• The Equality Network Gets it Wrong

    There’s so much that the Equality Network gets right but to be honest, I’m of the view that they got it wrong this weekend. An article appeared in the Scotsman giving a few glimpses of what the Equality Network is planning during the Commonwealth Games. Apparently there is to be a Pride House which will highlight work done for LGBT rights in different commonwealth countries. Well, so far so good, what’s not to like?

    Indeed, the idea of highlighting the work of LGBT rights organisations across the Commonwealth is a very good one indeed and I wish it every success.

    What concerned me greatly was this comment from a staff member at the Equality Network:

    What we won’t be doing is outwardly criticising Commonwealth countries because the last thing I think that is useful for LGBT people in those countries is for the former colonial power to be saying this is how we do it and we do it right and you are wrong when in fact the majority of the homophobic laws in these countries were put in place by the former colonial power.

    Now, that just doesn’t seem right to me.

    The Equality Network has been quite up front about criticising Russia in the last few months. Why on earth would we tone it down when we are talking about Commonwealth Countries with which we have much stronger ties and much greater influence? Yes, it is indeed true that we must be sensitive to where homophobic laws in Commonwealth countries came from. That hardly means that we have no right to speak out about government actions today.

    To put it bluntly, if the President of Uganda signs the bill which is before him which will bring in life sentences for gay people in that country and prison sentences for anyone who knows about someone being gay and who does not report it then I expect to have something to say about it. Not only that, I expect the Equality Network to have something to say about it and to do so loudly during the Commonwealth Games if necessary. If the President of Uganda signs that bill I expect Alex Salmond to refuse to shake the hand that signed it and those of any other government ministers from that country who turn up in Glasgow.

    I saw on twitter last night that it wasn’t just me who thought the emphasis in this article was misguided. There were other voices too and some of us have been the Equality Network’s greatest supporters in recent months. Rather surprisingly, we were not listened to but argued with.

    I think the Equality Network has got it wrong on this. There is very likely to need  to be very direct protests about governments whose officials will be showing up in Scotland with the rest of the Commonwealth this summer.

    It simply isn’t good enough to say that we must represent the views of LGBT networks in those countries. They, like the Equality Network, are in hugely privileged positions. We can’t possibly know what gay folk on the ground think in many countries simply because they are left almost entirely voiceless by forces of oppression and homophobia.

    If they can’t protest the actions of their governments others can. Indeed, that’s how decent people who care about the world behave.

    The Equality Network need to continue their brilliant plan for a Pride House at the Commonwealth Games and make sure they are robustly prepared to use it as a platform to speak out clearly and stridently against cruelty, oppression and hatred whether it comes from individuals or from government ministers. If it comes from the latter, the Equality Network is well placed to whisper in the ears of Scottish Ministers and make sure that they behave equally appropriately and robustly.

    As a gay member of Scottish society who has done my bit for the Equality Network, I expect no less. The gay kid in Kampala who is unrepresented by anyone because he is terrified and can speak to no-one should expect no less either.

    Of course we must directly criticise homophobic Commonwealth governments. How could we do anything else?

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

  • You almost have to smile

    You almost have to smile at the bishops of the Episcopal Church in the states. It would appear that they have managed to get Rowan Williams the headlines that he wanted without changing their policy on anything at all. The BBC is reporting things particularly inaccurately. They say today: Leaders of the Episcopal Church in…

  • The Beloved

    Every Eucharist is a thanksgiving. It is what the word means. I remember reading a very moving passage from a liturgical theologian (must have been Gregory Dix, I think) about the different events that had been marked by the sharing of bread and wine in thanksgiving. It is celebrated week by week in high places…

  • The Praxis of Polity

    Up to Aberdeen today for the consecration of Bishop Robert of the Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney. As he is almost universally known as Bob, “Bishop Robert” does not roll off the tongue terribly easily. I was met outside the Cathedral by the Dean of the Diocese who gave me strict instructions that once the…

  • On the bridge of my nose

      I suppose you could say that it has been a busy week on the bridge of my nose. From the top, you can see:   The glasses that I started with. (Used to be chic) The new retro-tech look for daywear and work. (Chic) The new party glasses. (My goodness how chic is that…