• Review of the year on the blog

    Well, everyone else is doing it so I might as well look back over the last year and pick out a few highlights from the blog.

    I began the year by declaring that The Archbishop of Canterbury is not a Pope and defended him from other people making demands that he rebuke the Nigerian Church. I don’t want an Archbishop of Canterbury going around rebuking anyone. (Though I did think that the Archbishop of York might be better placed to do some rebuking).

    A big part of the first part of the year was taken up with me standing in an election to become the Rector of the University of Glasgow. I didn’t win in the end but was a well placed second. The big surprise for me was that a good pro-Independence candidate did not do as well as I expected – the first indication for me that things were not going to go the Independence way later in the year.

    I wrote a Memo to Holyrood re School Chaplains back in January too, which was widely read. I suspect that the days of school chaplains are probably numbered. I also suspect that might be a good thing.

    I also had a go at those in Holyrood telling them not to shake hands with anti-gay politicians from Africa during the Commonwealth Games.

    My Radio 2 debut came this year with a jolly time on early one Sunday morning in February with Hardeep Singh Kohli. My piece was all about rainbows.

    Quite a lot of people wanted to comment on a post where I asked whether Jesus was nice to women.

    During Lent I declared I was not giving social media and didn’t understand those who do.

    Some people were amused by the number of different cures I had tried for what ailed me in the spring. However I wasn’t pleased to have bronchitis for 12 weeks or so.

    I did manage to get myself into the pulpit to preach the resurrection at Easter. Something I always enjoy. The video of the Palm Sunday procession was a record of another of the delights of Holy Week this year.

    Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury got a lot of attention for a dreadful phone-in he did on the radio.  I first had a go at him with a post about Understanding the Justin Welby Controversy and then addressed him more directly with You Condemn It Archbishop.

    When you encounter violence, you condemn it, Archbishop. When you encounter murder, you condemn it, Archbishop. When you encounter homophobia, you condemn it, Archbishop.

    You don’t appease it, Justin Welby. You condemn it.

    Why should any of us in any land expect anything less of you?

    Incidentally, I don’t think Justin Welby has done very well this year even given that his job is impossible. He started making the same mistakes that Rowan Williams made before him.

    I took a strong view on the Red Road Flats controversy and was quoted on the front page of the Herald for doing so. And we won in the end – the flats were not demolished during the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games.

    A terrible low for the city was the Art School fire in May which I witnessed and videoed at first hand.

    Lots of people seemed to appreciate a post on Where to Get Started With the Bible.

    General Synod came and went. This year’s was one of the poorest I remember I think. We don’t seem to trust ourselves in synod to decide anything, the bishops gave another inane presentation on their corporate life and I ended up posting about How not to have a synodical discussion. (This kind of thing ought to be a warning to the Church of England but it won’t be).

    I decided to give an Alternative Queen’s Speech because I continue to think I know better than Her Majesty’s government. Incidently, one of those ideas is one that I think I may take forward in the new year and ought to be giving those who manage church budgets the willies.

    My government will introduce legislation to ensure that charitable status is removed from all charities which discriminate on the basis of the Protected Characteristics of other equality legislation. For the avoidance of doubt, religious charities which campaign against other protected characteristics in terms of age, gender, sexuality etc will automatically lose their charitable status.

    I think that is achievable in 7 years or so and might well be worth throwing some campaigning energy behind.

    Peter Tatchell came to St Mary’s and gave a very interesting couple of talks. One bit of one of them drew national attention when he talked about Outing Bishops.

    I thought that Archbishop Carey was wrong and not for the first time. This time it was a different topic to the usual though – Assisted Suicide. I’m against, he was in favour. (And the fact that most people would have guessed it to be the other way round proves this is a different debate to other debates).

    Another thing which gained national attention was a spat with the Church of England’s Communications Director. Here’s the Guardian’s take:

    The Church of England’s director of communications communicated himself into a corner last week, after a well-meaning but homophobic tweet about Vicky Beeching, the gospel singer who’s just come out as gay. The Rev Arun Arora tweeted that Vicky was welcome in church because “we are all broken”. In a cringe-inducing exchange with Kelvin Holdsworth, provost of St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow, @RevArun defended his comparison of Vicky’s sexuality to the brokenness of humanity. Holdsworth tweeted: “It would be racist to say that black people are welcome in church because all are broken. It is homophobic to suggest same re LGBT.” The the reverend went strangely quiet.

    Arun Arora is still in post but seems to be tweeting a good deal less than he once did.

    I turned down the chance to audition for Big Brother. No, really…

    I took the view that Travelodge was right to remove Gideon Bibles from their rooms and that made quite a few people very cross indeed.

    One of the best things I preached all year was a wee homily for Derek and Nelson’s nuptials:

    The truth is, for a lot of us who grew up as gay people, this was completely outside our expectations. We never expected to be able to celebrate a partnership in this way. It just wasn’t conceivable.

    Yet here we all are.

    I don’t know whether you believe in miracles. But for some of us here today, we have watched things change over the last few years. They have changed in ways that once we could never have believed. Those of us who are gay have watched water change into wine in front of our very eyes. And we have begun to drink. And the wine tastes absolutely wonderful.

    Another post which drew some comment and no little amount of criticism was 10 things Evangelicals don’t tell you at first.

    I came out against Independence. (Which pleased and infuriated people in equal measure). And I had this to say the day after the vote.

    Yet another post to stir things up was Beware of the Celibate. I think there’s a good deal more to discuss in relation to that and in case anyone was wondering, I’m entirely unrepentant for publishing it. Celibacy spells trouble just as often as it spells freedom and we need to be able to discern the difference.

    Although initially very dubious, I loved having my picture taken with an owl.

    I came out in favour of retaining the option to out hypocritical gay bishops. I still think  it must remain and option.

    My six reasons that cathedrals are doing well was a post that did well for comments and for sparking other conversations. My assertion that we don’t have visitors at St Mary’s was part of my own reflection on why we are doing OK at the moment locally.

    I was named as someone on the Independent’s Rainbow List (the new name for the Pink List) and enjoyed going to London for the party associated with the event.

    At the end of November, quite a few people were interested in my asking whether Jesus chose the wrong brother.

    Towards the end of the year I’ve been posting longer articles than I did earlier in the year and have seen visitor numbers to the blog rise sharply as a consequence. An example of that is The Peace Unity and Order of the Church which I posted after the College of Bishops’ disastrous statement in December. That statement has seriously diminished the authority of the bishops and it remains to be seen whether they can change the tone of this conversation significantly enough to regain it. The emergence of 50 clergy and lay readers who have referred to the bishops acting outwith their moral and canonical authority is hugely significant and we don’t know yet what that means in an Episcopally ordered church.

    Rounding off the year, my post on the Comites Christi as gay icons has received quite a lot of attention and, as with other posts above, received a lot of commen on social media which is where much of the conversation takes place these day.

    During the year I’ve also said goodbye on my blog to Jim Cottar, Michael Hare Duke and Bill Fishman. May they all rest in peace. (If that is what any of them want to do in the afterlife).

    It is has been a good year for me though not without its ups and downs. I’m happy in my ministry in St Mary’s whilst also often feeling ashamed of the church I belong to. However, I sense a shift in attitudes that I think will grow in the coming year. There are many who want better leadership than we are currently receiving in the Scottish Episcopal Church and I’ve been delighted to see the re-emergence of blogging as a significant factor in our life together. I end the year hopeful and look forward to what lies ahead.

     

     

37 responses to “The Peace and Unity and Order of the Church”

  1. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin,
    I should, of course, have written ‘on this site’ rather than ‘appear in this blog’ because such derogatory terms have been used in the main by some of the correspondents.

    However, as to your use of the term ‘misogynist’, while certainly not applying it to any individual you seemed to be suggesting that all who held such views on headship were misogynist – a word which my dictionary defines as a hater of women. I happen to know a number of clergy who take this view and while agreeing that they are seriously mistaken , in no way can they be described as women haters – a serious and unfair accusation.

    Your also referred in your comments on the Bishops’ New Statement to ‘homophobic bullying’ which I also find objectionable. Today, of course if one dares, even with good reason, to remonstrate with anyone it is very likely that an accusation of bullying will be made and if they happen be gay then it is just as likely to be accused of being homophobic.

    Finally the term ‘arch conservative’ was used by someone who contributed a comment. I apologise for giving the impression that it was a term used by you.

    The point I was trying to make is that the use of such intemperate language cannot be conducive to reasoned discussion or argument. It reduces the whole thing to name calling.

    1. Cynthia Avatar
      Cynthia

      “It reduces the whole thing to name calling.”

      What is church leadership calling ME when they treat me as lesser in the eyes of God and the church? What is the result of hateful and hurtful language? Depression, LGBT teen suicide, homeless LGBT teens who are cast out by their religious families, sexual abuse of these homeless LGBT teens, hate crimes, human rights abuses…

      The truth of the suffering caused at the hands of the church needs to be told. It isn’t a pretty story, nor is it a polite one.

  2. Kelvin Avatar

    Ross, I’ve done an electronic search and I can’t find many instances of the term arch conservative on this blog. I happen not to think it too terrible, not least because I can imagine people using the term arch liberal to describe me. Although that would be inaccurate, I’m not sure that I’d be that offended to be honest.

    But that’s not the point. I can find only one instance of someone commenting on this blog using that phrase. That’s one comment in 10500 comments. It doesn’t seem to me to be a phrase particularly commonly used on this blog.

    The terms homophobe and misogynist have sometimes been used, but I’m struggling to find any instances of them being used to describe any individual. Again, I’m not of the view that they’ve been particularly commonly used in those 10500 comments. There simply aren’t that many instances of the words being used on this blog at all.

    Generally speaking, I think it is OK to debate ideas – it seems to me to be reasonable to be able to describe homophobic ideas or actions. Generally it is not helpful to call people homophobes. There is a difference that I know and tend to be quite careful around.

    I stand by my description of last week’s guidelines as homophobic bullying. Indeed, I can’t think of a better example of such behaviour. However, I’m not in the business of calling people homophobes and the accusation that I am and even that I do so habitually, seems to me to be far from secure.

  3. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin

    I accept your comment about my comment about the use of the word ‘archconservative!! Apologies for overstating the case.

    Having re-read the Bishops’ statement I cannot for the life of me understand how you can suggest that any part of the document can be suggestive of homophobic bullying. Its obvious intent is to clearly state what the current situation is which is important given that there could be legal implications for any clergy who decides to act outwith the confines of the stated law of the land (i.e the Act permitting same sex marriage.)
    I’m not really sure what you expected the Bishops to do.

    I appreciate how emotive and divisive this whole issue is. Inevitably the peace and unity of our church is going to be (and is) seriously disturbed to the detriment of its mission.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      No-one can be surprised at the bishops letting people know they should not do anything illegal.

      However the surprise has come from clergy being told that they themselves should not marry. If the bishops knew they were going to say this previously then they should have said so before the General Synod and particularly before the Cascade Process began. Both the debate at General Synod and the Cascade would have been different if this had been known.

      It particularly targets anyone who is in training to become a priest or lay reader who may have been accepted for that training whilst being open and honest about being in a civil partnership. To publish this with just one week to go before the law changed was, to say the least, unhelpful.

      People make plans. Most things to do with marriage are planned more than a week in advance.

  4. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    My final comment -you’ll be pleased to know!

    But surely any ordinand who is in the situation you describe will be fully aware of the doctrine of the SEC regarding Christian marriage as expressed by Canon 31. At their ordination/licensing they can hardly promise to render due obedience to the Code of Canons if they plan not to abide by them.

    When I was ordained in the Church of England candidates for ordination were barred if they were divorced and had remarried. Through time the situation was changed. I would not be surprised if, in a few years time, the SEC changes its stance on same-sex marriage – I wouldn’t be surprised but I would not be happy. As I have commented before, as an Anglican my faith is based on Scripture, Reason and Tradition, all three of which bear witness to the truth that Christian Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      If someone in a same-sex marriage cannot subscribe to the Code of Canons because their manner of life puts them outside of the definition of marriage in Canon 31, then I can’t see any way that someone who is divorced can subscribe to the canons for the same reason.

      I personally think that someone’s subscription to the canons represents them accepting that this is the doctrine of the church. It is on that basis that I can subscribe to the Canons. Clearly I don’t believe the definition in Canon 31 to be adequate and have said so many times and very publicly.

    2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
      Lawrence Rosenfeld

      Ross, Parts of various articles in Ian Bunting’s collection, Celebrating the Anglican Way, can be paraphrased thus:

      “Anglicans understand the Old and New Testaments as “containing all things necessary for salvation” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. ‘Reason’ and ‘Tradition’ are seen as valuable means to interpret Scripture (a position first formulated in detail by Richard Hooker), but there is no full mutual agreement among Anglicans exactly how Scripture, Reason and Tradition interact (or ought to interact) with each other.”

      To the best of my understanding, it is Tradition alone (and not a terribly old one, when compared with the Hebrew Bible as “Scripture”), that declares “that Christian Marriage can only be between a man and a woman,” given that for a great deal of the past millennium there may, indeed have been one man and one woman, but the rest of what was called “marriage” bore no resemblance to what we in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries recognize. I refer to women as chattel, marriage for political purposes, etc.

      I’m sorry that you are not happy, but I’m sorrier that you are subtly suggesting that, since I affirm that my Reason and reading of Scripture trump “Tradition,” that I am somehow less of an Anglican than you.

  5. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Surely the Canons are not articles of faith. They are laws to be abided by, not a creed to be believed. There is a huge difference between the two.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      My understanding is that it is something of an anomaly to have a doctrinal statement in a canon. The canons should indeed be regarded as the law of the church and not a doctrinal statement.

  6. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Apologies for making another comment after I stated that I had made my final one on this issue.

    I agree that canons are not doctrinal statements or articles of faith but they must and do reflect the belief of the church. As the Bishops’ Statement puts it ‘The doctrine of marriage of the SEC, as currently expressed in Canon 31 of the Code of Canons, is that marriage is “a physical, spiritual ad mystical union of one man and one woman.”

    I would, therefore, have to disagree with Rosemary’s claim that there is a ‘huge difference between the two.’ They are obviously very closely linked to each other and with the practice and life of the church

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The important point to remember is that the statement regarding marriage in Canon 31 is “The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.”

      If it isn’t possible for those who advocate same-sex couples being able to enter marriage to edit that definition to suit their own ends then it can’t be possible for anyone else to do so either.

      If it isn’t possible for someone to subscribe to the canons because they happen to be in a marriage with someone of the same gender then it can’t be possible for someone to subscribe to the canons who is in a second or third marriage either.

      The way our church has dealt with divorce (which is also controversial for some people) has been to allow people to minister who are in relationships which fall outside the definition of marriage in Canon 31.1

    2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
      Lawrence Rosenfeld

      “Huge” or not “huge”? Rather than debating the size of a subjective term, perhaps we can try to find a more objective method for determining the relationship between the two.

      It seems to me – and I welcome debate on this point – that the Canons ought to flow from our faith (“reflect the belief of the church”). Assuming that is the case, then after we deal with the question of “what IS the belief of a church that encourages reason over dogma?”, we get to wrestle with the potentially circular nature of putting statements of belief into a governance document.

  7. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Not so. Canon 31.4 allows for a Diocesan Bishop to permit the marriage of person/s whose previous marriage has been dissolved and where one of the previous partners of that marriage is still living.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Yes, Ross. The Canon allows for a bishop to permit a marriage after divorce.

      However, that says nothing at all about subscription to the canons or anything about whether such a person should be fit for ordination.

      If it isn’t possible for someone to subscribe to the canons if they happen to be marrying a person of the same gender due to Canon 31.1 then I can’t see how a person can subscribe to the canons if they are in a second marriage which also falls outside the boundaries of Canon 31.1 regardless of whether such a thing was permitted in church.

      I think that a second marriage should not be an impediment to ordination. However, the Bishops’ recent guidelines have implications beyond those who happen to be gay and lesbian.

      These are all inconsistencies that come from a time when the Canon was revised to suit some circumstances (divorce) but before other circumstances (marriage of same-sex couples) were even thought about. We shouldn’t expect such Canons to answer questions they were never designed to ask.

      Notwithstanding that, one of the reasons that it was presumed by many that being in a same-sex marriage (which does indeed fall outside the doctrinal definition of marriage in the canon) would not be a bar to ordination is precisely because being in a second marriage (contrary to the doctrinal definition of marriage) isn’t. One can’t have it both ways.

  8. Seph Avatar
    Seph

    It seems to me that a bishop can either be a ‘focus for unity’ (a seriously dubious phrase in my opinion) or show real leadership—I don’t see how it is possible for one person to do both.

    I can’t see much evidence of either from the SEC bishops at the moment.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts