What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Online reading

    Here’s some on-line reading.

    The Doctrine Committee of the Scottish Episcopal Church published an essay earlier this year on Marriage and Human Intimacy. This is available now online for the first time along with the other previous essays which they have written.

    There was a mini-brouhaha on twitter when one or two people actually read it this afternoon and started to recount the ways in which it is offensive. The bit about scientific evidence for gay people reacting to sweat differently to straight people seems to be the bit that has caused most offence. Silliest is perhaps: “Gay men tend to weigh less than heterosexual men and
    to have shorter limbs and hands.”

    By far the most offensive thing about it from my point of view is that on being asked at General Synod whether any gay people had been engaged, consulted or included in the process, the convener of the group answered in the negative.

    Do I need to spell it out? If we were doing a piece of work about women but all the writers were men…..if we were doing something about disability and no-one bothered to speak to anyone in a wheelchair…..

    Etc.

    There will be plenty more to say about this later, but for now read it. It is designed to provoke debate and is an invitation to respond.

    The essay is available here.

    Rather more positively we have a good article in the White Rose, the magazine of Old St Paul’s church in Edinburgh.

    Towards the end of a long article, well worth reading, Ian Paton, their Rector says:

    As far as I can see, therefore, there is no obvious reason why such Godgiven humanity should not be affirmed in same-sex relationships as well as in heterosexual ones. No relationships are perfect, whatever the sexual orientation of the persons involved, but they all contain the potential to reveal that God-given humanity.

    Despite the prejudices and ignorance of many people, which I have shared on the past, gay and lesbian people themselves have developed ways of finding, establishing and celebrating life-long relationships of mutual commitment and joy. For myself, I
    can see no reason, in the Bible or in Tradition, for preventing those relationships from being equally
    acknowledged and affirmed, with those of heterosexual couples, as marriages blessed by God, signs and sacraments of God’s committed and joyful love for the world.

    When he is not busy being the Rector of Old St Paul’s, Fr Ian also happens to convene the Liturgy Committee in our church.

    You can find that here.

    , ,

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

  • Letterbox Poison

    I was disturbed to get a free lifestyle magazine through the letterbox containing a poisonous article about immigration and assylum seekers. Indeed, I was so angry about it this morning that I have been o­n to the Scottish Refugee Council. The sad thing was that I was o­nly the second person to call them about…

  • Pickets

    There was a strike in the University of Stirling today. This led me to question whether as a Chaplain I should cross the picket line or join it. In the end, it did not matter as the pickets had dispersed before I got there. The last time I faced this dilemma, the pickets did a…

  • Parliament Costs Up Again

    It is so hard to understand how the costs of the Holyrood parliament building appear to be rising again. One thing I do know is that it is bad for the politics business in general. It is hard for people to have confidence in decision makers who have presided over all of this. I am…