• Can the Epi Scopal Church speak of the love of God?

     

    In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

    Identity matters. It always has of course but these days it seems to matter a huge amount.

    And one of the most difficult things for Scottish Episcopalians is to explain to others who we are.

    The name doesn’t help of course.

    Scottish Episcopal always sounds a bit more like an Edinburgh based insurance company than a part of the church universal. And the simple truth is that a lot of people have never heard of us, or if they’ve heard of us have no real idea who we are.

    Tricky names make things difficult.

    My name is one that lots of people get wrong. One of the great advantages for me in living so close to Glasgow’s greatest, if not widest river is that I live within the only few square miles of the world where I seldom have to spell my name to people.

    This came home to me once when I was gearing myself up to do a national broadcast on the BBC. And I could hear the continuity announcer in the headphones I was wearing introducing me live on air as the Very Rev Kevin Holdsworth. I sighed deeply just before the red light went on ready for me to be bright and perky to the nation. And I heard him finish his sentence with, “… the Very Rev Kevin Holdsworth, from St Mary’s Epi-Scopal Cathedral in Glasgow”.

    The Epi-Scopal sounds more like a procedure that you would have done at Gartnavel than an identity that you would want to be known by.

    The truth is, we’ve not been doing terribly well as a church with getting people to know who we are.

    My view is that this is one of the biggest jobs that the Scottish Episcopal Church has on its hands at the moment. No-one is going to learn anything about the love of God from us if they think we are an insurance company or a ghastly piece of medical equipment that goes up your nose, down your throat or ….

    No, let’s not think about where else an Epi Scopal might go.

    But it is a job that can be done. We can reclaim our space in the public life and consciousness though probably not by being meek and mild.

    This week I found myself being asked to talk to dozens of young LGBT activists who were gathered in Edinburgh for a conference. I was asked to join a human library. The idea being that the young people could come and speak to all the exhibits and hear our stories and ask us question.

    I know of no process more clearly designed to make you feel ancient. But the young people treated us all like national treasures and had good questions.

    And they all wanted to know what church I came from.

    And I tried to explain.

    Are you like the catholics? Yes

    Are you like the Lutherans? Yes

    Are you a bible church? Yes

    Are you a Reformed Church? Yes.

    It was a little puzzling for them.

    Until they started asking questions that were a bit like the questions that were being put to Jesus in the gospel this morning. Then we started getting somewhere.

    Well, what do you think about marriage? Who can be married? What do you think about divorce? What does your church teach?

    And I found that my identity was being seen through the lens of what they thought were decent ethics.

    And I don’t really have a problem with that.

    I think our ethics – the way we behave are our calling cards. People will remember us by the way we behave at least as much as by what we say.

    I find it interesting that religious groups in Jesus’s day found their identities in what their leaders taught about marriage.

    And I find it interesting that Jesus is sitting down with his disciples and giving his take on marriage and talking about how it is changing.

    Marriage was political then as it is now. Jesus is in the part of the world where John the Baptist had his head cut off for challenging Herod’s marital behaviour. His answers to the questions here are not just about what the man or woman on the Jerusalem omnibus is to think about marriage and divorce but had political overtones.

    Jesus is using language which might put him at risk from harm – which may be why some of his teaching about it seems to be done in private with just the disciples.

    As I was preparing this sermon, I saw others on social media having trouble trying to work out what to say about it. Mark 10 is a difficult chapter for many to preach on.

    I think that it is no problem at all if we are prepared to accept and preach boldly and with confidence the truth, which is that the body of Christ today teaches things differently about marriage than the person of Jesus did when gathered in private with his disciples.

    We don’t believe that someone who is divorced is committing adultery when they remarry. That was one of the questions the young activists asked me this week.

    We believe and teach something different to Jesus in his name because we believe in our day that the love of God commands us to have compassion.

    We live in a place and time where we teach that God’s love compels us to recognise that sometimes people need another start, and recognise that sometimes the ending of a marriage may prepare the way for new life better than staying in something that is not working, abusive and painful.

    And we do so in Jesus’s name believing that we are following him in sharing compassion and love in the world, notwithstanding these few verses of Mark chapter 10.

    I believe that the Jesus who said, “Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. “ would do the same if he lived in our day.

    I’ll probably never convince the fundamentalists.

    But then you never can.

    Last week’s gospel included the line that if your eye sins you should pluck it out.

    Cedric nudged me in the ribs and pointed at the preacher and said, “but he’s got two eyes, why should we listen to a word he says”.

    My response to that gospel is always the same- Never trust a two-eyed fundamentalist.

    And maybe that can shine a light on Jesus’s words that we hear today. Maybe the same sense of Hebraic hyperbole is going on. If you get married, stay married he says and does so with a force that seems downright unreasonable now but in his day was part of the daily rhetoric.

    But then he says, “oh, and let all the little ones come unto me”.

    And he loves them and he blesses them

    I know where I hear most the God of Love in today’s the gospel as I read it in our times.

    And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them.

    Our identity in the world will be found when we can do the same.

    In the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit. Amen.

10 responses to “Where does the Church of Scotland stand?”

  1. Robin Avatar
    Robin

    I understand your sentiments, but both on this issue and on the ordination of women in the Church of England the weary words of Mrs Boyle in Sean O’Casey’s ‘Juno and the Paycock’ in reply to her son, who scorns the Irish Free State and wants an Irish Republic or nothing, are inclined to come to mind:

    “To be sure, to be sure — no bread’s a lot better than half a loaf.”

  2. Nick Brindley Avatar

    I think you’re right to think this is a disastrously wrong-headed attempt to avoid having to think the issue through, although we may not agree on what would be involved in such thinking (almost nobody agrees with me!)

    I think we need to revisit some pretty fundamental problems on the nature of the moral authority of the Bible, the meaning of “salvation” and what ministry is to make any real progress with this issue and there appears to be depressingly little appetite to do this in a spirit of mutual trust and of trust in the leading of the Spirit guiding our interpretation of scripture

    http://loveswork.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/failing-to-be-biblical-reflections-on-church-of-scotland-sexuality-debates/

  3. Frank keefe Avatar
    Frank keefe

    This is what happens when you water down Gods truth so the secular world will think what a progressive church you are.When a small secular wedge is pushed under a church door you can bet a larger one will be pushed under it in the not to distant future.I believe a liberal minded church like the Church of Scotland is more dangerous to the Christian faith than atheists like Richard Dawkins and his followers. Jesus found it hard to convince the Pharisees of their misguided beliefs if He walked our earth today He would find those modern day Pharisees in the Church of Scotland even harder to convince.

    1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      Well, there you go – I think the exact opposite – that Jesus, who plucked corn, and healed, on the Sabbath, would be out partying tonight with all sorts of disreputable people. The Pharisees were the people who stuck rigidly to the law, breaking it even as they kept it. Jesus was the one who re-interpreted it.

      1. Frank keefe Avatar
        Frank keefe

        I find it amazing how those who look for sin to be accepted would try and use Jesus to back them up.First Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.The Pharisees abused Gods law with their legalism.Its why He said about the rescue of a sheep on that day.He didnt re-interpret it He was showing them how it SHOULD BE KEPT as God ALWAYS intended it.Its the church who is doing the interpretation and Jesus certainly wouldnt be “out partying” such disrespect of our Lords holiness is often the way with liberal ” Christians” Instead of the church being a light to the world that worlds darkness is putting out that light.

        1. kelvin Avatar

          Bless you for your faith, Frank. May it bring you happiness and joy.

  4. Graeme Cowie Avatar

    It’s a fudge, no doubt. And one which, far from preserving the “traditional” Kirk actually serves to undermine it in a number of ways, particularly concerning the status of “doctrine” and who gets to determine what it is, or at least what practical meaning it is for something to be “doctrine” rather than merely a personal religious sentiment. Explicitly to permit complete deviation from “doctrine” by congregations is not very Presbyterian, and the “traditionalists” either didn’t seem to realise that, or they care about preserving substantial doctrines at the expense of, well, what makes the Kirk the Kirk.

    To an extent, though, you could see it coming. I think the traditionalist wing sensed they would lose if it was a straight choice (unfortunate phrase) between 2A and 2B, and so tried to push for something that retains a symbolic attachment to historical doctrine whilst letting liberals have the lion’s share of the cake they want, which is to be able to ordain those in committed same-sex relationships and to be done with it. I know for a fact that a fair whack of liberal commissioners were swayed by 2D (not including my parents, who are CofS ministers who voted with option 2A), many seeing it as a way of letting the traditionalists have some sort of phyric victory whilst in fact enabling ministers to be in civil partnerships without any lasting problems. It is much more likely that 2D will make it through Barrier Act procedure now that it’s got the traditionalists’ name on it, and notwithstanding the extra year it’s going to take to turn it into a proper overture, I think the consensus of the Kirk is that they really want to stop talking about this.

    The new system ought to be fairly robust once the Legal Questions Committee have had their teeth dug into it. The clear intention was conceded by the movers that they did not intend for Presbyteries to be able to discipline or annul decisions made by Kirk Sessions seeking to be allowed to appoint ministers in civil partnerships, and for a lot of liberals (and actually, a lot of those on the conservative wing too) this will be seen as a critical part of the compromise if it is to be laid to rest. My only real concern is that if the traditionalists are for any reason unhappy with the implementation by LQC it could lead to the whole debate re-opening in GA 2014.

    It’s clearly not enough for many liberal ministers, elders and members of the Church of Scotland, for whom this still presents a partial sense of “separate not equal” for congregation and minister alike, and it probably makes it more difficult for the theological position of the kirk formally to be moved away from same sex relationships being sinful, now that the “practical harms” are in a significant sense out of the way, but by Church of Scotland standards, it’s a major step forward for a very broad church, and one which has probably saved it from a major schism (though a handful of churches may still leave over and above The Tron and Gilc South). For those of us in the Kirk 5 years ago, this would have been virtually unthinkable, and momentum has picked up since the Rennie case 4 years ago. The good fight goes on, and hurdles remain, but if it gets through Barrier Act procedure I think the practical objectives, in a Kirk which already offers substantial liberty of personal opinion in matters of doctrine which do not enter into the substance of faith, have largely been met, albeit in a roundabout way.

    For more of my thoughts on this matter, see:

    http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2013/05/church-of-scotland-religious-progress.html

    and

    http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2013/05/presbyterianism-cracking-at-seems-cost.html

  5. Margaret of the Sea of Galilee Avatar
    Margaret of the Sea of Galilee

    And it still does not properly address how LGBTQ people (single or in civil partnerships) will be dealt with (dealt to?) when they offer themselves to Presbyteries as feeling called to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. Will they be asked about their orientation? Questioned? Interrogated? What responses will allow them to or prevent them from pursuing that call?

    Who is this Albert Bogle anyway – is he about to become the first to be beatified by the Kirk and for what exactly? By-passing (even disregarding) Kirk “Order”, convincing his important friends to let him bulldoze ahead and his less important friends to print off 700 and something copies of a Deliverance which is incoherent and unimplementable.
    Off to read Revelation for other signs of The End Times…
    .

  6. Peter W Nimmo Avatar

    Kelvin, you make lots of good points in your post. But just to clarify- what is the doctrine and practice of the Scottish Episcopal Church on this issue? Does your doctrine approve of persons in civil partnerships being clergy, and is that put into practice?

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Yes – there are quite a number of clergy in civil partnerships. In England, Anglican clergy in civil partnerships are supposed to declare that they are “celibate”. That isn’t the case in Scotland.

      The pension scheme in Scotland recognises Civil Partnerships by giving such partners the same benefits as wives or husbands in marriages. Civil Partners also are treated in the same way with regard to housing as a straight spouse if a relationship breaks down.

      Any candidate for ordination who is in a Civil Partnership is expected to be honest about that at selection.

      The bishops of the church announced a few years ago that they would not consecrate anyone as bishop who was in a Civil Partnership. They were clear at the time that this was a moratorium. However it is not clear to me whether that moratorium still stands. I do expect there to be questions about that at the coming Synod.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • US Liturgy Resources new downloads

    One of the busiest sets of pages on the Scottish Episcopal Church’s website is the set of pages which allow people to download the liturgies of the Scottish Episcopal Church. This has been the case for quite a while and was very much proved when we had a difficult week last year when the site…

  • Sermon preached on 10 November 2013

    What are you fighting for…in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? The gospel reading that we’ve just heard is a very particular one. The question is – if a man dies and his widow marries his brother, and six brothers die and she marries her way down…

  • The Case for Same-Sex Marriage

    The Equality Network has just published a great resource as part of the final push towards the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Scotland. It is called Six Reasons to Support Same-Sex Marriage. It can be found for free online but there are also nice printed versions available from the Equality Network too. Here’s a pic…

  • 10 ways to make church websites better

      1  Include what time the services are and how to get there. If you are making big plans for a festival then make big plans to put it online. Some churches appear to have given up celebrating Christmas if you read their websites. (And remember, people do read websites and most read little else).…