• Ruth Innes RIP

    Mother Ruth

    This week the funeral will take place of an extraordinary priest, the Rev Canon Ruth Innes of the Diocese of Edinburgh.

    Ruth served various congregations in that diocese – St Fillan’s, Buckstone, Christ Church, Falkirk, St Mark’s, Portobello and St Peter’s (formerly St Mildred’s) in Linlithgow along with St Columba’s, Bathgate.

    Ruth never worked in large churches. Each of these places had their own vulnerabilities. But to her, each of her charges were for the time she was with them, My Little Flock. She was defensive of those she cared for too. Not so much a mother hen as a mother lion.

    People will remember her as pastoral, caring and imaginative. Some will also remember her with that double-edged description – that she was colourful.

    Ruth’s outrageous sense of humour and extravagant love could make some nervous of her. However, Ruth was not merely colourful in the sense of being slightly quirky – she wasn’t slightly anything. Her personality lit up the world and made it far more vibrant.

    Despite working as a rector only in relatively small congregations, Ruth was widely known throughout Scotland and beyond. She cultivated her friendships and they lasted many years. Some of these came from the Cursillo movement, some from people she met on conferences and some from friends she holidayed with. Ruth put her friendships to work too in her pursuit of justice. She was a founding member of Changing Attitude Scotland and a key person in the early years of the movement to enable same-sex couples to get married in church. She turned up as a priest in a clerical collar to Pride marches long before it was fashionable to do so.

    She cared about the poor. She cared about her family, including her two sons.  She cared about the sick. She cared about the dying. She cared about the homeless and spoke, to the considerable surprise of many who heard her, of her own experience of homelessness.

    My guess is that when others were making decisions about whether Ruth should be ordained she was described as coming from a “non-traditional background for a priest”. Most clergy don’t have years of experience as a cocktail waitress to draw on after all. Ruth did and she knew much about how people tick as a result. She also brought a sense of fun and good humour to every room she entered.

    Ruth was an adult convert to Christianity having been captured by the beauty, peace and joy she found in the church of St Michael and All Saints in Edinburgh one day when she wandered in. These things turned her life around completely.

    In recent months, Ruth knew she was dying and was brave and honest throughout. She had been present at the deathbeds of many in her care. She knew the consolations of religion without ever being sentimental about them. She knew that God loved her very much and she loved God greatly in return.

    Spirituality is a personal matter. For Ruth it included a love for religious tat. In life, she gathered many icons, statues and rosaries. Some were exquisite. Some were exquisitely camp. None gave her more joy than the pectoral crucifix which also operated as a cigarette lighter – the flame appearing as if by magic above the head of the crucified Lord. She loved all these things but as death approached, she started to let them go. Visiting friends would get to choose from the tat collection but nothing could be removed without one first hearing about the story of where the object came from and what it represented.

    Most treasured of the things she gave me was an icon that Ruth always described as Ugly Mary. Having noticed it in a monastery shop, she realised that no-one else would take home such an ugly icon of Our Lady and that thus it fell to her to rescue her and love her. “Why should Mary always be pretty, anyway?”

    There is a tendency when someone dies to represent them as either a saint or an angel. Ruth was neither of these. She was something much more – a human being fully alive. Devout, fully alive and full of fun.

    May she rest in peace.

    And rise in purple.

     

     

     

     

    [Many thanks to Kimberly Bohan for the picture]

13 responses to “Peter Tatchell on Outing Bishops”

  1. Ann Avatar

    I agree — as The Rt Rev. Barbara Harris says, “it is okay to be in the closet as long as you are not using it as a machine gun nest”

  2. Erika Baker Avatar
    Erika Baker

    While the CoE policy is completely crazy and homophobic, it is consistent in itself.
    Gay sexual relationships are not permitted for clergy.
    So the official line is that all CP’s clergy follow this rule – and who knows, some may actually follow it! Stranger things have happened!

    But marriage is different because it is defined as a sexual relationship (and the Alice in Wonderland “I am not seeing reality” ignores marriages between people who cannot or do not want to have sex).
    And so no amount of looking elsewhere can distract from the fact that your married gay priest is not celibate.

    That’s the faultline.
    And outing non-married gay bishops, partnered or not, does not touch this.
    They can all to a man say that they are following church policy.

    1. Stephen Peters Avatar
      Stephen Peters

      Yes, Erica. But somehow, and more hugely, no. That Gay Bishops hide and allow gay clergy to be demonised on any front, is just not on. Church Policy or no = They should be working to change this appalling policy, not supporting it to harm the lives of truly loving couples.

    2. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      The whole insane situation is made more invidious by the fact that one of the arguments trotted out against marriage between people of the same gender is that they could not (in the eyes of some detractors) actually have sex. Sex was, to these people, certain acts and certain acts alone. I suspect the same arguments pertain in the HoB and that people in partnerships with another of their own gender can make what is, in the eyes of the HoB, a perfectly valid case they are not ‘having sex’ with their partner.

      The situation is nuts, perfectly nuts. The answer is for straight people, and for celibate people, who have the least to lose, to stand up, and shout. The higher up the ecclesiastical tree they are, the more important it is that they do this.

  3. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    Both Erika and Stephen make fair points. As I see things, those who scramble for scripture to justify treating people as second class citizens in a way that trench troops scramble for the last round of ammunition as the “enemy” marches inexorably
    forward, will view outing as inflammatory.
    If anything, this could widen the schism. Could this fracture the C of E in a way that women’s rights threatened to? As the breath of equality, dignity and fairness dominates the secular world and is very much present in many hidden corners of the church, possibly so. It could certainly further damage the church’s membership.
    If these are possibilities then perhaps the church’s leaders might be forced to discuss this in the open should outing occur. I remain sceptical that fundamentalists will cast aside their theological guns as it were, but the church will be a healthier place for having open and honest debate and reflection- and action. I’d rather see a reduced sized church that is founded on fairness and honesty rather than a larger body that hides behind the armour of theological confusion and hypocrisy on this issue.
    I’m saddened to reflect that I don’t believe that the main church will countenance or confer equality and dignity. Whatever the cost. Hopefully, I might be wrong.

  4. Dennis Avatar
    Dennis

    When you go outing an anti-equality CofE bishop be prepared for all sorts of ugly hate filled email. I saved a few of the nicer responses just because they were so amazingly horrible. A couple of emails were frightening and a right wing Anglican blog tracked down and posted my work contact information. Six and a half years later I still get sick at my stomach thinking about it. And honestly it has no impact on anyone other than the now out-of-the-closet bishop who will lie and deny deny deny. Do it but be prepared for an ugly situation on your hands.

  5. James Byron Avatar
    James Byron

    What’s to be gained? The ’90s mass-outing did nothing to change the church’s homophobic trajectory, and I doubt a repeat would do an any better. Either the bishop will refuse to comment, and the story dies; or they admit it, and are forced to resign. It could backfire hugely, making the people doing the outing look vindictive. Many traditionalists would sympathize with the outed bishops.

    Besides, what makes people think there’s any gay English bishops to out? Everything I’ve seen to date has been rumor and innuendo, usually nudge-nudge comments about Anglo-Catholics with a love of white port and vestments.

    The problem is, at heart, economic: rich evangelical parishes could bankrupt the church overnight if they chose. A handful of bishops can’t change that. Instead, open evangelicals need to be convinced to change their minds. Any fight for equal rights that isn’t supported by people like Ian Paul, N.T. Wright, Graham Kings and Nicky Gumbel will go nowhere.

  6. Peter Ould Avatar
    Peter Ould

    From the conservative side, if you’re going to out anybody, out them because they’re being hypocrites. There is nothing to be gained from outing men who have been sexually active in the past but are not any longer, or who have always been celibate. But if there are members of the House of Bishops who are sexually active with someone of the same sex, outing them is less to do with homosexuality and more to do with hypocrisy. It is unacceptable in any line of business to demand one thing of your staff and then to do the exact opposite yourself.

    Of course, what will happen in practice is that men will be named who are celibate, or who have repented of previous sexual activity and this will just backfire, because it will be seen to be vindictive and nothing more. As far as I know, there are no hypocrites in the House of Bishops on this issue, but please do correct me if you have any knowledge to the contrary.

  7. Fr Steve Avatar

    It seems difficult to justify perpetrating one sin towards another on the basis of the fact they themselves have perpetrated an act of sin(hypocritical abuse of power). This doesn’t seem to me like the Jesus who stood before Pontius Pilate.
    We may ask ourselves what then do you do?….do we really gain anything by not just fighting sin with sin. But by promoting sin (outing)…for surely such it is! We do nothing to advance the cause of justice.

  8. Kelvin Avatar

    It is not my view that we can derive our ethics from scripture – for that reason, I’m a little hesitant about the comparison with Jesus standing before Pontius Pilate.

    There are quite a lot of examples, I think, when Jesus did speak directly about hypocrisy.

    There’s also Nathan the prophet confronting David over Bathsheba.

    None of these proves anything – scripture doesn’t prove an ethical decision to be right one way or another. It is worth noting though that scripture seems to me to be far from one-sided on this matter.

  9. Fr Steve Avatar

    Was very mindful Kelvin of these examples when jesus was confrontationist…..but outing is just horrible

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      We are in a horrible situation. Yes.

  10. Fr Steve Avatar

    I don’t actually agree with the statement “scripture doesn’t prove an ethical decision to be right one way or another”
    but do understand the complexity of: ‘that scripture seems to me to be far from one-sided on this matter.’
    At Mass yesterday (my first in my new parish: stmarymags125.blogspot.com.au)
    I was harangued by a parishioner who objected to the fact that I had told the congregation that ABM-A (Australian Church’s Missionary Agency) has launched a campaign for funds for Gaza
    She told me, as rightists do….that all Palestinians are wrong!….didn’t seem to know that most Anglicans in the Holy Lands are Arabs of Palestinian origin.
    She obviously hadn’t heard my first sermon …that catholic means universal and that our God & Jesus loves everyone! That is what ‘universal’ means.
    The Church is just awful…hypocritical yet loved by God…just as She loves those who are different from us.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Sermon at the Salvation Army in Clydebank

    Here’s what I said yesterday at the centenary celebrations for Clydebank Singing Company at Clydebank Citadel of the Salvation Army. May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in thy sight O Lord our strength and our redeemer. Major, I wonder whether you’d mind me starting with a confession.…

  • D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

    The recent Synod on the Family which has taken place in Rome comprising many leaders within the Roman Catholic Church has once again highlighted attitudes of Christians to divorce. It seems to me that there really are very different attitudes to divorce in different parts of the church – both geographically and denominationally. You could…

  • Reaching the Unconnected

    There’s an interesting report in a local newspaper today here in Glasgow which suggests that half of the households in the city do not have access to the internet. The local library service is trying to give people computing skills and access via community hubs in local libraries. I’ve long had a concern about a…

  • Reclaiming the web

    How did it happen? How is it that when I open up my web browser I automatically open up Facebook? And how come there’s so little there any more written by the people I know? How come there is so little there I care about? Once upon a time the first place I would go…