• Memo to Holyrood re School Chaplains

    Dear Members of the Scottish Parliament

    Yesterday, one of Scotland’s schools sacked its school chaplain. It is a school very close to me and the reason that the Rev Donald MacInnes was sacked from the chaplaincy of Glasgow’s Gaelic School is close to me too. Mr MacInnes was sacked because parents in the school had it reported to them that he used inflamatory and homophobic language in a semi-public place. He is reported to have said on facebook that being gay was a perversion and that such a life was disordered.

    First of all, I’m sure you will all be queuing up behind me to give three cheers to the head of the Gaelic School for taking this decision. (You will, won’t you?)

    You see, this incident has given you a brilliant opportunity to demonstrate the difference between being opposed to gay people being able to get married and being homophobic. And with the last stages of the same-sex marriage bill just a few weeks away, there has been increasing unease amongst gay people that ministers of the Scottish Government might bow to far-right religious views and put new guidelines and restrictions in place particularly around education which would turn the clock back in schools.

    The sad case of Mr MacInnes allows us all to illustrate the point rather well.

    It is clear isn’t it?

    You can be against same-sex marriage and still retain your job as a school chaplain.

    You can say you are against same-sex marriage and still retain your job as a school chaplain.

    However, you can’t refer to gay people as disordered or as perverts and expect to retain your job as a school chaplain.

    Indeed, you can’t say things like that and expect to be treated as a decent member of society. Not any more. And that is partly thanks to the progress that has been made in society and not least in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament. So, this sacking is partly down to you and hurrah for that! You all need to hold your heads up high and feel rightly very proud.

    You see, some of those kids are gay. And all of them know gay people. They need, and every schoolchild needs to grow up in an environment which treats them well. Every child needs role models and every child needs good pastoral care. It isn’t just the gay kids whom Mr MacInnes was a poor role model for – it was all the kids.

    So, tell all the local councillors that you know that it is time they started checking on who is going in as school chaplains. (Well, that’s if you want schools to have chaplains at all – I’m never entirely convinced that it is a good idea myself but some people seem to think it is worthwhile). If I were you, I’d give the hint to local govenment that they need to make sure that anyone who goes into a school needs to have signed up to a robust equality and diversity policy. No sign up – no access. And then tell them that unless they sort this out locally, publicly and proudly then you’ll get on and legislate to make it happen.

    You’ll have lots of support. No-one wants children to be growing up in an environment where prejudice is protected. We want kids to be safe in schools. We want gay kids to be safe from bullying in schools. Oh, and we want gay teachers also to feel that they can be just as open about their own relationships in school as straight teachers can. This is how homophobic bullying, one of the scandals of modern education, will be tackled.

    And you’ll keep that in mind when thinking about education regulations over the next few weeks, won’t you?

    All good wishes for the next stages of the debate
    K

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

  • PM at PQ

    To Pacific Quay yesterday for the opening of the new BBC building. I was not actually opening it, you understand, merely there to witness the Prime Minister do so. It had not been generally known that the PM was going to be there, but I was alerted to the fact that something was going on…

  • Computer afternoon

    In mild frustration at my new prescription swimming goggles arriving on an afternoon when the pond is designated as women only, I turned to matters of information technology. Now for some time, the computer has been held together with bits of string inside, to which blu-tac was added recently. Indeed, it had getting so hot…

  • Please don't take him just because you can

    Got back in late last night after the first meeting of the St Mary’s LGBT group. Well, it was the first meeting for a while to be truthful. Similar meetings have been going on in St M’s for years. I was learning last night that there used to be a gay clergy group which met…

  • What do clergy do?

    Here are some of the things that I am or have been doing this week: Two weddings Attending the formal opening of the new BBC building Being around St Mary’s for Doors Open Day LGBT Discussion Group (starts tonight at 8 pm in the Synod Hall) Trip to Aberdeen for Bob Gillies’s consecration as new…