for all the years that it has been built. I give some notices every week and we’ve learned as a congregation not to get bored with them but to rejoice in the fact that we are a place that seekers come to every week.

    So, I agree with some of the things Richard Moy is saying. Lots of churches could engage people better.

    However, I find myself disagreeing with Richard Moy too, particularly in his presumption that the only way in which the gospel can be conveyed is through a homily. The experience that I think most people who work in cathedrals would want to share with Richard is that this just ain’t so.

    Boredom is one of the devil’s chief tools in church. And the truth is, I’ve found myself experiencing boredom in all kinds of churches. Cathedrals certainly don’t have the monopoly on this. Ranting sermons. Repetitive sermons. Sermons which seem to be concerned only with one view of the atonement. We’ve all heard them. Preaching itself is not the answer.

    God meets people in silence. God meets people in music. God meets people lurking behind pillars wondering who they are and where they fit into the grand scheme of things.

    And God meets people where people come together in friendship. We don’t talk about that often enough in church either. One of the things that happens in larger churches is that there’s a greater chance of meeting people who might become friends. (This applies in larger evangelical churches just as much as cathedrals). As I’ve said before, friendship is the great sacrament the church should have named instead of calling marriage a sacrament.

    People don’t all go to the big evangelical tabernacles because of the sermons that are preached in them.

    The truth is, people meet God in complex ways in church. Very many people encounter God in the worship rather than the preaching. That holds true regardless of whether one is an evangelical or whether one is whirling a thurible and scattering rose-petals in front of Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the altar. Trust me. I’ve met God in both places myself.

    It is my view that preaching is rather important to those who come to St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow. I hope that people will often hear things that surprise them, move them and make them think. However, it isn’t the whole package and doesn’t pretend to represent it.

    I preach to beguile not to convert and that may be part of the essence of what is going on in cathedrals. They represent zones of possibility, places where sinners, saints, pilgrims, visitors, tour parties, seekers, history freaks, amateur liturgists, art nuts, faithful God botherers, faithful atheists and all who pass by have a license to wonder.

    Let us never remove that license by preaching at them only our presumptions about what they need to hear.

     

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

  • Holiday Blogging

    I’m away from work for a week’s holiday – the first time I’ve managed to get away since last September. I’d had a week scheduled in January but it was lost to the ‘flu. The last couple of weeks have been rather challenging due to an extended internet outage in the Cathedral office. I’ve left…

  • World Autism Awareness Day

    Today is World Autism Awareness day and well worth marking. I’ve known a couple of people receive a diagnosis of being on the autistism spectrum in the last year or so, each in their forties and each with a whole new growing awareness of who they are. I know more about Asperger syndrome than other…

  • inspires and inspires online

    The latest edition of inspires online was published this morning. If you are not signed up for these monthly emails, you can do so by going to: www.inspires.org.uk/subscribe This month’s news included stuff on the upcoming election from church leaders in Scotland, notice of some important diocesan boundary changes, the usual subjective whizz around the…