• George C and Ann W

    Sometimes one’s twitter feed appears to simply light up with activity. It did so for me as countless people that I know posted their instant reactions to the things that George Carey and Ann Widdecombe said at a meeting held to co-incide with the Tory Party Conference, which was intended to rally the anti-same-sex marriage faithful. The long and short of it is that they seemed to imply that equal marriage would be the next stage on a slippery slope towards a totalitarian political system. It is reported that when asked about opponents to same-sex marriage being called names (the “bigot” word is what we are talking about, I fear), Lord Carey apparently said that such namecalling could lead to people facing the same kind of persecution as the Jews in Nazi Germany.

    It is nonsense, of course, and all the more offensive as he seems to have forgotten that gay people were very particularly targeted by the Nazis too.

    David Cameron may be a lot of things but I’d say that, having met him, I am pretty sure that he is not preparing a final solution to impose upon former archbishops and their followers. One might have thought that such comments were beneath even Lord Carey’s rarefied pomposity, but it would appear not.

    So, what do I say about all this?

    Firstly, it is worth remembering that these comments have at least as much power in rallying the pro-same-sex marriage cause as the anti-brigade. Indeed, all this does seem to recruit people to the fight for equality. It is hard to think anything other than that these comments make same-sex marriage all the more likely. No sensible politician is going to align themselves with this style of debate anyway. (I don’t think Ann Widdecombe was ever a serious politician though I will confess that in her barmy single-mindedness she remains, like Tommy Sheridan and Arthur Scargill, one of my very guilty political pleasures).

    Secondly, it is worth reflecting on how easy it is for church people to get themselves into the news. It interests me that George Carey (once the Primate of All Englandshire) can still get column inches in the same kind of way that Richard Holloway (who was at the same time Primus of our own dear Scottish church) still can. Richard is still one of the more interesting and sane people prepared to say things to the press and consequently gets good coverage.

    One of the lessons to learn from Lord Carey’s nonsense is that the press will still report things if clergy have interesting (and indeed, yes, outrageous things to say). I got lots of good press recently for saying that everyone is welcome in our churches and that we would happily look after any disaffected Roman Catholics for one Sunday only whilst their own church was saying hideous things.

    It isn’t terribly exciting to say that everyone is welcome in St Mary’s. It is what we and many others say very often. Interesting though that if you articulate the risks and blessings of that kind of welcome, all of a sudden, the press puts it on the front page.

    (Incidently, I do hope that the Roman Catholic church wants to look after any disaffected Episcopalians who are in need of sanctuary. They’ve been actively recruiting from the top with their Ordinariate scheme and we must wish anyone who signs up godspeed and good wishes).

    Getting back to Lord Carey and Ann W though, what shall we pray for them. A blessing of wisdom, I say, and let us pray that the Holy Spirit might bless them both with a dose of compassionate holy common sense.

    God bless them both.

    Do I hear anyone say, Amen? (And a retweet if you are twittering….)

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

  • Websites

    I've almost finished the new local Liberal Democrat Website – it is up for testing at the moment o­n http://stirlinglibdems.thurible.net and will be moving to www.stirlinglibdems.org.uk by the weekend.

  • Wireless

    I don’t understand what bits I need to buy in order to wireless network the several computers together.

  • Sudden death

    A colleague in the diocese has died. He was a young priest. I knew him as someone who was generous and kind. He was a year older than me and died very suddenly on Friday. Another funeral I suppose.

  • Sermon – 2 May 2004

    As we gather to read the word this morning, there is o­ne thing that is inescapable ? it is all about sheep. Sheep and shepherds everywhere.