• The Apology Nick Clegg should have made

    I’d like to take a few moments of your time to clear the air. It is obvious to me that significant numbers of people who voted for the Liberal Democrats at the last election have felt let down by how the Liberal Democrats have behaved in government. The reality is that we have let down not only those who voted for us but most particularly those who worked hardest to put Liberal Democrats in parliament. The time has come for me to put on record my thoughts about this and then make some suggestions as to the way forward.

    Firstly, there is no doubt that people have been disappointed that we formed a coalition with the Conservative Party. I make no apology for doing so. The country needed a stable government, we believe that coalition government can be a good thing and I’ve fought every election because I want a share in power in order to implement liberal policies and make the country a better place for all. However, the manner in which we entered into this coalition was not good for the country. People needed to be able to see that we were fighting within the coalition for the values we hold dear. Instead of that, people saw us as those who were enabling the Tory party to have its way, cutting much needed taxation, promoting policies to benefit the few rather than the many  such as the removal of essential benefits and further emphasising the North-South divide in the UK. We should have been much more cautious. We should have opposed such plans both publicly as well as privately.

    Secondly, it is obvious to everyone that we made a big mistake on tuition fees. We should not have gone back on our pledge to vote against tuitions fees. It was not merely foolish politically to be photographed making those pledges, it was fundamentally wrong to break them. I now take full responsibility for advising others in the party to do so and I will take the consequences of those decisions. I make no apology for wanting the best eduction system in the world and wanting the fullest access to be available to it regardless of the income of students. My generation benefitted from easy access to Higher Education and I believe it is necessary not merely for the well-being of students but also for the well-being of the country. We need to educate in order to grow.

    I apologise for ever suggesting that the country could not afford this. There was always money available in the form of increased taxation. We were uniquely placed for making the case to the country that investment in our educational establishments and in our young people was an investment that Britain could not afford to avoid making.

    Thirdly, I have heard that voices who say that we were not ready for government. Unfortunately, they were right. However, engaging in politics at the highest level teaches you hard lessons and the fact is that we are now a party of government and Britain needs a strong liberal force in parliament. Whether as a loyal opposition or whether we are in government, we need to bring creative liberal answers to the problems which beset us. However, it is clear that we will be unable to do this whilst the country does not trust us.

    I take full responsibility for these mistakes. The people of the UK need our values. Many trust our values and many more will come to believe in what we stand for. However, this can only happen if trust can be rebuilt in the public sphere.

    For these reasons, the time has come for change. I am sorry for the mistakes that I made. I know that a liberal Britain can only come about if I now step aside and allow other more trusted colleagues to put the case to the people. For this reason, I shall resign the party leadership and concentrate my efforts on retaining my Sheffield seat. I want a party I can feel proud of. I want a country I can feel proud of. And I commit myself to building a better future where the all the people of the UK are free to prosper.

    Thank you.

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

  • Back Home

    It does feel good to get back home from Yorkshire. Well specifically, it does feel good to get back home from Wakefield.And tomorrow, to Leipzig. Well, metaphorically speaking. The choir are going to be taking the congregation there at 10 am with a fantastic hymn arrangement by Bach of All Glory Laud and Honour which…

  • Moderatorial Dress

    No lace, alas, but we did get a purply blue shirt, a large official ring and a pectoral cross. Indeed, all the C of S ministers in the party were wearing very prominent clanking pectoral crosses. Bishop all, of course.

  • Lunch

    Today's excitement, if that is the word, is lunch at the University of Stirling with the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Iain Torrance is almost at the end of his moderatorial year. He has been pleasingly unpredicatable too. At the time he was nominated it was widely seen as a…

  • Brownies

    Yesterday, I was the assessor for a Brownie Guide Faith Discovery Badge. Yet another thing I was not taught to do in theological college. However, the Brownie was very impressive, passed the badge easily and o­ne of the pictures that she drew is now o­n the church website – www.saint-saviour.org