What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Guest Post: At Home Among the Dissenters – John McLuckie

    The Rev John McLuckie is about to return to Scotland following several years working in England. In this guest post he reflects on his experience of the Church of England. Do feel free to respond to what John has written below in the comments and check out his blog at http://justluckie.typepad.com

    On the weekend of the celebrations to mark the Queen’s diamond jubilee, I decided that I wasn’t in the mood for the kind of civic religion I knew I would find in my local Church of England parish so I went to our local Quaker meeting instead. I enjoyed it so much that I have been going there regularly ever since.  I enjoy the silence and the gently mystical instincts of Friends, but also their testimony to simplicity, equality and peacemaking.  As an Anglican priest, this seems like a slightly irresponsible thing to do, but I think that this choice says a lot about how I perceive the differences between the context and ethos of the church in which I was ordained – the Scottish Episcopal Church – and the one I currently belong to – the Church of England.

    In fact, I don’t work for the Church of England but for the NHS as a chaplain in a specialist cancer hospital.  I recognise that this is a privileged position in at least two ways: firstly I feel privileged to work in a place where I can explore matters of the spirit with people who would not normally have anything to do with a church, including people of other world faiths; secondly, I am, in part, able to occupy this position by virtue of the privileged relationship with the state enjoyed by the Church of England.  I have no doubt that this relationship is changing, but am not skilled in the arts of predicting the future so would not dare to hazard a guess as to how it will look in a generation’s time.  What is clear to me is that the C of E takes its public role very seriously and I deeply respect the skill and intelligence with which so many of its members, lay and ordained, interact with society at all its levels, civic, cultural and communal.  However, it is also clear to me that the C of E is not alone in this commitment, even if it does sometimes imagine that it is.  The truth is that there is another story about the place of Christian faith in English life and culture and my sojourn with the Society of Friends gives a clue about it.
    (more…)

    , , ,

7 responses to “Well-meaning but homophobic”

  1. June Butler Avatar
    June Butler

    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
  2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
    Lawrence Rosenfeld

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

    Reply
    1. margaret of the sea of galilee Avatar
      margaret of the sea of galilee

      Exactly what I thought.

      Reply
  3. Kelvin Avatar
    Kelvin

    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
  4. Dharma Nicodemus Cuthbert Avatar
    Dharma Nicodemus Cuthbert

    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
  5. John O'Leary Avatar
    John O’Leary

    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
  6. Allan Ronald Avatar
    Allan Ronald

    ‘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

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Sermon – 4 July 2004

    This morning, I am going to concentrate exclusively on the story of Naaman. It is a story that I first heard when I was in Sunday School ? for some reason, it has been a popular story to teach to children. I suspect that the reason for that is that you can read it simply…

  • Blog Review

    Seeing how today is the day that the blog reaches 20000 hits, here is a review of the best bits.First post – o­n getting a wet elbow when baptising babiesInclusive Church – most commented o­n postTory Nuns? – Religion and PoliticsNever trust a two-eyed fundamentalist – Someone else's sermonWalking the labyrinth – in the UniversityCarols…