Episcopal Church considers changing stance on gay marriages
THE head of Scotland’s Episcopal Church has launched a veiled attack on the opposition from senior Catholics to same-sex marriage, claiming it raises “significant issues” about the “relationship between church and state”.
In an intervention that shows the deepening split in Scotland’s faith communities over the issue, the Most Rev David Chillingworth, Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, defends the SNP government’s “right” to give full legal status to gay wedding ceremonies.
Writing in The Scotsman today, Rev Chillingworth, who is also the Bishop of St Andrews, Dunkeld and Dunblane, hints that his church may “consider changing our canonical definition of marriage”.
His comments come after a series of high-profile attacks on the Scottish Government’s consultation on same-sex marriage from the Catholic Church, which has backed a call from former SNP leader Gordon Wilson for a referendum on the issue, as well as sending out 100,000 protest cards to parishioners. Rev Chillingworth also dismissed suggestions from opponents of gay marriage that the Scottish Government “does not have a mandate” to change the law and said it was clear there would be an “opt-out” for churches not wanting to conduct same-sex marriages.
He also invoked Jesus, who he said “spent time with people who didn’t fit the conventional pattern” who were “deemed unacceptable by others”.
Rev Chillingworth writes: “The consultation period is very short. Among the things we shall say will be that if – and it’s a big if – we were to consider changing our canonical definition of marriage, that would require a two-year process in our General Synod, the outcome of which could not be predicted with any certainty.
“It seems to me that some of the points being made – particularly comments from our ecumenical partners in the Catholic Church – raise significant issues about how we understand the relationship between church and state. They also raise important questions about the nature of the church itself.
“If, following the consultation period, the Scottish Government and parliament feel that they should legislate in this way, I believe that it is their right to do so.
“It is clear that there would be an ‘opt-out’ protection for those who cannot accept this. Churches and faith groups would have to decide whether they wished to use or to stand outside the provisions of such legislation.The suggestion has been made that the Scottish Government does not have a mandate to introduce legislation which is of such fundamental significance for our society.
“Jesus did not call the church into being as a citadel of orthodoxy. He was constantly criticised because he spent time with people who didn’t fit the conventional patterns and were deemed unacceptable by others.”
Rev Chillingworth goes on to say that the consultation represents a challenge “to think seriously about our society, its values and its patterns of family life.” He writes: “The suggestion has been made that the Scottish Government does not have a mandate to introduce legislation which is of such fundamental significance for our society.
“The implication is that these are ‘non-negotiable’ areas. If the Scottish Government was proposing to legislate to enshrine in law discrimination on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, colour or race, I would publicly oppose their moral right to do so. But that is not the nature of these consultation proposals.”
However, Peter Kearney, media director of the Catholic Church in Scotland, defended the right to comment on “contentious and potentially divisive” plans to allow gay marriage.
He said: “Church and state should be separate but every individual and organisation in society has a right to express a view on the political process especially when its proposals are contentious and potentially divisive.
“The consultation process has many flaws. A much wider public debate is needed. This issue cannot amount to the exchange of documents by a very few participants.”
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Monday 28 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: 10 C to 16 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 17 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
Khushrenada
Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 01:21 AMI don't think he was trying to say that the bible or indeed the church are in any way about to approve of homosexuality or that any part of the bible specifically condoned it. The point he's trying to make is that Scotland isn't an exclusively catholic nation, it's a democratic one. One that is supposed to enshrine freedom of belief. Thus non-catholicschristians etc should be free to live their life as they please without interference from people who believe otherwise. Just as religious bodies are free to run themselves without the interference of athiests and agnostics. Even Jesus himself was a fan of this kind of thinking if scripture is anything to go by. Hate the sin not the sinner is hardly a stonesthrow away from believe in what you believe and I'll believe in what I do. The main fact that bugs me in this whole debate isn't same sex marriage at all. It's that the government shouldn't really be asking people. Gay people don't demand the right to abolish straight marriage, Athiests don't demand the right to abolish religion. So why are catholics afforded the oppertunity to demand something which has nothing to do with them (since they will be able to opt out of said marriages) ? Gay people largely aren't orthodox catholics. If they believe something is right why is the GOVERNMENT telling them about their beliefs ? It doesn't do it to the religions. The fact is that believing that same sex marriage should be illegal (because you believe it is wrong) and that everyone should have the freedom to find their own beliefs in a country are two mutually exclusive ideas. Also just to be clear, the "traditional" definition of marriage historically speaking is the complete ownership of a woman. Marriage pre-dates the catholic church so it really doesn't have much say in the wider definition of it, only in it;s own affairs with it (performing catholic weddings etc). I'm not saying gay marriage is right or wrong. I'm saying PEOPLE and NOT the GOVERMENT should be able to decide this for themselves. If two guys or two girls want to go get married and they're not harming anyone (except themselves by sinning in the catholic view). Then let them, because after all do we really want the government legislating on their interpretation of various scriptures?
cjb122
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 06:26 PMComment removed by moderator
jmar
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 02:51 PMAll the words of the Bible are the words of Jesus. Jesus is God, Jesus is the Word. God the Father revealed Himself through Jesus and spoke through His apostles and prophets by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Again ALL the words in scripture are the words of Jesus. (Mat. 5:17) Jesus said "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." The Old Covenant is a mere shadow of the New, it is meant to point us to Christ. Homosexuality and immorality are clearly sins and Christ has come that we may be rescued from these things as well as so many other sins. For we are all guilty "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom. 3:23 and I, like Paul, count myself the cheif of sinners. Christ has come to save but He will come again to judge those who have not recognized who He is and their need for His grace. It is not my intention to cause strife between us, I sincerley desire that you would see your need. Those that you spoke of that committed heinous acts in the name of Jesus are a terrible apostasy. I aggree with you, the bible warns us time and again of people such as these, they do great harm to the testimony of the true "invisible" church. May Christ be glorified.
M78
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 12:37 PMComment removed by moderator
gung_ho
Saturday, October 15, 2011 at 08:43 AMwhy is 'unfortunate and misleading' that all my quotes are from the old testament'? Isn't this where everyone else takes their quotes on homosexuality from? If we're throwing most of the Bible away and just listening to what Jesus said, can you perhaps tell me what he said specifically on the issue of homosexuality? And no, I'm not interested in what Paul said, or Peter, or any other third party - just Jesus. and comment #11 - can you tell me how many thousands of people were killed in subsequent centuries by Christians, in the name of Christianity, once the shoe was on the other foot?
jmar
Friday, October 14, 2011 at 10:40 PMgung_ho, it is unfortunate and misleading that all your quotes are from the Old Testament. I don't hold you completely accountable for your ignorance. Obviously you don't understand the decree of God. We are no longer under the Old Covenant but we have been given a New Covenant that our Lord Jesus established. You will find this in the New Testament. We have been given a new law, one that far surpasses the old, it is a law of faith and of love. Peace.
Offering
Friday, October 14, 2011 at 10:09 PMThe early church was born under a pagan Roman empire that torched them under Nero, threw them to the lions and crucified them. The first martyr was Stephen who was stoned to death by high ranking Jewish people. Saul of Tarsus a religious Pharisee is an example. The point I make is that the Christians still practiced their faith even when Caesar declared himself as Lord and they refused to bow down to him. In the Old Testament Daniel was betrayed and refused to bow down and his life was endangered as a result. Whether or not Scotland becomes a secular state or not and legislates for anti-biblical doctrine the church of Jesus Christ should still retain its faith and practice. The heather of Scotland was stained before by the blood of the martyrs. This was because of religious persecution, the next phase could be persecution from a secular state the same as the early church were killed by pagan multi-religious Rome. The Scottish parliament can legislate what it wants, it is up to the people to vote according to their conscience in the next election.
AntrimReformer
Friday, October 14, 2011 at 08:30 PMThese comments are amazing - is the Bishop seeking to defend secularism or Biblical Christianity. He is a fool who would reject the authority of Holy Scripture and therefore Biblical Marriage. If he wishes to be politically correct he should follow Richard Holloway and leave the Scottish Episcopal Church. At present he seems to be in keen alignment with Alex Salmond and the SNP in this matter ?
mcginty156
Friday, October 14, 2011 at 01:14 PM'Jesus did not call the church into being as a citadel of orthodoxy. He was constantly criticised because he spent time with people who didn’t fit the conventional patterns and were deemed unacceptable by others.' This is all very well, but Jesus, although he spent time with these people, came not to do away with such things as orthodoxy and convention, but rather to redefine them. The problem with Rev Chillingworth's church is that though they may have certain ideals and beliefs, they seem so divided on the matter at hand that they have the opposite problem; very little orthodoxy or convention. They therefore have little to contribute to this debate. It sounds as if he is saying what he says because he himself has a strong opinion. But that does not mean his views are representative.
Red Etin
Friday, October 14, 2011 at 10:35 AMSame - sex "marriages" cannot be consummated, and are therefore not valid.
gung_ho
Friday, October 14, 2011 at 08:29 AMHi if Rev Mervyn Cotton wishes to take all of his guidance on marriage from the Bible, can he confirm that in his church he is happy to solemnize the following compulsory marriages: a rapist and his victim - if she is a virgin (Deut 22:28-29); a widow and her brother-in-law in the event of her husband's death - and she must submit sexually (Gen 38:6-10); a male slave and a female slave, as matched by their owner (Exodus 21:4); the virgin girls taken as spoils of war after Moses ordered the genocide of the Midianites (Numbers 31:1-18)...I could go on. Can he also reassure me he will ensure the stoning to death of any children who disrespect their parents (Deut 21:18-21); any children making fun of bald people (2 Kings 2:23-24); anyone collecting sticks on the sabbath (Num 15:32-35); and indeed me for writing this comment (Leviticus 24:10-16)
Rev Mervyn Cotton
Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 11:39 PMIf Scotland's Episcopal Church is prepared to cast off the Word of God entirely and to convert to Secularism, then they ought to have the decency to drop the term Christian. As a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I am appalled at what Rev Chillingworth has said; 'He also invoked Jesus, who he said “spent time with people who didn't fit the conventional pattern” who were “deemed unacceptable by others”.' It appears that he is using the sinless, spotless impeccably pure Son of God, to support homosexuality, this is outrageous. From a Christian perspective, homosexuality, according to God's Word is sin (1Cor6:9-11) According to the Scriptures homosexual marriage is both immoral and unethical. For Rev Chillingworth to support homosexual marriage then he has to deny the clear truth of (1Cor6:9-11); (Rom1:26-27); (Rom1:24); (Gen2:24); (Heb13:4) perhaps he would like to debate these Scriptures, if so, then I will gladly oblige.
Hugh V McLachlan Elderslie
Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 09:34 PMIt would be highly unchristian to say that only Christian forms of marriage should be legal. Furthermore, the notion that there is a particularly Christian sort of marriage is highly dubious. It smacks of pop-sociology rather than of genuine theology. From what we can gather from the gospels, Christ was not particularly concerned to promote any particular sort of child-rearing family unit.
Pablitopanama
Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 07:36 PMThis debate is getting dull, are there no more pressing problems we need to address in Scottish society? Personally as a gay man I don't see the need to move from the current situation of civil partnerships. As far as the church is concerned I think church leaders overestimate both their authority and their influence over the population - who really cares or worries what they think apart from their ageing and dwindling flocks? Sorry but if you think society is going down the pan because a small number of gay people want to "marry" then you are a very ignorant and narrow minded person. If the church wants to save Scotland then focus on the REAL problems such as poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, social exclusion, depression etc etc etc - not the private lives of gay people. The church assumes the moral high ground but fails to provide practical solutions to these problems because it is too busy worrying what I do in private with my partner!
bill2
Thursday, October 13, 2011 at 07:31 PMSame-sex marriage is an oxymoron.
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.