What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Church of Scotland Debate

    I’ve spent much of today listening to the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly debating their Special Theological Commission that had been set up a couple of years ago to report on the way forward for that church with regard to the possibility of gay people to be ordained and inducted and to have their partnerships blessed by that church.

    Three proposals emerged. The first two were in the report itself and labelled rather unsatisfactorily as the Revisionist (option A) and the Traditionalist (option B) position. Option A allows what tends to be called a mixed economy by which that church could eventually allow ministers in civil partnerships to be appointed to churches and gay couples in civil partnerships to be allowed to have their partnerships blessed. Option B would not though anyone who happened to be in a Civil Partnership already would probably not be hounded out of their ministry but no new minister in a civil partnership could be inducted or ordained. The third position emerged during the day and was moved in the name of Albert Bogle. (Confusingly it was option D – another motion C had been proposed and then was withdrawn during the process). This option D was a proposal to reaffirm the traditionalist view on these matters whilst allowing individual Kirk Sessions to opt to do as they like and choose such a minister anyway.

    In each case, these were not final votes. The procedures of the Church of Scotland mean that where there are significant changes accepted by a General Assembly they then have to be put to the presbyteries of the church. The final position only emerges if a majority of presbyteries concur during the subsequent year and also the next General Assembly confirms the vote. (If a majority of the presbyteries do not concur then the process fails).

    Option B fell in the first round of voting.

    The commissioners of the Assembly then opted for Option D.

    My own feeling is that this was a very hastily patched together compromise that is an astonishing move for the church to make.

    It effectively means that the Church of Scotland has chosen by 340 to 282 to go down a path which delays the decision for another year and which is theologically incoherent and unexamined by the Commission which had been set up to consider these matters.

    It means that the Church of Scotland has affirmed that it believes something whilst also giving permission to kirk sessions in the church to ignore that doctrine and do something diametrically opposed to what the church says it believes. It is not merely an untidy compromise, it is ecclesiastically and theologically incoherent.

    The Church of Scotland became more congregational in its polity today. Some may feel that there are frightening implications for those in that church who support the ordination of women as ministers and elders. What else is going to become a matter of congregational choice?

    All this now goes to presbyteries under the Barrier Act. (After next year’s Assembly, if I’ve understood this right).

    It may be that some will leave the Church of Scotland because they have affirmed a plan that would allow that church to have gay ministers in some congregations even though the church has affirmed that doctrinally it believes that this is wrong.

    It seems to me quite likely that presbyteries may refuse to affirm the proposal.

    This matter was not resolved in either direction in the Church of Scotland today.

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

  1. Andrew Page Avatar
    Andrew Page

    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
  2. Kirstin Avatar
    Kirstin

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

    Reply
  3. Joan H Craig Avatar
    Joan H Craig

    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
  4. Rhea Avatar
    Rhea

    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
  5. Kelvin Holdsworth Avatar
    Kelvin Holdsworth

    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 Avatar
      kelvin

      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 ‘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 God’. 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 Avatar
      Kirstin

      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
  6. Rev David Coleman Avatar
    Rev David Coleman

    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
  7. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    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
  8. Kimberly Avatar
    Kimberly

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

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • An Everyday Story of Ecclesiastical Folk

    Funniest Advent Calendar in the whole world ever is Dave Walker’s cartoon version, over at http://www.cartoonchurch.com/advent/Meanwhile, Ruth captures what it is like to be a cleric preparing for Christmas over on her blog. Freda has decorated her tree. (To great effect) Bishop David is musing on hell in response to Eric Stoddart’s work. It is a pity…

  • Book Review

    Church Treasurer’s Handbook – Robert Leach This book does what it says on the cover. It is an excellent resource for anyone involved in the stewardship of any local church’s finances. There is comprehensive advice on all manner of aspects of this work, including record keeping, legacies, budgeting and expenses, contracts, tax and trusts. There is…

  • Sermon for 3 Advent, Year B

    I’m not preaching today, but here is one I preached on today’s readings three years ago. I want you to use your imagination this week and use it to answer a question that I have for you to think about during the week ahead. – It is this – what would it mean to you,…

  • Lonely Hearts

    Sadly, yesterday I could not get anyone to take seriously my suggestion that inspires (the magazine of the Scottish Episcopal Church) should have a lonely hearts column.It would work. I know it would work.