• The Equality Network Gets it Wrong

    There’s so much that the Equality Network gets right but to be honest, I’m of the view that they got it wrong this weekend. An article appeared in the Scotsman giving a few glimpses of what the Equality Network is planning during the Commonwealth Games. Apparently there is to be a Pride House which will highlight work done for LGBT rights in different commonwealth countries. Well, so far so good, what’s not to like?

    Indeed, the idea of highlighting the work of LGBT rights organisations across the Commonwealth is a very good one indeed and I wish it every success.

    What concerned me greatly was this comment from a staff member at the Equality Network:

    What we won’t be doing is outwardly criticising Commonwealth countries because the last thing I think that is useful for LGBT people in those countries is for the former colonial power to be saying this is how we do it and we do it right and you are wrong when in fact the majority of the homophobic laws in these countries were put in place by the former colonial power.

    Now, that just doesn’t seem right to me.

    The Equality Network has been quite up front about criticising Russia in the last few months. Why on earth would we tone it down when we are talking about Commonwealth Countries with which we have much stronger ties and much greater influence? Yes, it is indeed true that we must be sensitive to where homophobic laws in Commonwealth countries came from. That hardly means that we have no right to speak out about government actions today.

    To put it bluntly, if the President of Uganda signs the bill which is before him which will bring in life sentences for gay people in that country and prison sentences for anyone who knows about someone being gay and who does not report it then I expect to have something to say about it. Not only that, I expect the Equality Network to have something to say about it and to do so loudly during the Commonwealth Games if necessary. If the President of Uganda signs that bill I expect Alex Salmond to refuse to shake the hand that signed it and those of any other government ministers from that country who turn up in Glasgow.

    I saw on twitter last night that it wasn’t just me who thought the emphasis in this article was misguided. There were other voices too and some of us have been the Equality Network’s greatest supporters in recent months. Rather surprisingly, we were not listened to but argued with.

    I think the Equality Network has got it wrong on this. There is very likely to need  to be very direct protests about governments whose officials will be showing up in Scotland with the rest of the Commonwealth this summer.

    It simply isn’t good enough to say that we must represent the views of LGBT networks in those countries. They, like the Equality Network, are in hugely privileged positions. We can’t possibly know what gay folk on the ground think in many countries simply because they are left almost entirely voiceless by forces of oppression and homophobia.

    If they can’t protest the actions of their governments others can. Indeed, that’s how decent people who care about the world behave.

    The Equality Network need to continue their brilliant plan for a Pride House at the Commonwealth Games and make sure they are robustly prepared to use it as a platform to speak out clearly and stridently against cruelty, oppression and hatred whether it comes from individuals or from government ministers. If it comes from the latter, the Equality Network is well placed to whisper in the ears of Scottish Ministers and make sure that they behave equally appropriately and robustly.

    As a gay member of Scottish society who has done my bit for the Equality Network, I expect no less. The gay kid in Kampala who is unrepresented by anyone because he is terrified and can speak to no-one should expect no less either.

    Of course we must directly criticise homophobic Commonwealth governments. How could we do anything else?

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

  • You almost have to smile

    You almost have to smile at the bishops of the Episcopal Church in the states. It would appear that they have managed to get Rowan Williams the headlines that he wanted without changing their policy on anything at all. The BBC is reporting things particularly inaccurately. They say today: Leaders of the Episcopal Church in…

  • The Beloved

    Every Eucharist is a thanksgiving. It is what the word means. I remember reading a very moving passage from a liturgical theologian (must have been Gregory Dix, I think) about the different events that had been marked by the sharing of bread and wine in thanksgiving. It is celebrated week by week in high places…

  • The Praxis of Polity

    Up to Aberdeen today for the consecration of Bishop Robert of the Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney. As he is almost universally known as Bob, “Bishop Robert” does not roll off the tongue terribly easily. I was met outside the Cathedral by the Dean of the Diocese who gave me strict instructions that once the…

  • On the bridge of my nose

      I suppose you could say that it has been a busy week on the bridge of my nose. From the top, you can see:   The glasses that I started with. (Used to be chic) The new retro-tech look for daywear and work. (Chic) The new party glasses. (My goodness how chic is that…