What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Parliamentary Victory and Interview on Scotland Tonight

    I was glued to my computer last night watching the debate from the Scottish Parliament on introducing the legislation that will one day soon, allow same-sex couples to get married.

    It is difficult to describe what it was like watching it. In touch with others on twitter, I was aware of a certain amount of nervousness from some of those who have been campaigning on this. It isn’t surprising – a lot of work has gone into this. However, it was not just parliamentary process that was affecting me last night. It was the sight of one politician after another standing up and speaking positively about gay couples they know, changes in society that have made life easier for gay people or in some cases talking about themselves as gay parliamentarians. It is difficult for me to convey what this feels like to straight people. When I was growing up you simply saw no-one say anything positive about something that is pretty fundamental to who you are. Indeed, you either got negative messages or a corrupting silence which you somehow knew you were supposed to keep.

    Times have changed and that is why evenings like last night mean so much and in the end it was a decisive victory in the Parliament – 98 votes to 15 with five abstentions.

    Later on in the evening I was asked to go on Scotland Tonight on STV. It was a very enjoyable interview.

    Here’s some of the things I said:

    • Watching my twitter and facebook feeds light up when the vote came through was like watching the lights on a Christmas tree all light up.
    • This was a sophisticated and respectful debate and was the Parliament working well.
    • I don’t agree with issues like this being dealt with as a free vote but it was not a night for reservations but for celebrations.
    • The debate brought out the fact that support for same-sex couples being treated like everyone else extends into the churches. Increasingly people want equality for same-sex couples.
    • This is one of the fastest social changes that there has ever been. It is happening and it is happening now.
    • We don’t want any more “safeguards” in the bill – they are largely unnecessary anyway.
    • The Parliament has ensured that the country can go forward together. No-one is forced to do anything.
    • There’s still more to do around education, language (see the new Stonewall “Gay – let’s get the meaning straight” campaign) and support.
    • This is an amazing stepping stone towards equality.

    , , ,

5 responses to “Heresy hunting”

  1. Nick Brindley Avatar
    Nick Brindley

    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.

    Reply
  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…

    Reply
  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.

    Reply
  4. Jimmy Avatar
    Jimmy

    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.

    Reply
  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…….

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • M 40, GSOH obviously…

    I was leisurely reading through the lonely hearts column in the London Review of Books this morning – it is so often the best bit. As I did so, I reflected on the fact that the best idea for inspires (the magazine of the Scottish Episcopal Church) that I’ve come up with which has never…

  • Blogs you would like to read

    How about this for a meme? (That means you pick it up and answer the question on your own blog). Which three blogs which don’t already exist would you like to read? My answers: Oscar Wilde Bishop Brian My father Actually, the Oscar Wilde answer is the most problematic, and not simply because he is…

  • O Canada!

    The Canadian Anglicans came within a hair’s breadth of allowing dioceses to allow same-sex blessing yesterday. The measure was passed decisively by laity and clergy and then defeated by a couple of votes in their House of Bishops. Rather an uncomfortable situation for one or two bishops, I would guess. It rather highlights something which…