Church of Scotland

Dangerous four-way intersection looms ahead in Christian debates about LGBTQ issues

Dangerous four-way intersection looms ahead in Christian debates about LGBTQ issues

Flying home from his February Africa pilgrimage, Pope Francis held an unprecedented three-man press conference alongside Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, leader of the Church of England and some 85 million members in the global Anglican Communion, and the Right Rev. Iain Greenshields, this year’s titular head of the Church of Scotland (equivalent of the mainline U.S. Presbyterians).

These men personify three emerging approaches to same-sex revisionism that reporters will be observing. A fourth option,of course, is strict limitation of sex to heterosexual marriage, a doctrine articulated in the Catholic Catechism and shared by all churches until recently. For example, see this summary issued last week by the Rev. J.D. Greear, a former Southern Baptist Convention president.

In the West, many “mainline” Protestant groups have shifted to option one — full-on approval of same-sex relationships, exemplified by liturgies to celebrate church weddings. The Church of Scotland joined them last May as assembly delegates gave this change 67% support. (Dissenting clergy will not be forced to perform weddings they oppose in conscience.) This followed an earlier go-ahead in America’s largest Presbyterian denomination.

With option two, Pope Francis has not proposed any alteration in the Catholic teaching that same-sex acts are sinful, but is ambiguous about how Catholic churches should welcome and potentially bless gay people (see this earlier GetReligion post on a test case in Chicago). That and his other “dialogue” initiatives rile doctrinal traditionalists. Backed by Welby and Greenshields, Francis asserted that secular law should not criminalize people for gay acts -- a striking plea in Africa, where many nations outlaw gay activity and some impose the death penalty.

Then Archbishop Welby’s church made an historic decision for option three — half-way liberalization. This approach would continue to bar same-sex weddings, while approving church “blessing” ceremonies for such couples after their civil marriages (legal in England since 2013). After six years of formal nationwide church discussion, and more than eight hours of floor debate, the General Synod voted February 9 to “welcome” that policy, which the bishops approved in January.

The motion expressed repentance over past and present “harm that LGBTQI+ people have experienced” in church. Welby and the Archbishop of York jointly stated that their church “will publicly, unreservedly and joyfully welcome same-sex couples.” This includes sexually active same-sex couples? Debate continues on that point.

This decision by no means settles matters.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

After Brexit, will United Kingdom become an untied kingdom? If so, what about its churches?

The British election December 12 was as dramatic as America’s in 2016. Some claim the smashing triumph of Boris Johnson’s Conservatives over Jeremy Corbyn and Labour means Donald Trump will be re-elected if U.S. Democrats likewise go hard left. Or not.

Whatever the U.S. ripples, the inevitable “Brexit” from the European Union is epochal for the U.K. 

Journalists should be pondering an equally historic possibility. Philip Jenkins, a Baylor University historian of religion whose Christian Century columns about overseas trends are always worth reading, posed the following on Patheos.com days before the Brits balloted.

What if Brexit turns the United Kingdom into an untied kingdom? What if the nation with the world’s fifth largest economy dissolves? What happens to ties between some of the churches that are involved?

In terms of history, not long ago we saw the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia break into assorted nation-states, and before that the Czechs and Slovaks split up.

England dominates the four segments of the nation officially named The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Jenkins contends that today’s supposed “British” government sees itself "only in terms of England” and he predicts in coming years “the nation of Great Britain will have ceased to exist.”

A crackup’s first stage would be the departure of Scotland after 312 years. In a 2014 referendum, an impressive 45 percent of Scots voted to quit the U.K. The potential break was further demonstrated in the Britain-wide referendum that backed Brexit when a lopsided 62 percent of Scots voted to remain in the European Union. The pro-independence Scottish National Party surged in last week’s voting. Jenkins claims Scotland’s breakaway is now “just a matter of time.”  

Northern Ireland likewise voted to remain in the European Union, by 56 percent.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Have others asked WWHPD? Harry Potter and the Harvard Humanist phenomenon

Once more, into the Harry Potter religion debates!

But first, a word from long ago, care of one of the featured speakers at Nimbus 2003 in Orlando, the first global convention dedicated to academic (and semi-academic) studies of the canonical texts of J.K. Rowling. Yes, I was there, with a notepad and my marked-up copies of a Potter text, or two.

The speaker was Lee Hillman of Rochester, N.Y., a pagan believer known as "Gwendolyn Grace, Minister of Magic" to the throng of 600 gathered at Disney’s Swan Hotel. She was dressed in a spectacular purple witch’s robe and hat. Let us attend:

"There is no relationship set up in the Harry Potter books between magic and religion," said Hillman. … "This had to be a deliberate decision by J.K. Rowling. ... She is using literary conceits drawn from throughout Western culture."
She scanned the crowd at a panel discussion last weekend entitled "Harry Potter: Witchcraft? Pagan Perspectives." ...
"There is nothing in these books that relates magic to any particular religion," said Hillman. "There is no connection. None. None. Zero. ... They are not really about witchcraft."

Ah, but what are the books about? All kinds of people have found all kinds of messages in these books in the past and that phenomenon, clearly, is continuing. I say that because of an interesting Boston Globe news feature that ran the other day under the head, “Could Harry Potter become a spiritual leader?

Could? Is there any question that many people have already treated Rowling’s work as semi-holy? The key to this story shows up really early on:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Beam me up, Church of Scotland: Some details missing in mini-feature about online baptism

Religion News service had me at the headline on this report from the other side of the pond: "Church of Scotland to consider online baptisms, Communion."

I think that's part of my problem with this very, very short news story.

Now, when you hear the phrase "online Communion," what image do you get in your mind's eye? At the very least, is has to be a rather Protestant image in that it involves worship taking place in a digital, online, visual environment -- with the person on the other side of this liturgical encounter actually consuming analog bread and wine (or something).

Where do the Communion elements come from? Are they shipped to the online flock members, perhaps through a liturgical variation on Amazon Prime? Do the worshippers provide their own elements (raising the previously "or something" issue).

These are questions that any journalist would ask, right? I mean, don't we need to define our terms?

This brings me to the totally new sacramental concept -- at least for me, as an Eastern Orthodox Christian -- that is included in this report. What, precisely, is a rite of "online baptism"? Here is the context:

CANTERBURY, England (RNS) -- The Church of Scotland will launch a two-year investigation into the possibility of introducing online baptisms, Communion and other Christian sacraments.
The church, known as The Kirk, has seen its rolls fall by almost one-third between 2004 and 2015, to just under 364,000 members. 


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Instructing v. reporting on gay clergy from The Times

What’s the difference between advocacy journalism and classical, liberal, some would say “objective” journalism? Advocacy journalism tells you what you should think about a news story while old-school liberal journalism sets out the facts of the story and lets you make up your own mind. The first method produces copy that fits a pre-determined template. The second is rooted in professional standards in which professionals strive for accuracy, balance, fairness, etc.

A comparison of the coverage by The Times and The Scotsman of this week’s vote by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to allow gay clergy succinctly illustrates the assumptions and agenda of these two schools. While both articles give the same essential fact pattern, The Times tells you what you should think about the vote, while The Scotsman lays out the facts and gives voice to the participants — letting you decide.

The story entitled “Desire for church unity opens way for gay clergy” on the front page of the Scottish edition of The Times begins:


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Pod people: Presby-speak again

Pod people: Presby-speak again

The meaningless drivel that passes for public language these days was the major theme of my chat last week with Todd Wilken, the host of Issues, Etc.  In our conversation broadcast on 24 May 2013, Todd and I discussed my article “Scotland the confused: Did Presbyterians back gay clergy?”, posted at GetReligion and talked about all that double-talk.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Scotland the confused: Did Presbyterians back gay clergy?

Something happened on Monday at the General Assembly the Church of Scotland — they appear to have become Anglicans. No — they didn’t change from a Presbyterian to Episcopal form of church government. They did something more Anglican than combining bishops with Calvinism.  They’ve accepted the sacred “yes/but”  Anglican doctrine of deliberate confusion,  and have adopted a policy on gay clergy that no one quite seems to understand.


Please respect our Commenting Policy