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 (Confusingly it was option D – another motion C had been proposed and then was withdrawn during the process).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.

6 responses to “Hillhead By Election”

  1. Zebadee Avatar
    Zebadee

    It would seem that the Lib Dems are a ‘busted flush’ with no plan to make any meaningful comeback which is very sad. The SNP were in a similar position in the 1980s but did have a plan which has been successful. Is there not a case for the revival of The Liberal Party? There is certainly a need for such a political party for the whole of the UK not just Hillhead. The Liberal Party could possibly unite the whole of the UK and not just Scotland.

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Well, the Liberal Party has never gone away – it still exists and has some councillors. No doubt they feel that their time might still come.

      I’ve a feeling that there probably needs to be a clear attempt to do something new though. A New Liberal Party could be formed by a significant breakaway of disaffected liberal democrats but would probably need some significant hitters in order to get going. Given that part of the problem is some very unimpressive leadership in the parliamentary party, it makes it hard to see that happening.

      Reply
  2. Zebadee Avatar
    Zebadee

    Yes I know that the Liberal party still exists and understand that they have little or nothing to do with the Lib Dems. They too have no big names or ‘big hitters’ which is a pity. As you yourself will know out there in the real world there is a need for a centre party not right or left. I suspect that there is a large number of thinking people who would at least listen to a political message from the ‘centre’ and they are worried and concerned at the polarisation of the right and the perceived ineptitude of the left in todays political parties.

    Reply
  3. Caron Avatar
    Caron

    Kelvin, a few weeks ago, we had a by-election win in Inverness. The evidence suggests that the Liberal Democrats have not become toxic, but where we work, knocking on lots of doors, having strong campaign messages and get our vote out, we get good results.

    We had a first class candidate in Hillhead, but I agree that we need to look at how we get our message across.

    I’m not for the Murdo method of abolishing the party just to set up a new one. We have good, liberal ideas, with good, liberal values, and an energetic leader who is so genuine, so likeable and very good at explaining what they are. Yes, we have a mountain to climb, but we have our ropes and crampons ready and we’re already ahead of where we were a few months ago.

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Yes, I know Caron – I agree with a lot of what you have said. However, the big question is whether the party can get people out there working again.

      The win in Inverness was good though it was a pretty narrow thing. Still a win is a win in anyone’s book.

      However, whether the party can get doors knocked on etc now is the big question. I know I’m not the only person who has offered a lot to the party in the past who is questioning where the liberal tradition lies.

      I know Willie Rennie is likeable and I do believe he stands for lots of good policy ideas that I believe in, but he’s not even making a good job of running his own office at the moment. And his team are not responding online to criticism of him very well either.

      I’d love to feel I wanted to support the party – I believe in liberal values, understand liberal values and can articulate liberal values along with the best of them. However, so much of what good people worked for has been squandered so quickly that I just find it too difficult. (By the way, I say that as one of the 307, so I’m still hanging in there in the polling booth).

      And the problem is not primarily that the electorate feels betrayed by the Lib Dem brand. That is serious but summountable. The problem is that the activists feel betrayed. That is much, much more serious.

      307 votes out of 23243 on leafy home ground and placed fifth is terrible whatever way one looks at it.

      The Greens were trumpeting their result on twitter so much I thought they must have won, but they only had 120 or so more votes which doesn’t strike me as a particularly exciting ship to jump to, even if one were looking to leap. I’m not really interested in a party which thinks that getting 435 votes out of an electorate of 23243 is anything to crow about.

      Reply
  4. James Avatar
    James

    Hi Kelvin, I agree about the democratic disengagement – properly alarming. But the Lib Dems as they currently exist aren’t a Liberal party of the sort I think you want. They’re fundamentalist economic liberals, Orange Bookers determined to remove the social safety net. It’s not liberal as I understand it to make education the province of the rich, to cut benefits for the disabled to appease the Jeremy Clarksons of this world, to hike up regressive taxes like VAT, etcetc.

    The really small-l liberal party in Hillhead did a lot better than the Lib Dems. The Greens.

    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.