• What the Scottish Episcopal Church is Voting On

    As I write this, it is just over 24 hours until a debate and a vote in the Scottish Episcopal Church’s General Synod that lots of people are going to be more interested in than most other General Synod happenings. It is the debate and the motions relating to a change to the Canons (ie the rulebook) of the church which could change who can get married in church. If the proposals are accepted tomorrow then same-sex couples would be able to get married in such churches that wanted to host such marriages and by such clergy who wished to be nominated by such

    Rather tellingly, there is an item on the agenda just before this called “Strategic Direction” and this is scheduled to take half an hour. The various motions around marriage have two hours scheduled for them. There would be those who believe that the marriage motions say more about our strategic direction than will be said in the debate with that title.

    It is probably worth a quick outline of what the synod will be doing.

    The big motion is Motion 6 on the agenda. This motion is simply this:

    That the amended text for Canon 31 be read for the second time.

    One could be forgiven for thinking that this is rather a lot of fuss about a motion which is only about a dozen words long. However, what we are talking about has been talked about more than anything else that I remember whilst I’ve been on Synod – far more, for example, than the debate about whether to open nominations to Episcopate to clergy who happen to be women.

    There are various ways to think about the matter at hand. One of the key things to remember is that outside just about every Scottish Episcopal Church there is a sign which is proudly displayed which says, “The Scottish Episcopal Church Welcomes You”. That lies right at the heart of what a lot of people will be thinking about when it comes to how to cast their vote tomorrow afternoon.

    For those people who think this way, inviting same-sex couples to marry in church rather than being rejected by the church is simply a matter of being true to who we are. The sign suggests that everyone is welcome, so why should everyone be welcome on as equal a basis as possible?

    Of course, for some others the debate is primarily cast in different terms. For some people this is about what the bible says and here we have some people who read  the bible with great devotion and who come to the conclusion that we can’t open marriage to same-sex couples and others who read the bible with great devotion and come to the conclusion that we can. I think that one of the consequences of the years of debate about this is that there has been an acceptance by most people that no-one owns the bible and no-one can defiantly declare that the bible says one or other thing about same-sex nuptials. Some will point to the various clobber verses (men lying with men being an abomination in Leviticus etc) and take their cue for there. Others see these as being admonitions of their time and see the fact that we teach that everyone is made in the image and likeness of God as being a defining argument.

    Unless you are a complete newbie to this blog then you will not be surprised to hear that I’m very strongly in favour of change and believe that we have a divine mandate to make the change. It is because of my faith and because of my reading of the bible that I believe that change should come.

    However, it is important to realise that the debate tomorrow is not being conducted in terms of a motion that will allow the Scottish Episcopal Church to vote either for or against the marriage of same-sex couples. I kind of wish that it was, but it resolutely isn’t.

    The synod agreed a couple of years ago that the way that it wished to debate this was to see whether there was enough of a majority to remove the inherently heterosexual definition of marriage that had been placed in the Canons thirty odd years ago and replace it with a statement that acknowledged that Scottish Episcopalians believe different things about marriage and make proposals for allowing those who wish to marry same-sex couples to do so whilst protecting the conscience of those who do not wish to marry same-sex couples.

    This is fundamentally a vote about what kind of church we want to be.

    If we want to be a church that tries to respect people’s consciences on this issue then the thing to do is to vote in favour of motion 6. If we want to be a church which insists that everyone has to abide by the rules of a minority position then the right thing to do is vote against motion 6.

    That’s the thing, you see. We can be pretty sure that there will be a majority in each of the houses of synod in favour of moving forward. That means that there will be a majority in each house, including in the house of Bishops voting against the current policy of the bishops.

    Should this vote fail, we’ll be in a strange place. No doubt some reflection will be needed but what is certain is that the bishops can’t defend a position that they’ve just voted against.

    Should the vote succeed then it is incumbent on all of us to abide by what it says and work to protect the conscience of those who don’t want to solemnise the marriages of same-sex couples. Scots law means that there’s no way anyone can be forced to do so anyway, but there must be no disparaging those who don’t want to take part in any way at all.

    Now what are the consequences of this?

    I have absolutely no doubt that some churches will see a rise in their membership if we pass this proposed change. I am also, perhaps surprisingly, sure that the rise in numbers will affect those who are most opposed to change as much as those who are in favour of it. I think people looking to join churches tend to make their choices on the values of the local community. A clear sense of ethos helps people to make up their mind which church to join. And those churches which make a clear declaration one way or another on this question will see people who are looking for a church to join that suits them come inside and try them out. A clear policy helps people join. It won’t help those who say nothing.

    One this is certain – if we pass this motion there will be clergy from England who will want to come to Scotland. Not particularly gay clergy, though I’ve no doubt that there might be a few of those. There will simply be a number of clergy who would rather be in a church that respects conscience on this issue and want to be part of a church like this.

    We’ve struggled to recruit and retain enough full-time clergy from within Scotland in recent years and I have no doubt that this issue is very real. We’re a church in which refugees are welcome, in many different ways.

    “But what about the Anglican Communion?” I hear you cry.

    Well, the Anglican Communion will be left unchanged by this vote one way or the other. The Anglican Communion exists of churches, some of which have made arrangements for same-sex couples to be married in church and some of which have not. The Americans and the Canadians got there before we did and they represent a larger slice of world Anglicanism than we do.

    This is not only a big issue within Anglicanism for a very, very small proportion of Anglicans and a very, very large proportion of media producers and journalists.

    If the Scottish Episcopal Church does move forward and agree to this vote then there will be headlines (thankfully bumped down the page by the General Election on Friday) which proclaim loudly and confidently “Church Splits over Gays”. They will run the same tired story that they have been running for a very long time indeed and which has the advantage of being a great story and the disadvantage of not being actually true. The Anglican Communion will still exist on Friday morning, notwithstanding anything the Scottish Episcopal Church might do on Thursday afternoon. Oh, and the Archbishop of Canterbury will still have no jurisdiction in this realm of Scotland, notwithstanding the very few calls that will be made that will be very loudly reported, that he should Do Something About Scotland.

    If the Scottish Episcopal Church moves forward and votes in favour of Motion 6 to amend Canon 31 tomorrow it will not be the first Anglican church in which the marriages of same-sex couples will be celebrated. Nor will it be the first church in the UK nor in Scotland to allow such marriages.

    However, it will be a church which has something to offer others – a model for dealing with this issue that will allow the church to get on with being the church and bringing God’s kingdom in. The key to it all is to make the question of whether or not clergy can marry same-sex couples a matter of conscience.

    Making this a matter of conscience is the mainstream Anglican answer to the troubles that have beset us for so many years. What happens in Scotland tomorrow could well inform other parts of the Anglican communion in the future. Far from being outside the boundaries of Anglicanism, what I hope we will do tomorrow is slap bang in the middle of classic Anglicanism which seeks not to build windows into other men’s souls and to allow people to make decisions to the best of their ability with their own consciences informed by scripture, reason and tradition.

     

     

     

     

     

     

4 responses to “Guest Post: Alan McManus on The Feast of St Francis”

  1. Jaye Richards-Hill Avatar

    Whilst the sentiment is worthy, I think you’re being a wee bit naive here Alan. Ruth may be praying for the safe return of her sons, as I will pray for my step son when he is called up for service in the IDF next year. She might also be praying that her sons don’t encounter the devastation of the Katusha rockets fired from Gaza on an almost daily basis and have to deal with dead and maimed Israeli children. They all might pray that they’re not in the bus stations in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem when some poor misguided Arab child with a bomb strapped to their back causes devastation, death and mutilation.
    And Lesbian Rachael may have been ostracised from her family, but she can give thanks that Israel is the ONLY country in the middle east where her rights and equality is protected by law. Of course, if she was a palastinian in Gaza or the west bank, her sexuality would be criminalised.

    Your view of the activity of Israel and its army in my view is one which, if you’ll forgive my directness, is through rose tinted specs. My wife is an ex-IDF officer, and whilst there is most definitely some bad treatment of the Palastinians, it’s usually in response to many of the dangers I’ve outlined in this comment. We should be lighting candles perhaps for the Israeli government and constitution which provides free health care and education for all it’s citizens, be they Arab, Jew, or anything else, including LGBT. These are the real poor in Israel and they are protected. This is not apartheid, and to compare it to the system in South Africa under which my wife grew up is, quite frankly, offensive to most Israelis and many others.

    Sorry if this comment upsets you, but I’m sure Francis would have been apolitical in this. His concern might well have been the poor, but he might have seen that the poor are the misguided people in this world who are too quick to condem Israel from the comfort of their western armchairs…

    Jaye

  2. Alan McManus Avatar
    Alan McManus

    Well-intentioned but naive isn’t the harshest criticism a post involving this Near-Eastern politicial knife edge could have attracted, so I thank you. My mother’s maiden name is Jewish; I spent some months on a kibbutz in the 80’s; I think I was the worst student of Hebrew that St Mary’s College, St Andrews Uni, ever had; I only avoided being elected president of St Andrews Jewish student society (I was the oldest member) by declaring, “I shouldn’t be the president: I’m goy!”; I think that Eretz Yisrael is a beautiful, fascinating and deeply tragic place and I admire your commitment to primary human realtionships and share your exasperation of uninformed, unbalanced and uninvolved politics-as-entertainment.
    I also have many Muslim friends, some Western, who repeat to me that the root of the problem is the oppression of the Palestinians. Not all are uneducated fanatics.
    The following links, which could not (for technical reasons) be linked to phrases in my original post, may help to contextualise my words. I do not strive for dominance of the discourse but rather to question adherence to party lines and easy answers. You defend those you love, Jaye, as you should, and that love is a candle in a deep deep darkness. But there are other candles, across the barbed wire and beyond no-man’s land.

    http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/whfraintro.htm
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/29/atos-paralympic-sponsors-under-fire-disabled-attitude_n_1838614.html
    http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22500.htm
    http://www.asylumaid.org.uk/data/files/publications/46/Still_No_Reason_At_All.pdf
    http://beyondcompromise.com/2012/08/17/everybody-must-get-stoned/
    http://www.no2brandisrael.org/?p=324
    http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?q=taxonomy/term/60
    http://muslimmatters.org/2009/07/16/islamic-jerusalem-%E2%80%9Cwe-will-drive-the-jews-into-the-sea%E2%80%9D-1-of-3/
    http://www.ranker.com/list/7-worst-capital-punishments-for-being-_illegally_-gay/joanne
    http://palestinesolidarityproject.org/2012/03/13/israeli-settlers-cut-down-150-olive-and-grape-trees-in-wad-abu-reesh/
    http://electronicintifada.net/content/demanding-justice-yousef-quiet-boy-killed-israeli-settlers/10865
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/opinion/not-all-israeli-citizens-are-equal.html?_r=0
    http://israelisoldiersmother.blogspot.co.uk/
    http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1757
    http://artsandfaith.com/t100/jesusofmontreal.html
    http://liberatingtheology.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/theology-and-liberating-praxis-theology-as-second-act/
    http://robertpirsig.org/Intro.htm
    http://www.robertpirsig.org/
    http://inharmony.yolasite.com/
    https://www.facebook.com/events/240919052672305/#!/tentcitytheatrecompany

  3. Alastair McManus Avatar
    Alastair McManus

    I am resuming religion at age 63. I am Cof E, but now a Buddhist….My olf McM family of Antrim became C of I in around 1670s on.

    Will write more if you could reply.

    AM

    1. Alan McManus Avatar

      Hello Alastair,
      forgive my extremely tardy reply! I only looked up this post to get the date as I’ve forgotten how old my beloved dog Ben is and I got him just after writing this post (I remember thinking I should practice what I preached and he needed a home). I don’t get notifications from this site (I have RSI and I can’t keep up) but if you click on my website link there’s a Contact page.
      slán, Alan

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Review: Werther – Scottish Opera

    This review appeared first at Opera Britannia The start of Scottish Opera’s new production of Massenet’s Werther is deceptive. As the curtain goes up we have a pleasant enough scene. A wooden structure is present with what look like rickety stairs. Snow soon starts to fall at the rear of the stage – snow that…

  • Government Consultation response from LGBT Group

    The LGBT Group at St Mary’s met on 18 February to prepare its response to the current Scottish Government consultation on the bill that it is proposing to bring in on allowing changes to marriage law in Scotland including allowing same-sex couples to be able to be marriage. In case anyone is interested, here is…

  • Sermon preached for Lent 1, 2013

    Here’s the video. And here is the text: One of my favourite stories about St Mary’s is one that I’ve heard several versions of. It concerns one of my predecessors as Provost here. He had been here for a couple of months and thought that things were going OK. And then suddenly a letter appeared…

  • So, let me get this right…

    Let me be sure I’ve understood this. From sometime next year or the year after, a gay couple will be able to get a Civil Partnership, then come to a Scottish Episcopal Church for a blessing from a Scottish Episcopal priest, make promises to one another, exchange rings, have them blessed, sing hymns and have…