What is in Kelvin's Head?

Inspection of TISEC

23/04/2013

TISEC – the Theological Institute of the Scottish Episcopal Church has had the inspectors in (from the Ministry Division of the Church of England, since you ask) and they’ve just released their final report.

There is not much for anyone’s comfort in the report as the inspectors indicated that they had no confidence in the governance of TISEC and in its formational ability. Both of these are hugely significant. The later means the ability of the institution to form people appropriately for the ministries that they are being trained for.

I’m not going to say much about this at the moment. There will be many things said and many words spilled over this before the year is out. It is minority interest no doubt for most people who belong to the Scottish Episcopal Church. However, how we train people for ministry is fundamental to who we think we are. There’s a sense about, that this report means significant change – not only for TISEC but also for the church, not least for the Mission and Ministry Board who have the responsibility for overseeing this work. There are funding implications and pastoral implications to this and that’s why, even though I’ve never been shy of speaking about TISEC, at the moment, I’m saying little other than to suggest that anyone who cares about the Scottish Episcopal Church needs to read the report in full for themselves.

And it can be found here:

http://www.scotland.anglican.org/media/organisation/tisec/resources/TISEC_Final_Report_18_Feb_13.pdf

MinDiv, Theological Institute of the Scottish Episcopal Church, TISEC

7 responses to “Well-meaning but homophobic”

June Butler

26/08/2014

Seems to me “well-meaning but homophobic” in these days and times implies vincible ignorance and is no longer useful as an excuse for homophobic language. The leaders of the C of E seem paralyzed, unable to articulate policies to move forward on equality for LGTB persons that are other than laughable. Think “deer in the headlights”.

Reply
Lawrence Rosenfeld

26/08/2014

I suppose @RevArun might say that women are welcome for the same reason, eh?

Reply
1. margaret of the sea of galilee
  
  27/08/2014
  
  Exactly what I thought.
  
  Reply
Kelvin

26/08/2014

I’ve removed a previous comment. I’d prefer to retain the focus on the institutional elements of this rather than speculating about an individual.

Reply
Dharma Nicodemus Cuthbert

26/08/2014

As society changes many people are not sure of the new, and therefore condemn it, without thought. I am safe, with the Devil l know. It’s a way of life, not dealing with changes. If we think about how much has changed; homosexuality was illegal until 1969 in England; Scotland caught up in 1983; women have a right to equal pay; the only job that is still excluded from them is working down a mine:
There are men who are prepared to wait to see a male doctor, especially if it is the genitals.
Racism is not tolerated by most, but it is still used by people who want a reaction. There was, when the world and I were young, a shoe polish, called nigger brown. This wasn’t considered at the time as being wrong.

Reply
John O’Leary

27/08/2014

I take your point, and I don’t disagree. If we look at another person and only see the gay part as ‘broken’, then that’s homophobic, no matter how well intentioned. Plus I always find something disturbingly patronising when people say ‘We’re all broken’, as if the speaker doesn’t quite believe it of him/herself, while seeing it very clearly in the other.

However, there’s another way of looking at it. The very fact that we are human means that we are broken. If being gay is part of that humanity, then it’s part also of that brokenness. It’s all part of the messy mixture that we struggle with, and build our rickety lives with, but for which we also should praise and thank God.

Reply
Allan Ronald

27/08/2014

‘Thinking Anglicans’ has a post up about Vicky Beeching’s coming out but does not link to the discussion here. I asked why but they did not reply let alone publish my question.

Reply