The Mothers’ Union and Marriage

One of the most interesting submissions to the Scottish Government’s consultation on Same-Sex Marriage is surely going to be the one from the Mothers’ Union.

I’m not going to rehearse the articles that I’ve put up on this blog about the MU and its attitude to all things gay in the past, but suffice it to say that one of the search terms that seems consistently to drive traffic to this blog is “Mothers’ Union, Homophobia”. For better or for worse (to misappropriate a phrase from the marriage service), this is one of the places that people look to work out what the MU think about these issues.

One of the things that my friends in the MU have always said when I’ve appeared to be mildly critical of the organisation, is that the MU is passionate about supporting all kinds of families and has a special concern that marriage offers something holy and good to the world to strengthen family life.

It seems to me that the current consultation is quite a significant moment for the MU. Does the MU in Scotland actually support all kinds of families. Locally, MU leaders have always been insistent to me that they support stable gay couples and believe that the values they stand for are not just for straight people.

Well, it will soon be time to find out whether what they’ve been telling me is true. I’m quite hopeful. The MU has supported many a radical campaign in the past and they are an amazing bunch of people when they get behind something.

I’m fascinated to know whether the Scottish MU is going to get behind the equal marriage campaign. It seems absolutely designed for them doesn’t it? They say they support marriage. They say to me that they support gay couples. It will be great news for the church if that turns out to be true and they support the moves towards equal marriage and help the rest of the church towards acceptance. It could well happen – never underestimate the MU, is a motto of mine.

One of the things which might be a determining factor is whether MU High Command in London gets involved. In the past when I’ve gently chided the MU, Mary Sumner House in London has been on the phone complaining to my bishop very quickly indeed. (They don’t like their brand being commented on negatively. They actually call it their brand too). My impression, which might be right or might be wrong is that MU leaders that I know in Scotland have been reasonably supportive of gay clergy and several times such individuals have insisted to me that the MU round here is supportive of gay couples in relationships and gay families in particular. Whether that support exists in Mary Sumner House, I have my doubts. My fear would be that it is dominated by appeasers of less reasonable parts of the Anglican Communion. However, one often hopes to be proved wrong.

Well, we shall see very soon what values the MU in Scotland actually have in these areas. I can’t see how they could not respond the government consultation. It is right up their alley.

Here’s hoping that what they’ve always said to me in private round here turns out to be true in public in Scotland.

Celebrating with the Mothers’ Union

To Lenzie this afternoon for the Mothers’ Union festival service. The church was busy for a celebration Eucharist celebrated by +Idris. The Worldwide MU President, Rosemary Kempsall was there and indeed, she gave an excellent sermon. It was good to bump into Scottish President, Sheila Redwood, whom I’ve not seen face to face since I lived in Bridge of Allan, I don’t think.

It was a lovely occasion – a very joyful service and a great bunfight afterwards. Congratulations to everyone who made it possible.

We are Created By God – a Mothers’ Union Discussion Booklet

I’m grateful to Sheila Redwood of the Mothers’ Union for sending me this discussion booklet as a response to my earlier posts (here and here)) about the MU attitude to those who are gay.

It is a nicely produced book. A shiny cover has friendly stones piled on one another. It is clear that a lot has been put into its production. The booklet aims to discuss four particular issues, Marriage and Cohabitation, Divorce and Further Marriage, Being Single or Widowed and Lesbian and Gay Sexuality. It is the last of these which I will concentrate on in this review as that was the main purpose in my being sent a copy.

Here is what I think. [Read more...]

Listening. Talking. Discussing. LGBT

A while ago, I posted some remarks about the Mothers’ Union (here and here) which surprised a few people, not least members of the MU. The MU, as I said before, is an organisation which does a lot of good things in the world. I was trying to explain why I would not welcome it my congregation. I did this in order to try to  explain to people keen on the MU why it might be that clergy (whom we might presume to be supportive of family life, as the MU are) might not want them.

It is worth saying in passing that I wish I had a pound for everyone who has since said to me, “You are a brave man for taking on the MU in public”. I don’t think so. I’ve always found the MU to be full of charming and well intentioned people. However, if that is what people think of them in private, then they have an image problem that they might like to reflect on. The church is no place for a culture of fear, after all.

One of the issues which I brought up was the MU policy on those who are gay. In response, they sent me a copy of a new workbook that they have published which includes a section on LGBT issues and identity. I’ve been looking at it carefully and will post my reflections on it later in the week.

However, I think it is worth establishing before I do so what I think some of the parameters are, for engaging in this debate these days. Here are a few points against which I make judgements about whether or not people are seriously trying to engage with people who are gay or whether they are just giving voice to prejudice:

  1. Mind your language! When engaging in this debate do you use pejorative terms? Do you use language which makes people affected by the debate uncomfortable?
  2. Find positive role models! Have you made any effort to find positive role models amongst those who are gay or do you present those who are gay as troubling, difficult problems. (If you do this, it is quite a good indication to me that you have prejudices which you are not ready to acknowledge).
  3. Allow people to speak with their own voices! Do you speak about people or do you engage them in conversation. Do you try to speak “objectively” about people and do you lump them together in stereotypical ways? Or alternatively, do you seek out gay voices and allow them to speak for themselves.
  4. Name our writers! Do you include links to gay thinkers, writers, preachers and opinon-makers? Or do you miss them out of your discourse? Have you asked gay people whom you should be reading?
  5. Include gay people in the process from the beginning! Can you give me an assurance that gay people were consulted about what you are doing from the beginning? Has their advice on process been sought out and listened to or did you presume that you knew best?
  6. Deal with your history! Do you expect people to enter freely into debate with you whilst you have policies, presumptions or historical events in this area which remain unresolved? If there are difficult issues you can’t resolve, are you willing to name them or do you pretend they don’t exist?

Have I missed anything?

The Mothers

I was exhorted today to encourage the starting of a Mothers’ Union branch. I won’t be offering any such encouragement. Like some other clergy I know, I’ve no great enthusiasm for the MU.

The odd thing is that one never gets asked why.

I know the reasons that I’m not really into the MU, but don’t know whether they are commonly held.

It isn’t just past experiences of MU folk which put me off, though I’m only human and that is inevitably a factor, as I think it might be for others too.

No, it is two quite specific things that the MU brand has come to mean to me, and both are issues which the wider church has struggled with, to its own detriment.

The first of these issues is divorce – it is still within living memory that if someone got divorced they got put out of the MU. The fact that an organisation committed to family life would abandon people at a time when they most needed fellowship and support caused untold hurt. I know that may not be the case now, but it lingers in the air and I’ve never been convinced that this has really been aired and dealt with.

The second is to do with the way the MU changed from being an organization which was really good at offering support to families where a gay child was coming out to being an organization which offered nothing.  They used to offer a  video which parents could watch if their child turned up at home saying that they thought they were gay. It was good, excellent family ministry. The video was withdrawn some years ago.  At the time of the Jeffrey John/Oxford incident, I was told that the MU had changed its policy and could no longer offer such support to such families. Indeed, I was told that this had changed in order to keep the MU links between members in this country and Africa which would otherwise fail.

I thought at the time that this was disgraceful and once again, families who were most in need of help were being abandoned.

The MU come to the Cathedral several times a year for their festival services and they are most welcome to do so. On at least one occasion, I’ve joined in their worship. They do lots of good work, including that in prisons, contact centres and with folk who have recently lost a child. Notwithstanding all that goodness, whilst I associate the Mothers’ Union brand with those two issues above, I’m afraid it is difficult to muster any enthusiasm for encouraging things to start up locally.

It is one of those organizations which one would really like to be proved wrong about sometime.