• Becoming a Welcoming Cathedral

    Someone who is visiting Glasgow at the moment and who has been to St Mary’s a couple of times, said to me this week, “Well, whatever you are telling those people about Welcome, they are actually doing it.”

    It reminded me of someone in the congregation who said early on in my ministry here, “You are doing something to us from the front of the church and I can’t work out what it is. Something to do with the language you use. But it is making us nicer and like one another more.”

    The truth is, one of the core goals that I had when I came here was to help the congregation to become more welcoming. That was one of the things that the people who were interviewing me named as a hope when I was considering coming here.

    Nowadays, people commonly say that St Mary’s is indeed a welcoming place.

    Whenever I hear that I get scared that we will rest on our laurels and stop working at it. You are only as welcoming as the experience that someone turning up for the first time had last week. There will inevitably be people who do come who don’t catch the welcome that is in the air that other people feel and turning a congregation into a more welcoming congregation is one of those jobs that is never done.

    However, I do think that we’ve come a long way and that St Mary’s is indeed a much better place for someone turning up than it used to be.

    So what are the keys?

    Well, most people would think that it starts by organising people into “welcoming teams” and launching them at unsuspecting new meat.

    In fact, that’s not where I think it has to start.

    Becoming a welcoming church or cathedral starts somewhere else. For me it begins with moods and attitudes and does indeed have quite a lot to do with the message coming from the front.

    Have you noticed that I’ve never once used the word “Visitor” in what I’ve written above? Have you noticed that I don’t use it in church either? Here at St Mary’s we don’t have visitors. We do have people who are there for the first time and we do speak of people finding a way into the congregation. However, the V word is absent from our vocabulary at the front of the church.

    There is nothing less welcoming than standing at the front of a church and saying, “Good morning everyone, today we welcome lots of visitors to St Marys”.

    Why? Well, it sets up those there for the first time as aliens and strangers and it also sets up an ugly dynamic of those who are the We and those who are the Them.

    I try very hard not to think like that and stop myself from speaking like that – it just doesn’t help.

    For the same reason, our notices are all written in neutral 3rd person language – you don’t find groups imploring people to “Join us on Thursday for a great….”

    Because there is no us and them in the kingdom, that’s why.

    There are people around in church who are trying to look out for folk who might want a conversation but we also know that lots of people come to St Mary’s and don’t want to talk yet either. They’ve got to be allowed to sit behind a pillar and make a quick exit for as long as they want to.

    One of the strangest things that churches do to people who come for the first time is offer them coffee at the end of the service as though that is hospitable.

    Consistently people tell me that church coffee hours can be terrifying if you’ve just turned up. Putting coffee on after a service is a good idea but only if you are prepared to ensure that those who’ve been coming for years don’t use it to huddle. If they do, I’d say that you’d be better off doing something entirely different.

    In some parts of the world, there’s quite an emphasis on identifying new faces with badges and pins and that kind of thing.

    By far the worst welcome I ever received in a church was in a cathedral which said on its bulletin, “If you are here for the first time, please make your way to the Welcome Desk and ask for a Welcome Button (ie a badge for UK speakers). Wear the button to our Coffee Hour and everyone will know to give you a special welcome”. Dutifully I made my way to the welcome desk expecting to be given a discrete badge an inch across with a picture of the church on it. Instead I was given an enormous stick on label that covered my heart, on which they wrote my name in large black marker-pen and I was launched through a set of double doors into their coffee hour feeling that I was wearing something that was designed more for target practice than anything else. I then found myself standing around on my own wearing this large and prominent marker of my newness whilst all around me proceeded to ignore me. Five minutes later I was, predictably, doing a runner.

    That was a good example of a church that had thought a lot about it and was still getting it wrong.

    I can’t claim that St Mary’s is getting it right all the time, but I think we are trying to do so in ways that some people haven’t thought about. You can find out a bit of what it is like to come to St Mary’s at the 10.30 service by checking the “First time?” section on the website.

    So, in short, if you want to be welcoming:

    • Don’t use the V word – there are no visitors in heaven.
    • Don’t talk about us – there is no us and them either.
    • Don’t serve coffee unless you are prepared to work hard to make sure it isn’t a collection of closed groups.
    • Do think about language.
    • Do concientize people in the congregation about what a welcoming church feels like – it is a culture that has to be built over years
    • Do presume that the website is for those who’ve never looked at it before and for those who’ve never yet turned up.

    Ah, websites! But that can wait until another day.

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

  • The End of Civilization As We Know It

    I dropped into Borders the book store on Friday afternoon. Borders in the UK seems to be going bust and is having a closing down sale. It was an extraordinary and horrible scene in the shop in Buchannan Street in Glasgow. A major book store closing down just before Christmas was inevitably going attract the…

  • The List

    The list of candidates for the election of a new Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway has now been published. They are: The Ven Dr John Applegate The Very Rev Canon Dr Gregor Duncan The Rev Canon Dr Alison Peden

  • If you are looking for me….

    Just to say that if you are looking for me in connection with anything to do with St Mary’s, I’m away from work until next Friday, 11 December 2009. I’m not sure whether I’ll be blogging. We’ll see.

  • Radio Catch-Up

    There was a lot of radio to catch up on last night. Firstly, there was St Ninian’s Cathedral in Perth doing the big live broadcast on Radio 4 at 0810. It was great to hear familiar & unfamiliar voices on the radio and imagine the place all miked up. (St Ninian’s is where I did…