What is in Kelvin's Head?

I respectfully disagree…

02/07/2022

I respectfully disagree with the latest College of Bishops statement on Aberdeen and Orkney and I do so in two respects.

Firstly, there is no mention of a mediation process in Canon 53. If the College of Bishops wishes to use Canon 53 section 11 and subsequent sections, then they should follow the procedure laid down there and name the bishop who is hearing the dispute. The bishop in question should publish the terms under which they are going to determine the dispute and the date on which the hearing will take place. Canon 53 does not allow for the resolution of such disputes to be outsourced to other individuals or organisations. (Sections before section 11 do not apply to disputes within a diocese). The procedure outlined in Canon 53 Section 11 and the following sections is clearly a decision making process and not a process of mediation. (In any case, my personal view is that mediation processes are seldom appropriate in cases where bullying is alleged and where there are discrepancies of power between the parties involved).

Secondly, anyone making a claim of bullying against a serving bishop or any serving bishop wishing to make a claim that they have themselves been bullied by anyone subject to the Code of Canons, should be explicitly invited by the College to make a complaint under Canon 54.

Canon 54 can only be initiated by someone who is a member of the church. My view is that the College should make public appropriate arrangements for the bringing of a complaint by anyone who has subsequently left the church – specifically that the complaint would be passed to a (communicant) diocesan registrar or the clerk to the Episcopal Synod to be initiated formally.

Making vague references to the “Disciplinary Canonical process” of the church in a press release is unhelpful. Canon 54 is what the process is and the College of Bishops should long ago have insisted that people use it to bring allegations.

This is not the first statement by the College of Bishops with regard to these matters that has given me cause for concern. In a statement last December the College asserted that neither the Primus nor the College of Bishops had the power to suspend a bishop. The Code of Canons is very clear that bishops can be suspended and that only the Primus can do so and that this can only be upheld or not by the Episcopal Synod (which is the same body of people as the College of Bishops). The due processes governing how these things can come about are found in Canon 54 (Of Offences and Trials) and Canon 6 (Of Diocesan Bishops and their Jurisdiction and of Bishops’ Commissaries).

For the last few years I’ve been a member of a review group which has been carefully considering whether the disciplinary canonical processes of the church need to be updated. In time, I hope that they are. However, the canons that we currently have remain in force. Bishops require clergy to take oaths to uphold the Canons. Bishops themselves take oaths that they in turn will uphold the canons of the church.

I regard members of the College of Bishops as colleagues and friends and remain willing to discuss these matters with any of them or indeed with any member of the church. A number of the members of the College of Bishops have heard me say privately what I now assert here, that for the good of the whole church, the College of Bishops needs to return to the Canonical norms of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

I will not be discussing this matter with any journalists. The opinions expressed in this post are explicitly with regard to the College of Bishops and do not constitute a comment on anything that may or may not have happened in the Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney, about which I have little knowledge.

The Code of Canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church can be found here: https://www.scotland.anglican.org/wp-content/uploads/Code-of-Canons-2020.pdf

62 responses to “You condemn it, Archbishop”

Rosemary Hannah

06/04/2014

I think the point could be made like this. We know that the Taliban dislike women and girls getting education. One of the reasons they say it scares them is the way some women behave in the West. They blame behaviours they do not like, promiscuity, public drunkenness, on women being educated.

I don’t agree. I do not think an education encourages one to be legless on a Friday night. But the fact is, that is how the Taliban see it, and they harm young women going to school. In fact, among others, they shot Malala Yousafzai.

Do you think that young women in our country should refrain from getting an education, so that the Taliban can see there is no link between Western excesses, and women being educated?

And if you do not think this, somebody tell me what the difference is?

Reply
Jimmy

07/04/2014

I’ve just listened to the radio phone in.
And I think what he said was an honest opinion that what the church in England does can have an effect on Christians around the world.
It is one of the reasons in his -no- box, but it is not a tenable reason.

Reply
Fr Steve

07/04/2014

Well said Kelvin.
As for Peter Ould’s latter comment
“When you write stuff like this, all you’re arguing is that you don’t want to listen to other people’s experiences and stories.”
(please note that I am using quotation marks…and making this observation in parentheses!)
Then I think we have all seen who does and does not listen to ‘other people’s experiences and stories’. And it is not the Very Rev’d Dean of Glasgow!

Reply
Richard

07/04/2014

Well said, Fr Steve. Following on the theme of not listening to others, JCF is absolutely right, of course.
It’s the absence of reason which leads to the not truly listening part of a discussion, however long the debate lasts. I sent a message over on Twitter yesterday to Mr O. asking him what he thought God thinks of bishops who wear mitres in church, covering the same point made by JCF. Still no reply.

Reply
Kelvin Holdsworth

07/04/2014

Many thanks to all those commenting above.

No further comments about the nature of homosexuality and no further comments about the nature of Peter Ould, please. There are other, better places online for that.

And please, no further comments where one single bible verse is thrown about without context as though it proves a point. That applies to those lobbing them in any direction.

The topic is, what the Archbishop said on LBC and what the implications of that conversation are.

Reply
Erika Baker

07/04/2014

If we’re talking about potential links I would also like to point out another possibility.
Lgbt people in Africa have told us that their churches have used the Archbishop’s stance in support for their own. “Look, even the Archbishop in a much more liberal church is not treating gay people as equals. He knows they’re morally inferior”.

Changing Attitude in Nigeria have begged the CoE for years to speak out clearly against homophobia and violence. They have been met with a deafening silence.

If my Nigerian friends are to be believed the terrible laws might not have been implemented if the CoE had been much firmer in condemning anti gay violence and legislation years and years ago, if it hadn’t tried to appease Archbishop Akinola by refusing to invite Gene Robinson to Lambeth etc. Instead, they have given him an air of respectability which he should never have had and which he used very cleverly at home to lay the foundations for the current situation.
Now it’s too late to do anything about it.

There is a very genuine possibility that appeasing violent behaviour will only ever result in more violence.

Reply
Richard

07/04/2014

Absolutely, Erica. That’s what I was referring to earlier, about history having a tendency to repeats its errors. It will, however, be difficult to assess the extent of the negative impact of Justin Welby’s comments both here and abroad.

On the issue of ABC’s comments, in case you haven’t seen this, here is a link to a California bishop in which he draws out some of the negativity and errors of ABC’s comments as he sees parallels between colonialism in USA and UK.

http://t.co/FXUPB0CuX8

Reply
Bernhard

07/04/2014

You are very generous with other people’s lives.

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  07/04/2014
  
  I stand against murder and violence. I stand against murder and violence meted our in places of conflict in Africa, in places where kids get killed for being gay, in places where people are killed for their faith. I encourage my congregation to pray for peace and work to eliminate violence.
  
  I also know what it is like to enter a church next to someone against whom recent credible death threats have been made.
  
  I value life very highly.
  
  Reply