What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Will you continue?

    The posts that I’ve made on this blog which have attracted by far the most comment in recent months have been those connected with whether baptism must necessarily happen to a person before the Eucharist.

    I think we’ve established that a lot of people care very much about this question. It is my view that baptism should normally precede the Eucharist. It is the view of some people that baptism must essentially precede receiving the Eucharist. I’m quite untroubled by this. Some people are quite troubled by assertions in this area.

    The US-based Episcopal Church is due to have a conversation about this at its General Convention very soon. General Convention only takes place every three years for them, unlike General Synod over here which happens each year. That means they do a lot of stuff when they do meet. My guess is that the communion-baptism question is likely to be one of those things that we will hear quite a lot about. I’d be surprised if they changed their polity on this, but I expect quite a loud attempt to try to shift it. Unlike in Scotland, their canons explicitly ban anyone from receiving communion before being baptised.

    Now, I’ve said most of what I want to say about this before (here and here). I just want to add one thing to that at this juncture.

    It is that there those who want change in this area can draw quite a lot of comfort from most modern baptism rites, including those in both Scotland and the USA.

    The “Baptismal Covenant” – so beloved of American Episcopalians and so glossed over by Scottish Episcopalians is pretty much the same in both countries on this issue, I think.

    In it, we find the following question which is addressed to baptismal candidates and either answered by them directly or on their behalf by parents/godparents:

    Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?

    Continue!

    Right?

    , ,

2 responses to “Human Rights Petition”

  1. Steven Avatar
    Steven

    Kelvin

    I strongly agree with your sentiments and intend to sign the petition. As a practising barrister I can say that the incorporation of the Convention has had a hugely beneficial effect across society – especially in creating a rights aware culture amongst the judiciary.

    I have successfully relied on the Convention to (1) ensure that the state continues to support destitute asylum seekers whilst they are appealing an asylum support decision (2) prevent the removal of a mentally unwell Brazilian amputee who is awaiting further surgery in the UK (3) ensured that those detained under immigration powers are not held in “ordinary” prisons and (4) prevented the deportation of a Turkish national for a crime committed whilst a child. The Convention naturally “benefits” those on the edges of society – whose cause might be unpopular. That does not mean, of course, that it is unworthy. Quite the opposite.

    I have of course relied upon the Convention in cases which stretch the reach of the various articles. That is how the law develops. Judges do not embrace such claims uncritically. Unfounded and weak claims are rejected as such and so the public perception of an “out of touch” judiciary is misplaced. Thank God for the Judges who – if they were to follow the whims of public opinion would “string em up”, “bring back the birch” and “throw away the key”!

    The Human Rights Act 1998 still retains parliamentary sovereignty in any event. This means that Parliament can still introduce laws that are in breach of the Convention. All that a Judge can do when faced with such legislation is declare it to be “incompatible” and that is it. This may create political pressure (especially at a European level) but it means that the “Queen in Parliament” is still sovereign.

    In addition the HRA 1998 has become entrenched as an almost constitutional statute. Repeal or significant amendment would not create less litigation. On the contrary, as the Daily Mail might put it, lawyers would have a “field day” arguing about when a particular right ceased to exist under the ECHR in the UK and the extent to which rights survived repeal or amendment. It would create a legal mess, a constitutional back-step and a political nightmare.

    In fairness though a solicitor did ask me if they could bring a case to challenge a refusal by the police to allow a man more regular smoke breaks on the basis of his Convention rights (he was being questioned for murder)…I reminded the solicitor that the drafters of the Convention had in mind the ashes of Auschwitz when drafting the Convention and advised him to, as they say in Ulster, “catch yourself on!”

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Thanks Steven. It us really helpful to have your perspective and some concrete examples.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Sunday Morning 0730

    The computer that I use for generating music for Sunday services sometimes, is breaking down. We cannot complain as it cost just ?10 last year. I am going to appeal to the congregation for an old computer to replace it. I could have a broken computer mountain on my hands before the end of the…

  • Sermon on 10 August 2003

    There has been a row in my family this week. I was wondering whether you would all like to hear about it this morning…

  • Thursday Evening

    Second posting. I’m trying to get my head around the postnuke cms system in order to use it as a blog. How clever it all is, I just wish I could use it properly. The colours on this page are all of a muddle and I don’t seem to be able to fix it at…

  • Sunday Evening

    I baptised a child today. As usual, the child was as good as gold and I ended up with a wet elbow. People cluck in an approving manner when I manage to hold babies and they don’t cry. The only sure rule that I have learned us not to turn them upside down. They don’t…