What is in Kelvin's Head?

St Andrews Debates

21/02/2013

Great night last night in Lower Parliament Hall in St Andrews. I’d been invited to join a panel debate (a bit like Question Time) on LGBT issues at the invitation of the Debating Society and the LGBT Society of St Andrews University.

I like going back to St Andrews, which was where I read theology from 1989 – 1992. I don’t get there terribly often.

There are people who go to university there who never leave. They hang around and can’t get it out of their system. I was never like that but it is still lovely to return. There is still an emotional thrill to be had peeking into St Mary’s Quad and thinking, “I was here, I was here”

So many things about St Andrews never change. However some things do. It was obvious last night that things have changed for gay students. In my time, the LGBT group met behind closed doors in a small room in the Chaplaincy on a Sunday evening. I never went. I would have been frightened to go but do remember walking past the steamed up windows and wondering what was going on inside. (They were probably boiling kettles to make tea, but the steamed up windows did make you wonder).

Now, the LGBT Society is a sub committee of the Union, like the Debating Society. That means that by definition, every student in the University is a member and they are responsible for providing a range of services. They say there are a couple of hundred active members and last night, LGBT and Debates were holding their first joint event. It is almost inconceivable to me that the Debating Soc, which was so macho, testosterone fueled and deeply conservative in my day should be doing this now.

It is quite moving to go back to your alma mater. Last night wasn’t just nostalgia for me though. I could see the real, material changes that have come to students like me. Things have changed, gloriously changed in the last 20 years. I’m proud to have been part of that and proud to have joined a great bunch of students last night for debate and socialising afterwards. (Though I gave up and headed to bed before they did).

5 responses to “Heresy hunting”

Nick Brindley

14/05/2014

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
Andrew

14/05/2014

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
Rosemary Hannah

15/05/2014

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
Jimmy

15/05/2014

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
Allan Ronald

19/05/2014

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