• Here’s what I said @secsynod

    Here’s what I said as the Convener of the Information and Communication Board at General Synod in Edinburgh last week:

    The report of the Information and Communication Board can be found on page 43 of the Blue Book. Apart from reiterating publicly my thanks to Lorna Finley the church’s Communication Officer, I shall not repeat in my presentation what can be found in that report.

    Instead, I want to bring two areas of work to the synod’s attention. These are each topics in which the Board has an interest at Provincial level. However, they are areas which have a relevance in other contexts of the church too. They are engagement with the press and the issue of the online presence of the church.

    Firstly, I wish to highlight the increased coverage that our church has been getting in the press. (And generally, coverage for positive reasons!) At one time, we were getting lots of column inches in the press but not always for terribly serious stories. Typically we were seen as a soft touch by journalists simply seeking the quirky and the bizarre. Now, the odd quirky story is not necessarily a bad thing – it reminds people that we are here. However, it seemed to the Board a few years ago that there was a task to be done trying to engage with issues a little more. At that time, a review of the Communications Strategy suggested that some attention needed to be paid, largely through support that could be offered by the Communications Officer to enable the church to be seen to engage with issues in public life in Scotland.

    It is my view that this year, we’ve started to see that bearing some fruit – [as you can see from some of the newspaper clips that will appear on the screen].

    This year there have been significant stories reported on, amongst other things, the bedroom tax, Centrica, benefits changes, secularization. These are a far cry from the puppet shows and parrots in the pulpit that we were once known for. There’s also quite a geographical spread of coverage and a number of voices being heard.

    It is worth noting that there are the same numbers of column inches to fill this year as there were last year and yet not all the Christian voices which were the dominant voices of last year are still around to provide the quotes that journalists love. There has been more space recently for Episcopal voices to join in the national conversation.

    I bring this to the Synod’s attention both by way of noting the hard work of those who have stuck their heads above the parapet and also by way of encouraging people to engage creatively with the press where that is appropriate locally.

    It is worth noting in passing that though it has been possible to get good stories into the press that are not about same-sex marriage that remains the dominant story through which many people in the media view the church. It is my personal view that this is because of a perceived disconnect between the morality of the majority of those whom the press regard as decent upstanding members of society and the morality expressed by the churches. Whilst that perception remains, same-sex marriage will remain the key story in the minds of those who put together our newspapers.

    The second major thing that I wish to draw the Synod’s attention to today is the work that is underway towards renewing the online presence of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    Questions about the website have been raised for some time and the view of the Information and Communication Board is that the time has come to renew the online presence of the church. A sub-group of the I and C Board led by the Rev Chris Mayo has been consulting within the church to this end and has now begun the work towards the new website. My expectation is that this will be done within the year that is to come.

    The Scottish Episcopal Church is a church which has done pretty well in informal engagement online. The lively conversation around blogging and social networks indicates a church which has people who are not merely passive members but who are engaged in a conversation about it. Up until now, that conversation has been through informal channels and I expect that to continue.
    A few years ago, I raised the possibility at synod of a website through which we communicated with one another rather than simply one which was used to disseminate news items. That challenge remains in view and those responsible for this part of the Board’s work have been speaking much more of a web presence for the Scottish Episcopal Church than of a simple site on which articles are posted.

    I am grateful to Chris Mayo for taking the lead on this work and involving other members of the Board in the process.
    The composition of the Board has changed this year and the work on the website is indicative of the Board developing ways of working that are changing. To be blunt, ways of working which don’t all include me as the convener. That is a positive step and needs to be the first of many as my time as convener of this Board will come to an end in a year’s time. The fact that I took a sabbatical for three months to wander the highways and byways of the Anglican churches in Canada and the USA last autumn gave a taste of an I and C Board without me on it. I’m grateful of course to those who made it possible for me to take that time out for reflection and growth. Thanks particularly to Lorna but thanks to others too. To all those who work and think about the communications field in the church. To all those who write, edit, make decisions and challenge and cajole.

    My thanks to everyone.

    That concludes what I want to say today and I am happy to take questions.

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

  • Swedish Vocabulary

    Last week someone asked me to tell them about the winter that I spent in Uppsala with the Church of Sweden when I was an ordinand in training. Spending a few months in Sweden was an excellent way to pass the time in my final year of training in TISEC. As I explained what I…

  • Book Blog

    I’ve been asked by several people recently for book recommendations for one thing or another. So, I’ve decided to put them online for all to see, along with some of the reviews in Inspires magazines which I’ve written or otherwise been responsible for.So here is a book blog. I’ll not be updating it every day,…

  • Sermon 22 January 2005

    Epiphany – the season that we are in at the moment, is our reminder that God does not remain in the glittery wrappings of Christmas for very long. It is our reminder that we are dealing, in Jesus Christ with someone who encountered people. Someone who looked people in the eye and said – “Come…

  • Hurrah! I'm not a heretic

      Tried a quiz which attempts to work out whether or not you are  a heretic. I’m not. Hurrah! (Not that I thought I was, of course).   You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you’re not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us…