What is in Kelvin's Head?

10 Unanswered Questions about Same-Sex Marriage

13/06/2013
Last week, at the General Synod in Edinburgh, it was announced that the Scottish Episcopal Church is to undergo a process of discussing what were referered to as “same-sex issues”.

I’ve written about this before, and no doubt will do so again.

For today though, here are some of the questions that are running around in my mind, most of which I don’t think were asked last week during General Synod and which I don’t think we have any answers to.
- Once the Scottish Parliament has completed its legislative process and marriage for same-sex couples is legal in Scotland, what will be the consequences of a priest blessing such a couple in church. (NB – I can already, in some circumstances, bless couples entering into a Civil Partnership)?
- Will all priests of the Scottish Episcopal Church be subject to the same discipline in this area or will different rules apply in different dioceses?
- Will a member of the clergy who enters a civil marriage with someone of of the same sex have equality of opportunity in the church or will they automatically be ruled out of some appointments? Will there be parity between dioceses in this area and will the bishops have agreed a common policy?
- If the Scottish Government were to subsequently proceed to allowing straight couples the possibility of entering a Civil Partnership, what would be the consequence of a member of the clergy entering a civil partnership and living in church-provided accommodation with their partner? Is that an acceptable moral choice in the church?
- If it is not an acceptable moral church in the church for straight couples to live in a Civil Partnership when they have the opportunity of getting married, what standards apply to same-sex couples who might have a choice much sooner as to whether they live within a civil partnership or get married?
- Is it acceptable for any member of the clergy to live with someone without having a legally binding committment to that person or not?
- Is it acceptable (or even legal) for a bishop to refuse a licence to a priest on the grounds of their marital or partner status?
- Would it be acceptable for a bishop to insist that clergy in same-sex Civil Partnerships should get married to one another once the opportunity arises for them to do so?
- Does the peculiarly Scottish moratorium against bishops attending Civil Partnership ceremonies still apply and does it extend to civil marriage for some clergy and yet not for others?
- Would a bishop support a priest who came to the conclusion that as the church has not made up its mind about who may get married, the right thing to do would be to declare a moratorium on marrying anyone (gay or straight) until the process of discussion about what marriage is had been concluded?
I don’t think that any of these questions is a hypothetical question.

Anyone with more questions or any answers?
College of Bishops, LGBT, Same Sex Marriage, Scotland, Scottish Episcopal Church

7 responses to “Have you no scriptural basis though?”

Jackson

15/02/2012

Hello,
If this blog were a talk radio show, I would say something like â€˜long time listener, first time callerâ€™. I found this article very interesting and the role of the Bible in the 21st century is something that many people are hesitant to enter meaningful discussion about. Being brought up in an Evangelical tradition I was taught to hold the Bible in very high regard. However Iâ€™ve come to realise in recent years that Scripture, Tradition and Reason is the only tenable way to approach oneâ€™s faith. Old teachings do run deep, though, and the question needs to be asked, when is it appropriate to look to the scriptures as a source of authority? The flagrant abuse of the Bible to further dogmatic agendas is undoubtedly a source of frustration to many Christians, but what do we do when reason seems to lead to a stalemate? A prime example will be when Margot MacDonald eventually revives her End of Life Assistance Bill. Many Christians in Scotland will be lobbying against and undoubtedly no small number for. Now scripture and tradition would affirm the sanctity of life, but that wonâ€™t stop quite a few people allowing their opinions to be moulded seemingly by reason alone. Meanwhile there will be a great many caught in the middle of very persuasive arguments, struggling to make up their minds while desperately looking for something authoritative to cut through the confusion. Are we too scared of fundamentalism to look to the Bible for guidance in such scenarios?
Cheers!

Reply
Neil Oliver

15/02/2012

Kelvin, I’m fascinated by your blog posts this week and encouranged that your statements make such sense to me and my view of my faith and the world. Great stuff.

Reply
Helen

16/02/2012

I too have followed your blog this week with interest and have found that it has encouraged my broadening faith, stimulated by St Mary’s. Thanks for the effort and thought you have applied. Dont be too hard on Evangelicals though.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  16/02/2012
  
  Being an Evangelical taught me so much of what I know…
  
  Reply
Akma » On Miracles

17/02/2012

[…] that the BIble holds a primary place of reference for Christian life (and I acknowledge that my boss doesnâ€™t*, in the sense I propose here), one ought to have something to say about the prminence of […]

Reply
Brother David

21/02/2012

Being an Anglican educated in a United Methodist seminary, my stool has four pegs; scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

I have enjoyed these fireside chats good Padre.

Reply
Melissa Holloway

28/02/2012

This reminds me of a funny conversation I had with my 20 yr old son – we found ourselves discussing whether or not Kelvin was an evangelical?!!

He had taken a university course on Evangelicalism in America and I suspect it was taught by a (perhaps undercover) evangelical. Seems that one of the ideas that my son came away with was that being evangelical was more a way of doing things – an idea that we did indeed hear from Kelvin – that one has the good news and is eager for the world to know.

Of course my argument was that evangelicals do have to believe certain things, that I remember realizing I wasn’t an evangelical anymore when I couldn’t believe that there was a certain group of people, however they were defined, for whom hell was reserved. I feel there are parts of the movement that are just not benign.

But anyways, it is remarkable that someone somehow trying to put evangelicalism in the best light caused him to conclude that Kelvin fit the bill.

I think in the end we came up with the conclusion that Kelvin is able to hold a distinct theological vision in a perhaps evangelical way, having taken the best from his roots. I hope I won the day.

The whole conversation felt a little like the Twilight Zone.

Reply