• Dear Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church

    Last weekend I signed the following letter which was sent to the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church. It was organised by a group of clergy in the diocese of Edinburgh. The fifty or so signatories were those who happened to learn of this over a couple of days last weekend. There will no doubt be others who would have wanted to sign it who simply didn’t hear about it.

    I expect that others may also post this on their own blogs. I’m not going to comment on it as I think it speaks for itself, other than to thank those who organised it for doing so. They and those who signed it restore my hope at this time.

    Dear Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church,

    We read with dismay the Guidance for Clergy and Lay Readers in the light of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014.

    We appreciate that we are bound by the law, and that until our canons are changed, we cannot legally perform same-sex marriages. However, we are disappointed by both the timing and the tone of the document. We have been urged by you to enter into ‘cascade conversations’ in a spirit of open and sensitive listening with people of all views on this matter. This document only makes this process much harder for us, even impossible for some. Far from acknowledging the reality of differing experience and views in the church, it gives the impression of a definitive answer to the question we have yet to discuss or debate. The document ought to make it clear that the restrictions it describes may be temporary, if the church decides to change its canons. Because of the confusion created by this document, we now believe that such canonical change should be decided in Synod as soon as possible.

    But we were especially dismayed by the section of the document which refers to clergy, lay readers, and ordinands, should they be in a same-sex relationship and wish to be married. In particular, we find the warnings to ordinands, both currently training and those who might be training in the future, to be unrepresentative of the generous and communal characteristics of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Even though our church has not yet agreed to solemnise same-sex marriages, they will nevertheless become a civil institution which we will recognise like everyone else under the law. It is our firm belief therefore that any prohibition on obtaining a civil marriage is outwith the moral and canonical authority of a bishop.

    We acknowledge that this process is one which creates anxiety for all church leaders, and bishops in particular. We empathise with the difficult situation that you as bishops are in, and reaffirm our desire to support you in your leadership of our church, and as fellow members of it.

    Nevertheless, some of us are now uncomfortable about solemnising marriages at all until such time as all can be treated equally, and all of us will continue to feel morally compromised in our ministries, and wish to make clear our continuing commitment to affirm and support all people in our church, and to recognise and rejoice in all marriages, of whatever sexual orientation, as true signs of the love of God in Christ.

    Yours sincerely,
    Revd Carrie Applegath,
    Revd Philip Blackledge,
    Revd Maurice Houston,
    Revd Canon John McLuckie,
    Revd Canon Ian Paton,
    Revd Kate Reynolds,
    Revd Martin Robson,
    Revd Malcolm Aldcroft,
    Dr Darlene Bird (lay reader),
    Revd Jim Benton-Evans,
    Revd Cedric L. Blakey,
    Revd Andrew Bowyer,
    Revd Canon Bill Brockie,
    Revd Tony Bryer,
    Revd Steve Butler,
    Revd Christine Barclay,
    Revd Lynsay M Downes,
    Revd Markus Dünzkofer,
    Revd Canon Anne Dyer,
    Revd Janet Dyer,
    Revd Jennifer Edie,
    Revd John L Evans,
    Revd Samantha Ferguson,
    The Revd Canon Zachary Fleetwood,
    Kennedy Fraser,
    Revd Kirstin Freeman,
    Revd Frances Forshaw,
    Revd Ruth Green,
    Revd Bob Gould,
    Very Revd Kelvin Holdsworth,
    Revd Ruth Innes,
    Revd Ken Webb,
    Rev’d Canon Mel Langille,
    Revd Kenny Macaulay,
    Revd Simon Mackenzie,
    Revd Duncan MacLaren,
    Very Revd Nikki McNelly,
    Very Revd Jim Mein,
    Revd Nicola Moll,
    Revd Bryan Owen,
    Revd Canon Clifford Piper,
    Revd Donald Reid,
    Revd Colin Reed,
    Revd Canon John Richardson,
    Revd Malcolm Richardson,
    The Revd Gareth J M Saunders,
    Very Revd Alison J Simpson,
    Very Revd Andrew Swift,
    Kate Sainsbury (lay reader),
    Patsy Thomson (lay reader),
    Prof Revd Annalu Waller

    Revd John Penman,
    Revd Tim Morris,
    Revd Anna Garvey,
    Revd Bill Eilliot.

5 responses to “Heresy hunting”

  1. Nick Brindley Avatar

    It is probably helpful to be clear about the distinction between “dogma” (which is best understood as the definition of orthodoxy and of heresy, of the things it is mandatory to affirm and the things it is forbidden to affirm) and “church order” (the rules about how people are to conduct themselves). These are related but by no means the same thing.

    “Doctrine” is a third thing again, to my mind. It is the body of teaching that the church affirms but is much more extensive and changeable than dogma.

    Of particular relevance is who has the authority to pronounce on these things. Denominational authorities quite properly establish church law and discipline (this needs to be done and there’s nobody else to do it) but would go beyond their proper sphere (in my view) if they tried to establish new definitions in the field of dogma.

  2. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    I feel the need to separate praxis and doctrine, but I suppose that is probably a minor heresy in itself, in a church that hides its doctrine in its liturgy. Although I suppose the deftness of the ‘McCarthy Liturgy’ has maybe sidestepped that pitfall as deftly as an 18th century non-juring bishop side-stepping western orthodoxy and the rest…

  3. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    To a degree I think it is a matter of tradition. Anglican churches have tended (and it is only a tendency) to insist of orthopraxis. Church of Scotland churches have tended (same health warning) to emphasise orthodoxy of belief, call it doctrine or dogma. St Andrews is not of course a C or S institution, but it used to be, certainly in my day, and to a degree in yours, heavily steeped in C of S ethos. St Mary’s trained C of S ministers and that was ALL the training they got, because then they knew Orthodoxy.

  4. Jimmy Avatar

    The links on this post have led me to think of this –

    The Inner Party – The Outer Party – The Proles.

    The model demands tight control of the middle class, with ambitious Outer Party members neutralised via promotion to the Inner Party or “reintegration” by Miniluv, while proles can be allowed intellectual (and sexual) freedom because they lack intellect. Winston nonetheless believed that “the future belonged to the proles”. Wikipedia.

  5. Allan Ronald Avatar
    Allan Ronald

    There was most definitely a C of S ethos at St Andrews in my day [67-71]. Robin Buchanan-Smith was running a packed college chapel and one president of the SRC and one president of the Union were St Mary’s men who went on to ordination and, in one case, to be Moderator of the Kirk. Perhaps they got their orthodoxy from Matthew Black at St Mary’s and their skill in future clerical politics from their student posts…….

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • I speak:

    Saying that I will be voting no.

  • Michael Partridge:

    Wants Faith and Order board to keep the other options open. Should go into this prepapred to consider all kinds of answers

  • Colin Sibley:

    Feels an increasing sene of unease. Supports the motion as it would othewise mean closing the door. Wants us to be clear that this does not mean that we will sign up in the end. Asks if this creates a second class of communion membership which would lead to a split in communion. Also a…

  • Bob Harley:

    Supports the motion. Wants us to give the Anglican Covenant a try.