What is in Kelvin's Head?

Church of Scotland Debate

20/05/2013

I’ve spent much of today listening to the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly debating their Special Theological Commission that had been set up a couple of years ago to report on the way forward for that church with regard to the possibility of gay people to be ordained and inducted and to have their partnerships blessed by that church.

Three proposals emerged. The first two were in the report itself and labelled rather unsatisfactorily as the Revisionist (option A) and the Traditionalist (option B) position. Option A allows what tends to be called a mixed economy by which that church could eventually allow ministers in civil partnerships to be appointed to churches and gay couples in civil partnerships to be allowed to have their partnerships blessed. Option B would not though anyone who happened to be in a Civil Partnership already would probably not be hounded out of their ministry but no new minister in a civil partnership could be inducted or ordained. The third position emerged during the day and was moved in the name of Albert Bogle. (Confusingly it was option D – another motion C had been proposed and then was withdrawn during the process). This option D was a proposal to reaffirm the traditionalist view on these matters whilst allowing individual Kirk Sessions to opt to do as they like and choose such a minister anyway.

In each case, these were not final votes. The procedures of the Church of Scotland mean that where there are significant changes accepted by a General Assembly they then have to be put to the presbyteries of the church. The final position only emerges if a majority of presbyteries concur during the subsequent year and also the next General Assembly confirms the vote. (If a majority of the presbyteries do not concur then the process fails).

Option B fell in the first round of voting.

The commissioners of the Assembly then opted for Option D.

My own feeling is that this was a very hastily patched together compromise that is an astonishing move for the church to make.

It effectively means that the Church of Scotland has chosen by 340 to 282 to go down a path which delays the decision for another year and which is theologically incoherent and unexamined by the Commission which had been set up to consider these matters.

It means that the Church of Scotland has affirmed that it believes something whilst also giving permission to kirk sessions in the church to ignore that doctrine and do something diametrically opposed to what the church says it believes. It is not merely an untidy compromise, it is ecclesiastically and theologically incoherent.

The Church of Scotland became more congregational in its polity today. Some may feel that there are frightening implications for those in that church who support the ordination of women as ministers and elders. What else is going to become a matter of congregational choice?

All this now goes to presbyteries under the Barrier Act. (After next year’s Assembly, if I’ve understood this right).

It may be that some will leave the Church of Scotland because they have affirmed a plan that would allow that church to have gay ministers in some congregations even though the church has affirmed that doctrinally it believes that this is wrong.

It seems to me quite likely that presbyteries may refuse to affirm the proposal.

This matter was not resolved in either direction in the Church of Scotland today.

25 responses to “New Statement from College of Bishops”

Dennis

10/12/2014

If you want a good resource for changing things start with Moyer’s Movement Action Plan. It was the bible for social change training movements for twenty years in the US for local and organizational politics and informed some of the organizing.
https://www.indybay.org/olduploads/movement_action_plan.pdf

You might also look at the Midwest Academy’s Manual for Social Change
http://www.midwestacademy.com/manual/

And the granddaddy of them all: Saul Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals (1971) http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0679721134

and while you are waiting for it to arrive, start an invitation only discussion list going for those in your church who support change and organize those training sessions in more than one diocese.

Reply
Daniel Lamont

10/12/2014

Dennis makes helpful and pertinent suggestions. It may be inappropriate as an Anglican living in England (albeit hoping to move to Edinburgh when he sells his house) to ask if there is anything we can do anything now such as writing to bishops.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  10/12/2014
  
  Writing letters can do much good.
  
  Reply
Steven

11/12/2014

I am an outsider in two senses on this. Firstly, I don’t live in Scotland and am not Scottish. I am not a member of the SEC. Secondly, my faith (such as it is) varies between committed humanism to Quakerism (via Zen) to liberal Christian (all of which represent positions that I deeply admire). I am an honest doubter on the edges of Christianity (a noble calling I share with your own former Primus, Richard Holloway). However, I do love Scotland and visit Edinburgh and the Islands on a regular basis. When I visit I always try and go to church. I usually go to Old Saint Paul’s or St John’s in Edinburgh. I consider myself an Anglican in Scotland (much like the Queen becomes Presbyterian…). I do so because the Scottish Episcopal Church has always represented – to me at least – the most progressive, open minded Christian community on these islands and which retains, at the same time, the beauty and ritual of the Catholic tradition. I must have been mistaken. I would never have thought the Scottish Bishops (all intelligent and sensitive individuals as far as I can tell) could produce such a document – which completely misses the point. I know Bishop David a little bit because he used to be rector of Seagoe Parish in Northern Ireland and I went to school with his children. I served on the vestry in that Parish after his departure to Scotland. I have followed his blog since. While I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for Bishop David, I can’t help but wonder why he remains silent on this issue. Do Bishops ever reveal where they stand on any issue of controversy? The Bishops need to know that real people want change and that documents like the one released simply confound and mystify those of us who see that a prophetic church would be leading the way on inclusion rather than entrenching the old prejudices. Bishop David and all the Scottish Bishops, for the love of God, say what you mean and mean what you say! Do not be afraid.

Reply
1. Fr John E Harris-White
  
  11/12/2014
  
  Steven,thank you for your comment. Exactly my thoughts. Together with sadness, and hurt.
  
  Reply
Craig Nelson

11/12/2014

I wonder if the College of Bishops feel the need of a holding operation. In any case I hope change comes. It may come from the people rather than the Bishops. Still very disappointing.

Reply
Ritualist Robert

18/12/2014

Though I agree that the tone of this isn’t particularly helpful (but then, has a communique from a group of bishops ever been particularly helpful?) I read it more as guidance on how clergy can (indeed must) avoid breaking the law.

I don’t think it would do anybody a favour if a same-sex couple came an SEC priest, were purportedly ‘married’ by him/her when, in fact, that priest was unable to do so under the law.

I think the bishops’ letter was in large part an attempt to protect both clergy and same-sex couples. But, as I say, I agree that the tone of the communique isn’t particularly helpful, especially when it comes to ordinands, for example.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  19/12/2014
  
  I don’t think anyone at all has a problem with the bishops giving guidance on bit breaking the law. That really isn’t the issue at all. It is about the tone and the other aspects of the guidance and the fact that this was withheld until a week before the law changed. Oh, and making pronouncements about people without consultung them.
  
  Reply