The Blog of the Provost of St Mary's Cathedral, Glasgow
I wonder what is the first thought that comes into your head when you open an invitation and find yourself invited to a wedding.
Do you say a wee prayer of thanksgiving for the couple?
Maybe you do.
Do you rejoice that two people have discovered that they love one another and give thanks for the places in your own life where you have known love too?
Maybe you do.
Or, upon reading that invitation, is the first thought that comes into your mind, [Read more...]
Oh, who will rid us of these troublesome bishops?
The first sign of the shape of proposals to reform the House of Lords has just been published and disappointingly seems to advocate retaining a privileged position for Church of England Bishops in the House of Lords. It does suggest dropping the number from 26 to 12, but that just raises more questions than it answers. If religious leaders in the legislature are in any way desirable then surely we should have more of them. If they are not desirable, why not get rid of them in one go.
I struggle a bit with the idea of the House of Lords at the best of times. It’s a complete hotch-potch. Relics of the old system of aristocracy linger on with the remaining hereitary peers. Bizarrely they are elected and elected using the Alternative Vote system – the electors having the vote by virtue of birth. Then you have those who are there by virtue of office – the 26 C of E Bishops. Their existence gives us the distinction of being a country with clerics automatically serving in parliament. This is a way of providing parliamentarians in Iran and where else? Then you’ve got the Life Peers – those there by virtue of patronage, which is just as curious a way of selecting those who will shape laws as the others who find themselves there. Who knows what they’ve done to be seen to deserve a place.
The whole thing is a mess but what is being proposed is simply a new mess. An 80% elected chamber with 20% still being reserved for bishops and others.
Here’s what I’d have liked to have been included in the consultation:
In none of these would I have liked to have seen the C of E get their seats by right of privilege. Those in the business of shaping legislation should be in that business because some rational system has been devised which will simply include individuals because they have been perceived to be good people to face the task in hand.
Having a mitre does not seem to me to suggest that one automatically possess either the skill or the mandate.
Delighted to be present for the consecration of Fr Kevin as the new Bishop of Argyll and The Isles. No doubt there were some from The Isles who found it hard to get to Oban. The weather has been vile.
The wind blew so hard during the service itself that it seemed as though the whole of Oban bay was trying to get into the cathedral. Either that or it was the Holy Spirit blowing up a hooley in celebration.
Bishop Kevin looked radiant in purple with an interesting ring that was being much kissed afterwards.
Sadly I have to report that the nearest we got to gaiters was the attire that was being sported by the Bishop of Lund in Sweden. It was good to have both the Bishop of Lund and another bishop from a Porvoo church too. (Finland).
It was a great day for the Diocese of Argyll and The Isles and a great day for the wider Scottish Episcopal Church too.
I ended up in the evening dancing a lovely Gay Gordons with a bishop and also dancing a polka with Kimberly Bohan with such exuberance in celebration of Fr Kevin’s becoming Bishop Kevin that I’ve ended up barely able to walk today.
Its my hip, dears.
My hip.
Just in case anyone was wondering, Inspires Online for October has been held back until tomorrow so that it can include the news of the Election of the new Bishop of Argyll and The Isles which will take place at an Episcopal Synod tomorrow at noon at the Cathedral of the Isles on Cumbrae.
[Should it be Cathedral of The Isles?]
There is a certain amount of discussion and debate going on over on American blogs at the moment, religious and non-religious about a several suicides of young gay people. Being gay is a factor in so many young suicides, something I’ve highlighted on this blog before.
Rather than point to any of the debate, I think the thing I want to do is highlight the video below. It shows one of these young men playing his violin in church.
Watch and listen.
You might have heard of him. His name is Tyler Clementi and he apparently threw himself to his death from a bridge once he discovered that two other students had streamed on the internet a video of an encounter he had with another man.
The video is important. The church connection is important. The church he is leading worship in is Grace Church, Ridgewood, New Jersey. The church belongs to the Willow Creek Association of churches. Although there have been some brave attempts to challenge Willow Creek to change their views, the policy of that church is that being gay is an impediment to fully being part of God’s church, particularly where leadership is involved.
These are broadly the same values that the Archbishop of Canterbury was advocating in the national press last week. They are the same values that our own dear bishops are associating themselves with in keeping to the moratoria against gay leadership in the church. They are the same values that others want to enshrine in our churches by stealth in the adoption of the so-called Anglican Covenant.
(A tip of the praepostorial biretta to Robin Angus for finding the video)
Now, having said all that I have said over the last couple of days, there are some things about the Pope that I admire. Not least amongst these is the fact that he goes out and says things that are worth engaging in. He is not frightened of using the office that he has inherited in order to engage fully with the world. Oh,I know that there will be a whole army (city?) of speech-writers and theologians and secretaries and what not having an input into what he says. However, it is clear that he has ideas of his own (which as we’ve seen, I don’t necessarily agree with him) and he gets them out there into the world. That I admire.
I remember that not long after I took up my current position, someone else who runs a Cathedral (one of the great Benedictine Houses of Prayer) said to me that it is important to remember that Deans and Provosts and the like are not significant people but rather symbolic people people because of their role. Its an important distinction to make and it helps to make it bearable when one says things that one feels have to be said but which will never make one popular.
I admire the Pope’s tenacity and ability to use the media more than I admire some of the messages that delivers. And as I saw pictures from Lambeth and Westminster of the rank on rank of bishops (all male, natch) I wondered why we hear so little from so many of them these days. So very many of them would be quoted and debated and engaged with if they only chose to use the symbolic significance with which people endow them.
One of the messages that the Pope has brought with him is that the churches should engage more in public life, whatever might be thought about that by those who proclaim no faith. As it happens, on that point, I agree with him. And I admire his own ability to walk what he talks.
Ruth has the skinny on the Inclusive Language amendments that the College of Bishops has licensed for permitted use.
The paper proclaiming these amendments has not reached these parts and I’m not sure what that situation means liturgically.
Most of the amendments are not particularly surprising, and indeed, some of them have been in use for many years in St Mary’s, licensed more by the gentle nodding of one mitre or another than by any more troublesome process.
I’m in favour of using language that does not leave people feeling left out of worship. It seems to me to be more a matter of politeness than theology. And theology is trumped by politesse as all good Anglicans know.
Here in St Mary’s we do have an inclusive language policy and so incorporting the amendments which are now on offer and which we don’t already include will happen without, I suspect, any fuss at all.
Generally speaking at St Mary’s, you can expect to find us trying to use language that is inclusive of persons at all modern language services. Choral Evensong and the 1970 Liturgy we don’t mess too much with. We try to use inclusive language in hymnody and actively look for inclusive versions of hymns. That’s been the tradition since long before I got here. Its also harder to do than it seems.
There are a small number of exceptions which I do allow through the net. Dear Lord and Father of mankind is a hymn I can’t quite bear to lose and can’t quite bear to change the first line of. The other obvious one from the past is He who would valient be. It seems to both myself and to the director of music that its permissable to allow exclusive language in hymns which directly address the reality of hobgoblins.
I’m no pushover though. Some things just don’t get sung no more, no more. Firmly I may believe and truely, but it won’t be sung here whilst I am provost.
We try to use a wide variety of imagery relating to God in what we sing here. That means looking out for hymns which use things other than male language (Father, Lord, King) to balance those which do use such language.
As always with hymns, you can’t please everyone. However I think our hymnody is, whilst tending occasionally towards the eccentric, the most exciting I’ve found anywhere.
Christmas Carols can be trouble, whichever way you approach them. And I’ve been planning Christmas just this week.
As for the new amendments that the Bishops are permitting, I welcome the texts. I don’t welcome the way this has been done. If it was worth doing, it was worth going through a synodical process and amending the actual texts so that these were for everyone and not simply options. That’s what we have always done before. This method rather makes one feel that the Fathers think that they know better than the rest of us and don’t really think this is that important.
Not quite the desired message when dealing with issues of inclusivity, I’d have said.
(Indeed, I think I did say so at General Synod last year, if I remember rightly).
The first session begins with a welcomes, beginning with welcome to Bishop Gregor in his capacity as Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway
Someone asked me recently what the relationship was between the College of Bishops and the General Synod.
It is a good question. Fortunately, the code of canons is quite specific about this.
Canon 52 Section 20 is helpfully clear:
The Primus may at any time, when requested to do so by the College of Bishops, take councel with the General Synod on any matter; and thereafter the College of Bishops may make, if they see fit, a pronouncement on such a mtter, or if the College of Bishops so decide, they may submit a proposed pronouncement by them for approval, amendment, or other action by the General Synod.
I like the fact that we have such a collaborative process written into the Canons, which are our effective constitution.
That’s a really good way of trying to square the circle between episcopal leadership and synodical governance, isn’t it?
I know, such a dull headline isn’t it.
However, sometimes we need to express our support and appreciation for the things our bishops do and the things our bishops say.
For example, just before he went off to Lambeth, +Idris (our bishop and primus) said this:
“The vision of our communion is that ‘The truth shall make you free’. Your bishops do not intend to return to you bound in any chains. Or bringing back any chains for you to get wrapped up in either.”
I can’t think of any way of interpreting that other than to assume that +Idris was talking about a proposed covenant and moratorium on consecrations.
I was glad to hear him say that. The Lambeth Conference will be drawing to a close over this weekend. Like Episcopalians up and down Scotland, I’m still praying for our bishops at Lambeth every day.
Provost supports Bishop, see.
Dull headline?
Recent Comments