Why I’m Still Not Convinced By The Cascade Conversations

Kelvin has written nearly everything you need to know about the listening process that we endured at Synod today, and you all know what I thought of it before this started. If you haven’t already, read his first.

I knew precious little about what we were getting at Synod. I knew that we were expecting a presentation on what happened at Pitlochry and then small group table discussions, and I knew that there would be no time for discussion as a whole Synod or feedback from the groups. I knew the last part because I went hopping mad at my own Diocesan Bishop when I learned of it at our pre-Synod meeting last week.

Let me tell you something about a whole Synod discussion and about small group table discussions. The Scottish Episcopal Church is changing the way we train people for ministry, and this morning we had a conversation about that in our small groups and then we had an incredibly fruitful conversation and Q&A as a whole Synod. Because the changing of TISEC to the Scottish Episcopal Institute is important business that means a lot for the life of our Church and that a lot of people have a lot of questions about, and so we discuss it in this way, together, so that concerns can be raised and answers given and lively debate had. I ask you, what is less important about the inclusion of LGBT people in the life of our Church and the way we treat them and their relationships that means that we do not discuss that together and that it does not have to appear in Synod minutes?

Does it appear to you that the people who decide how we talk about these things might be frightened of what might happen if we actually talked about them? It appears that way to me.

The presentation on Pitlochry was worse than I expected. And “worse than I expected” is an awfully low bar to clear; I did not go into this with high standards. It became clear to me very quickly that nothing of substance was going to be shared with us in that presentation and I have my suspicions that that means that nothing of substance was discussed in Pitlochry. I began weeping during the presentation and I continued weeping all the way through the table discussion. I feel angry and disrespected and (unsuccessfully) manipulated by the people in charge of my Church, and I feel ashamed of what I have from this Synod to take back to the LGBT members of my congregation, which is nothing.

The table discussion was better than the one I sat through at Diocesan Synod, but I credit that to my having been on a table this week with good people. Unlike at Diocesan Synod, where I sat through chat about Holy Mother Church and sodomites. The fact that I was blessed with sensible people to talk to does not change the fact that we weren’t allowed to achieve anything of substance or to share our views, including the view that same-sex marriages are already part of the life of the Scottish Episcopal Church whether they like it or not, with Synod as a whole.

All around the room, the question was being asked of why are we not just getting on with this? But, of course, God forbid that any Synod members should be allowed to express that view to Synod.

What I have seen in the last two days is that the views of people in the Church are changing and that the Church is growing restless, and that a small number of people who have more power than they should are silencing our voices.

The Primus spoke afterwards about the value of this process in that it does not turn the issue into a debate with winners and losers.

He forgets about those of us who are already losing.

Losing our faith.

Losing our patience.

Losing heart.

Advertisements

9 comments

    1. Can’t. I am becursed with my resurrection faith.

      Besides, Synod as a governing body isn’t going anywhere. I get further by making sure that the people on it are the ones on the side of the angels than I do by throwing out my toys.

  1. Dear Beth, you write very eloquently and passionately. I am struggling with my faith a bit at the moment, small part of that is due to conservative Christian attitudes to homosexuality, and to resolve that with loving people and accepting them. And believing that homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love, I seek to understand if that belief is correct. However your writing concerns me too as I don’t think that ever is the Bible mentioned and Biblical justification for your stance. (Lowers head below parapet again).

    1. I don’t mean this to sound dismissive, but you will understand why after the day I’ve had I have no intention of doing a theological exegesis to justify my existence in the eyes of the Church.

  2. I’m sorry we didn’t get more than a word before I had to go, but I was really too nauseated to be very coherent by then. I pray that we’re not swamped by a tide of platitudinous “niceness” and that we’ll manage to stick with this wallowing institution long enough for it to sort itself out – I’d really prefer a Pisky funeral, after all…

  3. This blog makes me so sad because I fear the church will never change but it also makes me so angry because these stupid, bigoted, narrow minded people forget that my daughter and her friends and the wider LGBT community are people with feelings and emotions and not objects to be discussed and taken apart like something in a 1940’s quatermass experiment. I fear with some of these idiots it might well be that”People in glass houses….etc.

Leave A Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s