Tag Archives: College of Bishops

Response from the College of Bishops to letter of concern from over 50 clergy and lay readers

The following Response from the College of Bishops was written by the Primus, the Most Rev David Chillingworth in response to a letter from more than 50 clergy and lay leaders who wrote expressing concern about their recent Guidelines relating to the changes in marriage law in Scotland. Bloggers may wish to repost this and comment on it on their own blogs.

22 December 2014

I am responding to your letter which has been passed to me by our Secretary General. My response has been agreed with the other members of the College of Bishops. I would be grateful if you would circulate this response to the other signatories of your letter.

The situation in which we and other churches find ourselves is one of considerable challenge and we are grateful to you for your recognition of that and your support for us in our ministry. It is not within the experience of any of us that we find our church out of step with the provisions of Civil Law with respect to marriage. We are aware that a substantial section of our church would wish to bring the practice of our church into line with the Civil Law as soon as possible. Others, of course, wish to continue to uphold a more traditional position.

As bishops, we are acutely aware that the issues which are part of the wider discussion of human sexuality and are touched on in the Guidance issued by the College are not abstract matters of policy. They affect deeply the lives and relationships of members of our church, both clergy and laity. It is regrettable, therefore, that some have been upset by the style and tone of our Guidance
document; this was not our intention. We are aware that what we say should be expressed in a way which is compassionate and which honours the depth of the feelings involved.

The Guidance offered by the College of Bishops was not intended to pre-empt any future discussion or synodical decision. It was issued at this point because of the need to bring clarity as the new Marriage Act becomes effective in Scotland. This is where we are at the moment. Our document is not seeking to defend the status quo but rather to preserve a space in which both the Cascade and Synodical processes might be allowed to work themselves through to a point where we can discern the mind of the church on this matter. We feel that for a diversity of practice to arise before we have done this will neither contribute to the unity of our church nor ultimately will it assist us as we try to move forward together.

I know that many who signed your letter are committed to the Cascade process. It is a process which, in a number of forms, has been followed by many churches. It seeks to provide an opportunity for honest conversation across difference and to foster a sense of belonging to one another in Christ. Whilst it did not achieve universal acceptance, we were greatly encouraged by the Pitlochry Conference and by expressions of the process at other levels. The purpose of the Cascade process has not been primarily to seek a resolution of these issues – rather it offers a way in which we can respond to our diversity and thereby create an environment in which resolution may be possible.

Ultimately, this resolution must come through General Synod. The process for doing so in 2015 will be the subject of debate by the Faith and Order Board at its meeting in March. This may lead to a full debate at General Synod in 2015 on the Theology of Marriage in response to a paper to be prepared by our Doctrine Committee. We also expect a debate which gives General Synod members the opportunity of expressing a considered view on a number of options for canonical and other changes. The College trusts that our Cascade Conversations will mean that votes on the floor of General Synod – when they come – will give expression to a deeper unity and catholicity which our church has sought in honest conversation, mutual respect for diversity and prayer.

The question of the authority of the Canons is of particular difficulty. It affects clergy and all who hold a licence for ministry in our church. Whether or not a priest or a deacon can promise obedience to the Canons is ultimately a matter of personal and ministerial integrity. But, because we are an episcopal church, it also involves the bishop before whom such declarations are made.

There are of course wider issues involved here – about the nature of the Scottish Episcopal Church and its place in Scotland today. Many people in and beyond our church would recognize that we have, over the years, bravely represented and advocated gospel-inspired positions on social, moral and justice issues. We honour that history and our tradition of openness and compassion. The challenge we now face is to be open and courageous about engaging with our own theological diversity – honourably resolving difficult questions in a way that strengthens and deepens our oneness in Christ. I believe that we are not only capable of doing this for ourselves but of offering it as an example to others.

Thank you again for your letter. I know that it arises from the deeply held feelings of many people within our church and I hope that this response helps to answer some of their concerns.
With kind regards,
+David
The Most Rev’d David Chillingworth

Christine McIntosh on the current “crisis”

Christine McIntosh has a new post on her blog: Crisis? What Crisis?

When I posted the letter here the other day, I said I was proud of the signatories. I’m still proud. And I’m proud to belong to a church that numbers such people among its leaders. I’m thrilled that suddenly we’re talking about the elephant in the room, and that conversations – real conversations, not this ridiculously neutered Cascade malarkey – are beginning to happen in real life, in churches, in sitting rooms, and not just on social media. We’re showing that our faith can actually inform our decisions, guide our words, make us brave. We’re showing that we can think for ourselves, as mature Christians who recognise that a great historical mistake is in danger of being perpetuated.

What I’m looking for now is some brave leadership from the top, from the Bishops who are supposed to provide a focus for this thoughtful and courageous process.

Read the whole thing here: http://blethers.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/crisis-what-crisis.html

Crisis? What crisis?

The Dean of Argyll and The Isles, the Very Rev Andrew Swift has an interesting historical reflection on the current situation in the Scottish Episcopal Church – Identity & Authority

Well worth reading in full – includes this:

To me, it feels as if the SEC is doing what it does best: engaging with issues of the day, not accepting a stance that feels imbalanced or theologically skewed, and not blindly accepting a model of authority that does not feel Scottish Episcopalian.

Herald Newspaper: Unprecedented Insurrection over Gay Marriage Ban

The Herald newspaper has a new report on the situation relating to the Bishops’ December 2014 statement: Traditional Weddings Threat as Church Faces Unprecidented Insurrection Over Gay Marriage Ban

The report begins:

CHURCH leaders are facing an unprecedented insurrection amongst their own ministry over their gay marriage ban, with signals some clergy will not carry out any weddings until the matter is resolved.

In what has been described as the biggest crisis to engulf it in living memory, over 50 Scottish Episcopalian Church (SEC) clergy – around one in six – have signed a letter condemning the stance of their bishops over same-sex marriage.

Amongst the signatories are some of the SEC’s most prominent figures, including current and former deans of three dioceses, essentially bishops’ deputies and the equivalent of an archdeacon in the Church of England, and two provosts, the senior priests in Episcopalian cathedrals.

While unhappy over the general stance of the SEC on gay marriage, the ire is focused primarily on the ban on the clergy and trainees turning their civil partnerships into marriage.

The letter also contains a veiled warning some members of the SEC clergy could refuse to conduct any weddings while the row rumbles on.

It also includes a couple of quotes from outside the Scottish Episcopal Church.

From Ali Chesworth in Ipswich:

I was saddened and dismayed to read this guidance from a province which has in the past taught so much about an inclusivity unparalleled by the other Anglicans in the UK.

and from Fr Ron Smith in New Zealand:

A very brave, but also much-needed moral stance. Let’s hope your voices are heard by the bishops of SEC.

The story also reports comments from a senior source in the Scottish Episcopal Church:

One senior source said: “This is an unprecedented crisis in the Scottish Episcopalian Church. There is an urgent need for change of tone from the bishops and a new and accelerated timetable for resolving this matter.”

Further responses to the Bishops’ December 2014 Statement

There’s three further responses to the Bishops’ December 2014 statement to report today.

Rosemary Hannah, who is a member of staff of the Scottish Episcopal Institute which is responsible for training ordinands and lay-readers has written – Bishops against marriage

Here’s a taster of what she has to say:

These two latter matters, the marriage of current and prospective clergy, have not at any point been considered by General Synod, and there can be no warrant, at all, for this step. It is, of course, true that the bishops can (in our system) behave an a totally autocratic manner, but one does ask oneself just how wise it is for them to do it. How far they are willing to alienate the younger members of their church, not just by espousing discriminatory views which are anathema to most younger people, but by governing in a way which, frankly, simply turns the stomach. It is so totally undemocratic as to be nauseating.

Fr Pip Blackledge has also written – I never realised what it feels like to be gay

I was wrong to think I could know, or I did know how it felt to be gay. I can’t.

But the other thing I learned was that I could trust my gay friends to let me know. I could trust that they weren’t over-reacting, or being pushy in the way sometimes I and others are when we don’t get exactly what we want. They are generally the opposite of that – disliking conflict, because the conflict they engage with makes them feel isolated and rejected.

So I’m sorry, my gay friends, for taking so long to even get to the stage where I realised I don’t understand. I’m sorry so many of us don’t get it, can’t get it, and don’t realise it.

I’m sorry for all the times when “reasonable” liberal folk like me, who share your beliefs and aims, still made you feel isolated and alone.

I’m sorry, so sorry, for assuming my judgement was better than yours.

And I’m so very sorry that the letter from the Bishops has made you feel as though you don’t belong.

You do.

Meanwhile, The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth has a long post about the peace, unity and order of the Scottish Episcopal Church – the Peace and Unity and Order of the Church

I have to search for peace, unity and order in the church and my view is that we won’t have anything that looks like that until we have a church in which I can marry gay members of my congregation one unto another amidst great rejoicing whilst simultaneously defending the right of a sister or brother priest not to have to do so. And I have to hope that the desire to reach Scotland with the good news will allow colleagues who do disagree with me to search for the same peace that will allow us all a place to stand in order to reach out united to a world that needs the love of God.

I don’t believe and have never believed that the oaths to seek the peace, unity and order of the church are oaths involving any kind of conformity. And one of our troubles at the moment in my view is that our bishops have mistaken conformity for collegiality. The two are different. Collegiality is required of the College of Bishops. Collegiality is also required in a different way from the rest of us. Demands from any of us that look like conformity though do not look like the road to peace.

All the posts above are worth clicking through to read in full.

Digest of responses made online about College of Bishops’ Statement

Beth Routledge has this post on her blog which includes the following:

1) …these questions are not hypothetical ones, but are real questions about real people and their lives and their loves. I think in light of the specific things that have been said today it must be noted that this is particularly true of people who are called to ministry within the Church.

2) … the answers and guidance given by the House of Bishops, and that we are further away from justice and equality today than we were even a decade ago,

3) … if we stopped allowing anyone in ministry or seeking to enter ministry within the Church to get married to anyone until this question was settled, we would have had a proper answer a year ago.

Ekklesia has a long post called No rejoicing here: Scottish Episcopal Church’s marriage guidance which includes the following:

…institutional churches need to provide pastoral care to those who feel called to pledge their love publicly to their life-partner, as well as those opposed.

There is little sense of this in the Scottish Episcopal Church’s College of Bishops’ Guidance for Clergy and Lay Readers in the light of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014. This document is perhaps even more grim and threatening than the Church of England bishops’ February 2014 ‘pastoral’ guidance.

and also:

The bishops could have issued a very different document recognising the variety of views and experiences within the church while highlighting the legal situation, an advising clergy that some congregations might react negatively if they were married. That they did not do so perhaps reflects a habit of fear of those most opposed to inclusion combined with pastoral insensitivity to those in favour.

Pouring a bucket of cold water over couples in love, their families and friends is not the best approach to mission and ministry. Once again, Christians seeking a more just and welcoming church will be left with the challenge of trying to limit the damage done by official statements.

The Very Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, Provost of St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow said in a blog post:

I’m appalled by its contents and in particular appalled at the way the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church are treating gay clergy and lay readers in the church. The homophobic bullying of candidates for ministry – ordinands and candidates for lay readership is particularly unpleasant.

The Rev Kirstin Freeman, Rector of All Saints’, Bearsden and St Andrew’s, Milngavie also had a blog post – Advent Sorrow. This included the following striking statement:

The SEC is part of who I am and never before have I felt ashamed to be a Pisky. While I do not agree with the views contained within the Bishop’s statement yesterday… I am part of the SEC and so I feel I must apologise to all those who have been hurt by the words that have been used and the tone in which it has been delivered. They are not my words nor indeed my sentiments, but for many people I know I am the face of the SEC, so I am sorry for what has been said. To those of you who happen to be LTBG, regardless of whether you have any connections with the the SEC, I want to apologise for the times when maybe I could have done more and pledge to you that I will do all I can to ensure that justice and equality for everyone is not a past for dream but remains an achievable reality. Despite the sorrow and anger I currently feel I am not going to loose the promise of Advent which is for all people. You are special, you are precious, you are equal, you are valued in my eyes and in my heart. What is more I believe, with every fiber of my being, that with God it is even greater than that, for God is love.

Thinking Anglicans had a post linking to the original document and noting that the guidelines appear little different from those of the Church of England. There is also some discussion in the comments on this article including one saying that the document “Surpasses even the English bishops’ Valentine’s Day statement in spreading unseasonal gloom.”

There has also been considerable comment on social media. Some of this can be seen by searching for #pisky or @secsynod on twitter.

December 2014 Statement from College of Bishops – response from Changing Attitude Scotland

The College of Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church has issued a statement on 9 December 2014 concerning same-sex marriage in the Scottish Episcopal Church.

This statement can be read here: College of Bishops Guidance re Marriage 2014

Changing Attitude Scotland is saddened at the threatening tone of this statement in connection with those clergy, lay readers, ordinands and candidates who are in same-sex partnerships who might be considering getting married or converting their civil partnerships to marriage. Changing Attitude Scotland believes that marriage is a human right and that the College of Bishops has over-reached its authority in this area. There is no agreement in the church that the Code of Canons should be used as a doctrinal statement of the Scottish Episcopal Church and in any case, as Canon 31 (which concerns marriage in the Scottish Episcopal Church) was drafted at a time when the marriage of same-sex couples was unimaginable, it forms a far from useful commentary on, or guide as to how the church should respond to, current legal developments.

Changing Attitude Scotland remains committed to the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trangender people in the Scottish Episcopal Church and believes that whilst members of the church are threatened by the bishops for expressing their love in marriage, the whole body of Christ suffers.

College of Bishops Statement – November 2013

The College of Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church have issued this statement which was sent to clergy in an online mailing on 29 November 2013.

Blessing of Civil Partnerships

The General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church in 2012 agreed not to adopt the Anglican Covenant. Since then, and within our own context, the College of Bishops has, on a number of occasions, considered how our church should best engage with those underlying questions of human sexuality which had given rise to the original idea of a Covenant. The College looks forward to the Church undertaking discussion of such matters as part of the process currently being designed by a group set up for that purpose by the provincial Mission and Ministry Board. The College in no way intends to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions. At the same time it recognises that the entering into of civil partnerships is a regular occurrence in Scottish society today.

In a previous statement the College indicated that it was the practice of the individual Bishops at that time neither to give official sanction to blessings of civil partnerships, nor to attend them personally. The Church does not give official sanction to informal blessings but each Bishop would nevertheless expect to be consulted by clergy prior to the carrying out of any informal blessing of a civil partnership in his diocese. The College is of the view that a decision as to whether or not to attend such an informal blessing should be a personal decision of the individual Bishop in question.
College of Bishops
November 2013