What is in Kelvin's Head?

Thanksgivingukkah

28/11/2013

Double blessings today. Blessings upon American friends celebrating Thanksgiving and blessings too on Jewish friends celebrating Hanukkah. It is very unusual for the two holidays to coincide. The last time was in 1888. The next time will be in 70000 years. (I know, that does seem incredible but calendars are calendars).

I was in the States last year for Thanksgiving. It is a slightly odd festival to observe as a single non-American to whom the feast has little meaning. For me it meant thinking very carefully about how I was travelling at that time as so many Americans try to fly around the country that airports are very busy, often at a time when weather is tricky. In the end I settled on spending Thanksgiving on an island in Florida and hired a bike to explore a wildlife park for alligators and other extraordinary things and sat on the beach looking at snowy egrets and pelicans.

The thing that really surprised me was going to church on Thanksgiving morning and discovering that it was a harvest festival. Somehow I hadn’t made the connection at all.

As for Hanukkah, we had readings from the first book of the Maccabees last week at Daily Prayer in the Scottish Episcopal Church. So the swashbuckling exploits of Judas Maccabeus are fairly fresh in my mind. We only get anything from Maccabees once in the two year cycle of the readings at Daily Prayer. Always make me realise that there is so much from Jewish history that I don’t know that much about.

Anyway, to everyone celebrating today, many blessings.

And yes, it really is 70000 years until these two festivals will co-incide again.

alligators, egrets, hanukkah, thanksgiving

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