• The Archbishop, the gays and their sins

    Welby fbsize

    One of the things that we’ve learned about Archbishop Justin Welby in recent weeks is that he gets upset about what people write about him on social media.

    He wrote at some length about how what gets written online is upsetting and he’d just prefer to have personal contact with him rather than sounding off online.

    Love often says don’t tweet. Love often says don’t write. Love often says if you must rebuke, then do so in person and with touch – with an arm around the shoulder and tears in your eyes that can be seen by the person being rebuked.

    It is difficult not to have some sympathy for him and I say that as someone who has been really particularly critical of him in the past. It can’t have been much fun seeing my You Condemn It, Archbishop post being relentlessly copied, commented on and retweeted across the Anglican globe.

    And yet the trouble is, there’s no turning the social media clock back. Wanting a world where people don’t comment online about things they care about very deeply is wanting a fantasy world that has no chance of coming back into being.

    Is it possible for leaders and people in public life to do well when the whole internet seems bedeviled with naughty people who will retweet and repost every last mistake that people make?

    I think it is possible, but trying to stand above the fray and condemning people for writing about things you’ve said is hardly going to work nowadays.

    The Archbishop’s complaint about social media came just after someone published a blog post which appeared to suggest that one of the Archbishop’s closest advisors had given a briefing to a group of Anglicans which suggested that Lambeth was now not trying to avoid schism in the Anglican communion but trying to manage it – the expectation being that some parts of the Church of England (the most liberal and the most conservative) would be lost but that a coherent “middle” would survive. It was a deeply shocking position to claim to be true. So shocking that I didn’t believe it at first but have since heard others who were at the briefing confirm that this stuff was indeed said and repeat also that expectation is that there would be bargaining over which buildings to give away, within 10 years.

    That blog post disappeared fairly quickly but internet genies don’t jump back into bottles and the story was out there and really rather embarrassing to all concerned.

    No wonder the Archbishop posted something indicating his discomfort about social media.

    But the real question is whether the social media phenomenon is the problem or whether the archbishop’s problems lie with with the things that social media point towards.

    It must be terribly frustrating to have people pick up on your every utterance and make a big deal out of it.

    The trouble is, in public life, the words you say have a lot of power. Social media posts rebalance that power a little and we should be welcoming the fact that we are a community that cares enough to talk about things rather than trying to remake the Anglican world into one in which bishops speak and everyone else listens uncritically.

    I’ve no doubt that the Archbishop will be embarrassed by posts such as this one which highlight something he said this week. Asked about the usual topic – those pesky gays, a topic that he will be asked about in every interview he ever gives, he is reported to have said:

    I’m listening very, very closely to try to discern what the spirit of God is trying to tell us.

    I see my own selfishness and weakness and think who am I judge them for their sins, if they have sins.

    You can almost hear him dithering over the comma in that last sentence and wondering how this might sound on social media and adding a bit of theological nonsense.

    Of course gay people have sins. However if the first response you make when people ask you about gay people is to talk about sin, then you are going to sound pretty homophobic. And it doesn’t matter whether you like it or you don’t like it, people are going to call attention to it online.

    But is that to be too critical? What strategies could the Archbishop adopt that would help when he is asked about the Usual Topic?

    The most basic thing is to recognise that everything is a conversation these days.

    In fact the Archbishop did quite well in answering a question from a young Muslim who wanted to know whether he would try to convert him to Christianity.

    I am not going to put pressure on you, and I wouldn’t expect you to put pressure on me.

    He could have done far worse with that question than he did.

    Unfortunately, he answered the question on the Usual Topic by immediately talking about sin and then parroting the “sex outside marriage in the C of E is against the rules” line.

    It is a conversation, Archbishop.

    That means we want to talk about it, not be told what the rules are before the conversation gets going.
    It means we want to talk about it, not be told to lay off social media because it gives you the hump.
    It means you can have your say so too and people will listen respectfully and carefully to what you say, but only so long as you engage with people.

    It is a conversation, Archbishop. Everything is a conversation.

    When the first thing you say about gay people is about sin then you can’t expect the conversation to go well.

    It wasn’t helped that the second thing you said was along the lines of “some of my best friends are gay you know?”

    “Marriage is between one man and one woman for life and sexual activity should be confined to marriage, that’s in the Church of England’s laws” he said. “I’m equally aware I have a lot of gay friends and I know gay clergy and they are doing incredible work.”

    You say that stuff and you are going to get people observing that there’s a lot more archbishops who claim that gay people are their friends than gay people who claim archbishops are their friends.

    This could be going better. It could be going much better.

    And it is going to happen again. That question is going to be asked again and again and again.

    There are people out there who can help you find better answers.

    Guess where they are, Archbishop?

    Yes – all over social media.

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

  • Sermon – 26 September 2010

    Here’s what I said yesterday in the pulpit… There’s no getting away from it. Sooner or later we do have to think about hell. That’s the message from this morning’s gospel reading and I don’t think that there is any choice but to deal with it head on and allow ourselves the chance to ask…

  • Knowing Me, Knowing You (again!)

    Hey, remember the Knowing Me, Knowing You sessions that I ran a while ago? Well I’m doing another one this week. If you don’t remember what this is about, check out this description from an earlier one. These sessions are limited to 20 people in order that we can keep the conversation flowing. If you…

  • Consecration of new bishop in Kentucky

    The Diocese of Kentucky consecrates a new bishop today. The Diocese of Kentucky is one of Glasgow and Galloway’s Companion Dioceses. At about 4 pm UK time, the service will begin in Kentucky…. and, provided they can resolve their internet issues in Kentucky, on this blog: Now, ain’t that neat?

  • Home is the wanderer

    Ah, Glasgow. Here I am again. Today I arrived back in town after two weeks holiday. I’ve been to France, since you ask and I’ve had a lovely time. I was in the sud and so my body was warmed greatly by the sun. I tend not to tan a great deal, because I slap…