What is in Kelvin's Head?

Calling out Homophobia in the Church of England

15/08/2014

It is very, very rare that I accuse someone of homophobia. Those who know me in Scotland, who happen to hold different views to me will know that it simply isn’t an accusation that I throw around.

However, I did make that accusation last night, against the Director of Communications of the Church of England.

Here’s the conversation. You need to know that Patrick Strud is the journalist to whom Christian rock musician Vicky Beeching told her coming out story which was printed in the Independent. Rev Arun Arora is the Director of Communications for the Church of England. Andrew Forshew-Cain is a priest in the Church of England.

In responding to a tweet about Vicky Beeching and the future of the Church of England, Arun Arora said that she was welcome in the church because all are broken. This is an entirely inadequate response to someone who has just come out. It is fine to say that all are broken – it isn’t fine to link that brokenness to the identity of groups of people who know prejudice at first hand. It wouldn’t be acceptable to say that black people are welcome in church because everyone is broken and so they are welcome – that would be racist. It is the same with those of us who are gay.

I think that Andrew Forshew-Cain and I might well be regarded as people well qualified to know what church sponsored homophobia looks like.

I’ve woken up today to many posts on facebook and on twitter from people agreeing that this tweet was unacceptable.

I’m absolutely prepared to agree that Arun Arora did not mean to be offensive in his post. However, he needs to learn from the people on facebook and twitter who have found it offensive.

Today belongs to @vickybeeching. Tomorrow the Church of England can decide: include gay people, celebrate diversity, or fall into obscurity.

— Patrick Strudwick (@PatrickStrud) August 14, 2014

@PatrickStrud that's a false dichotomy. Vicki is as much part of us as any who knows brokenness, is flawed, has hopes and follows Christ.

— Arun Arora (@RevArun) August 14, 2014

(more…)

arun arora, Church of England, homophobia, LGBT, Vicky Beeching

10 responses to “So, let me get this right…”

Andrew Page

16/02/2013

I think you have understood if correctly (or at least as fully as it can be understood).

This just shows how confused the church has become, or how keen it is to tie itself into the proverbial knots to appease both progressives and traditionalists.

Either way, this position is both absurd and intellectually unsustainable.

Reply
Kirstin

16/02/2013

Kelvin can I ask what submissions you are referring to, is there a new one?

Reply
Joan H Craig

16/02/2013

I think that, once marriage law is passed, current civil partnerships can convert to marriage by filling form, etc. Don’t think they said what happens if the couple want a religious marriage – or did I miss that?
If our churches persist in saying no to marriage, wouldn’t it be better to do the blessing after they’ve converted their civil status – as in some countries where every marriage is a civil ceremony, and any religious service is done afterwards
I hope everyone has completed the most recent consultation paper

Reply
Rhea

16/02/2013

I think that the church wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants everyone to be happy, and this is probably the best way that it knows to do this.

Is it ridiculous? Of course.

Reply
Kelvin Holdsworth

16/02/2013

There is to be a new one. I’ve not seen it. I understand that the position that the Faith and Order Board is holding to is that “church teaching” is what Canon 31 says – that and nothing else and therefore we are doctrinally against change.

Is that not the case?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  16/02/2013
  
  So far as I understand it, the SEC has not moved in its position since the first response at all.
  
  The first response included this:
  Question 10: Do you agree that the law in Scotland should be changed to allow same sex marriage?
  The Canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church (Canon 31) state that the doctrine of the Church is that marriage is â€˜a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and as a holy and lifelong estate instituted of Godâ€™. In the light of that Canon, there is no current basis for agreeing that the law should be changed to view marriage as possible between two people of the same sex.
  
  Reply
2. Kirstin
  
  16/02/2013
  
  The SEC’s last response was in line with what the current law was, indeed still is, this consultation asks a very different question. To which the answer ‘well it isn’t legal, so we can’t say’, (I paraphrase) can’t be the answer this time, can it?
  Of course Canon 31 also states it is a “lifelong estate” but had clause 4 added at a later date to allow for divorce and remarriage.
  
  Reply
Rev David Coleman

16/02/2013

I was watching the evidence to the Westminster parliamentary committees the other day. In all these things, even from churches which are prepared to be tentatively in favour, or declining to be opposed, what is missing from all the evidence is the human experience of joy and delight that actually characterises a true and good wedding, of any combination of partners. How can we get across the compelling and converting happiness when processes take the form they do?

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

17/02/2013

Is there any way of getting hold of the board – of ordinary church members getting hold of it and making it listen?? I mean I know my approach tends to lack in subtlety what it makes up for in directness, but then, well, it is very direct.

Reply
Kimberly

17/02/2013

Rosemary, of all the many beautiful sentences you have written, that is the very very best.

Reply