Ship of Fools: Scottish Episcopal Church Rejects Anglican Covenant

Thread: Scottish Episcopal Church Rejects Anglican Covenant Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023141

Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on :

I read an interesting article on the Church of Scotland's vote to reject the Anglican Covenant here:

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005529.html

I was intrigued by the speech given by the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church on why he thinks the Anglican Covenant was rejected, and his proposal of an alternative viewpoint.

His viewpoint is given in a downloadable PDF file from the same website I listed above.

I'd be interested in the opinions of U.K. Anglicans about the Primus's speech. It seemed very sensible to me, but I'm an American TEC member, so your onsite opinions would interest me.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Point of Pedantry: The Scottish Episcopal Church is NOT the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian and is a totally different body.

We now return your to your regularly scheduled Anglican Communion OMG we're all gonna die!!!2 thread.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I don't think anyone is surprised by the decision. The SEC is, if anything, more liberal than the CofE, and the covenant was a pretty clearly directed conservative smack at liberals within the Anglican communion.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Point of Pedantry: The Scottish Episcopal Church is NOT the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian and is a totally different body.

We now return your to your regularly scheduled Anglican Communion OMG we're all gonna die!!!2 thread.

Actually, an attempt to explain the difference to Ship's Stowaway on this thread:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=017070;p=3#000141

Some of us don't see the situation as that dire.

Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on :

Dear Sober Preacher's Kid, Arethosemyfeet and Sir Pellinore:

Sober Preacher's Kid: I laughed so hard at the "We now return you to your regularly scheduled Anglican Communion OMG we're all gonna die!!!2 thread."

[Killing me]

You are absolutely correct that the SEC is entirely different from the Church of Scotland -- I'm actually very familiar with the 17th century history of how the two separate and very different denominations developed, but being tired yesterday I unaccountably mixed up their names --

It is definitely an important point.

Arethosemyfeet: thank you for elaborating on the SEC being more liberal than the CofE. I was not sure how they were perceived in the UK. This is helpful.

Sir Pellinore: Thank you also for adding clarity. I read a lot of TEC websites commenting on what we think UK Anglicans think, but it is better to hear from UK folks directly.

I should probably find SEC and CofE websites to read regularly -- so far, I have only found very official ones that don't convey much about what the two groups' members think -- "today's party line censored news" --

[Biased]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Alas, Ship's Stowaway, I am a "mere" Australian, although I do have both British and American relatives so am very interested in both places.

Being tired and therefore making mistakes is a human failing. From what you say elsewhere you are making a return to the Anglican Church and are enthusiastic about it. So many are deathlessly bored and seemingly lifeless you are a welcome returnee. Would there were more like you!

Welcome back and thrive!

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

I was vastly amused that someone was expecting Scottish Episcopalians to sign up to a Covenant. Historically tone deaf or what? [Big Grin]

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

I find the arrogance of the liberals in claiming the title 'thinking' somewhat depressing: as Martin Luther said: 'Reason is a whore that will serve any master.'

The story is told that at the 78 Lambeth conference the Africans were dismissed as uneducated. So they set about sending their best clergy to get higher degrees at Western universities. Apparently these days African bishops tend to be more highly qualified than the Americans... Funny how this hasn't sunk in yet; 'poorly educated American bishops failed once again to engage with the intellectual challenges of the South, resulting in their prejudices remaining unchallenged' is an article I look forward to seeing.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Who are these unqualified American bishops?

For every unqualified American bishop you list, please list a more qualified African bishop.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I was vastly amused that someone was expecting Scottish Episcopalians to sign up to a Covenant. Historically tone deaf or what?

(Maybe it should be binding on the C of S then?)

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Who are these unqualified American bishops?

For every unqualified American bishop you list, please list a more qualified African bishop.

I didn't say 'unqualified', I said LESS qualified. My point was to challenge the propensity of libruls to claim the academic high ground for their beliefs. The Americans are adequately qualified, no doubt, but so are the Africans.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

OK

So, give me the names of some American bishops you think are less qualified than the average African bishop. Then, give me the names of some African bishops from every province who are more qualified than the average American bishop. You made a bold claim. Back it up.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I can't see how it matters either way - there are plenty of highly educated people who aren't Christians at all, so the education in itself is not an argument for authority. There are also people with degrees from quite prestigious universities who are still dangerous lunatics - Nick Griffin being one obvious and odious example.

Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :

It comes as no suprise whatsoever to me. The feedback from my Diocesan Synod was overwhelmingly negative, and I have no doubt that the sections that caused us (Glasgow & Galloway) concern will have been of equal concern to the other dioceses.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
There are also people with degrees from quite prestigious universities who are still dangerous lunatics - Nick Griffin being one obvious and odious example.

Having recently read (for example) an interesting article on the incredible cowardice and complicity of German academia under the Third Reich, its not exactly hard to point out that being intelligent and educated doesn't generally make one an inch more or less moral.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Actually, Yerevan, you brought to mind my old Headmaster, now long deceased, who, in the mid 1960s, before the PhD production lines in this country got under way, saying some of the stupidest people he knew had PhDs.

Academic qualifications per se do not necessarily produce real wisdom, insight or moral courage. These are, in my opinion, rare in all sectors of the community.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
OK

So, give me the names of some American bishops you think are less qualified than the average African bishop. Then, give me the names of some African bishops from every province who are more qualified than the average American bishop. You made a bold claim. Back it up.

This isn't any help, but I have seen a list from the last Lambeth conference which compared African bishops' academic qualifications with TEC and ACoC bishops, and they had more earned doctorates, as an absolute figure and as a percentage. I've spent a bit of time looking for it, but could not find it. I recall noting at the time that only one ACoC diocesan bishop had an earned doctorate (I except the DMin, which is an advanced trades certificate).

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Ender's Shadow is apparently right on this one. In Africa, bishops apparently function as theologians. This isn't the case in the United States and Canada. Probably isn't the case in most of the Anglican Communion. Plenty of priests and lay people in TEC have earned doctorates. They just don't get elected bishop. There is something to be said for bishops being theologians.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Perhaps, Beeswax Altar, by attempting to function as genuine theologians and thus spiritual guides to their perplexed flocks, the African bishops are attempting to fulfil their mandates as "fathers in Christ"?

Few Anglican bishops in Australia could do that. Most of them are (at times rather disastrous) ecclesiastical administrators.

The Anglican Communion is in ferment. Bishops do need to (genuinely and humbly) guide their flocks. Many can't and are over-involved in ecclesiastical power politics with disastrous results.

Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on :

Dear Sir Pellinore, Louise, and Kingsfold:

Sir Pellinore: I am happy to hear from an Australian! Thank you for your kind welcome to me as a returnee to the Anglican Communion. I am very pleased to be back and people on the Ship have made me feel welcome and helped with some rough spots in the transition.

[Axe murder]

Louise: I laughed out loud at your comment "Someone was expecting Scottish Episcopalians to sign up to a Covenant. Historically tone deaf or what?"

Too true! From what I know of the Covenanters in Scots history and their (extremely negative relationship) with the Scottish Episcopalians, calling the proposed document the "Anglican Covenant" was a very poor choice of words.

[Killing me]

Kingsfold: Thank you re: feedback on Anglican Covenant vote from the viewpoint of Glasgow and Galloway -- I appreciated getting "you-are-there" information.

Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I find the arrogance of the liberals in claiming the title 'thinking' somewhat depressing: as Martin Luther said: 'Reason is a whore that will serve any master.'

No more arrogant or depressing than conservative TEC leavers claiming the title "orthodox."

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Is Scottish nationalism perhaps a factor?

Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on :

Dear Golden Key:

Your thought that the Scottish Episcopal Church might be motivated by Scottish nationalism in rejecting the Anglican Covenant is very interesting.

If you look at their Primus' speech, though, there is no reference to Scots nationalism -- it is a very friendly,respectful speech that talks about other ways for groups within the Anglican Communion to cooperate:

http://www.scotland.anglican.org/media/news/files/primus_anglican_communion.pdf

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

Scottish nationalism is a funny beast. Of all the political parties, it seems to operate happily across most denominations, from the wee-est of wee Frees to the highest of Episcopalians. Even the Catholic vote in Scotland, which was once a Labour block vote, has in recent years started to vote sometimes for the socialist-inclined Nats - many of whose MSPs are Catholic.

In fact, this is pretty much true of all the Scottish political parties (though the Catholic block will never vote Tory, nor Lib Dem now either). There is no equivalent nowadays of 'the Tory party at prayer' up here: the closest thing I can think of is the kind of rural 'established' Church of Scotland I grew up with, and that was pretty marginal even then. The Episcopalians are neither unionist nor nationalist in policy: it is simply not a religious issue.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

Also I imagine that the SEC would have more than the usual share of Sassenachs.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Many Sassenachs may well find a home in the SEC. I think, by and large, the membership would be Scottish. The Duke of Argyll is an Episcopalian. It has always been strong in certain areas, I believe. Parts of the Highlands and Islands were strongly Episcopalian till it was proscribed after the '45. The Lowlands were where the Kirk was strongest.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

My impression, which could be wrong, is that the cross over between religion and politics in Scotland at the moment is less about party politics / unionism / nationalism and more about single-issue campaigning. Opposition to Trident for example, is one area where the churches take political action.

However, I'm outwith the Central Belt, and don't have my finger on the pulse.

Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :

That's my impression too, NEQ. It's the same with a certain Dead Horse issue, where there are strong political views in churches, and strong religious beliefs among the MSPs, but these do not correspond at all (as far as I can see) to any particular party's policies on the matter.

Nor are a person's beliefs on such an issue necessarily a deal-breaker in terms of which party they vote for: the Catholic Church in Scotland has been campaigning strongly against same-sex marriage, but it has not as yet instructed its voters to vote for or against a particular party. Besides, all parties are broadly supportive of same-sex marriage, so where would they go?

See this article to get a sense of the spectrum.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

The link between Scottish Nationalism and religion is that its growth was assisted by the decline of religion, especially protestantism.

The problem for Nationalists was that Presbyterianism, the custodian of dominant the dominant national culture, was supportive of the Union with both England and Ireland because its interests domestically were enhanced by it, and it had affinities with the presbyterian minority in Ireland. Britain was a concept in which presbyterians were active participants, because it articulated their view of Scottish national interest.

Scottish Catholics of Irish extraction (the majority), though nationalists respecting Ireland, were less so with respect to Scotland because they feared rule from Scottish Presbyterians, and with good cause. They did not want, as in Northern Ireland, 'a protestant parliament for a protestant people'. The United Kingdom offered Scottish Catholics a greater protection.

The collapse of the kirk in the last fifty years weakened the post-reformation identity amongst Scottish protestants, making the secular appeal of the SNP more attractive. The political decline of the Scottish Unionist (now Conservative) Party maps that development since the 1950s. A later weakening of Scottish Catholicism, especially in the West of Scotland, has also been exploited by the SNP, though the culturally Catholic Irish-originating working class vote in the West remains a core (though weakening) Labour constituency. By and large, however, religion no longer acts to cement the union with England. Scottish Nationalism as political separatism, therefore, is a function of secularisation. Politically, the churches have become peripheral.

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Many Sassenachs may well find a home in the SEC. I think, by and large, the membership would be Scottish. The Duke of Argyll is an Episcopalian. It has always been strong in certain areas, I believe. Parts of the Highlands and Islands were strongly Episcopalian till it was proscribed after the '45. The Lowlands were where the Kirk was strongest.

There was a very strong English presence at the SEC church I attended while at university in Scotland. Interestingly enough, an old plaque on the wall noted it to be an "English Episcopal Church" which made me wonder if there were previously two separate institutions: the SEC and a sort of Church of England abroad as it were.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I believe that this was the case for about a dozen congregations, but they were integrated into the Scottish Episcopal Church in the early 1800s although even in the 1850s, several were unhappy about their situation.

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

The "English Episcopal Churches" were part of the CofE diocese of Carlisle and were lawful during the times the piskies were semi-proscribed. My presby great great grandfather is quoted in his 18th century biography as saying "he didnot know the gospel until he came to the lowlands" which leads me to believe his village in Perthshire (Portmore then now called St Fillans) was episcopalian.

Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on :

Dear Cod, Augustine the Aleut and Oyetsfoma:

Thank you for the information about CofE outpost congregations in Scotland prior to the modern era that existed separately from the Scottish Episcopal Church in the era when the SEC was semi-proscribed.

I had always wondered if any existed in the past, and this answered the question.

[ 13. June 2012, 06:57: Message edited by: Ship's Stowaway ]

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The Duke of Argyll is an Episcopalian.

That's an interesting turnaround from an historical perspective as his Campbell ancestors were in the vanguard of the original Covenanters.

Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on :

Dear pre-Cambrian:

Like you, I was surprised to see that the comment that the current Duke of Argyll is an Episcopalian.

The original Marquis of Argyll was a major Covenanter leader. Unfortunately, he was also a vindictive and treacherous person -- I believe his behavior ultimately harmed the Covenanters and their cause:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Campbell,_1st_Marquess_of_Argyll

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

The SEC also does not have roots in the 1662, and thus with it's daughter churches (TEC for example) is more Laudian:

See http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Scotland/BCP_1637.htm

So the seemingly 1662 obsessed Covenant was a slap in the face.

Posted by otyetsfoma (# 12898) on :

When I was young the Duke of Argyle was an extreme anglo-catholic, belonging to all the party-line organizations. When he died his heir seemed to have no particular interest, but presumably he had been brought up piskie. I have no idea how many generations that was ago.

Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on :

Dear Edward Green and Otyetsfoma:

Edward Green: Thank you for the information about the 1637 SEC prayerbook. I have been very curious about it, since it formed the foundation of the American TEC Book of Common Prayer.

I had no idea that the Anglican Covenant's emphasis on the 1662 English BCP prayer book would have been offensive to the SEC, so you have taught me something.

I am going to try and learn more about the SEC's history, since they appear to have been more central to the American TEC than I had previously realized.

Otyetsfoma: I did a quick internet search and the Duke of Argyll who was Anglo-Catholic appears here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Campbell,_10th_Duke_of_Argyll

The Wikipedia doesn't mention him being Anglo-Catholic, but I found a reference to it in a now-vanished page on the English Our Lady of Walsingham website, where the 60th anniversary of his death was commemorated in 2009.

Thank you for the information -- it is a fascinating piece of history.

I think the original Marquess of Argyll in the 17th century would have been astounded to think of a descendant of his becoming an Anglo-Catholic.

Really appreciate the historical information!

Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on :

Dear Edward Green:

Thank you for posting the link to SEC history. I have followed more links and downloaded a 1909 reprint with modern English spelling of the Scottish Book of Common Prayer that Charles I attempted to promulgate in Scotland in 1637.

I can see where much of it was imported wholesale into the TEC Book of Common Prayer in 1789.

Fascinating!

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ship's Stowaway:
Dear Edward Green and Otyetsfoma:

Edward Green: Thank you for the information about the 1637 SEC prayerbook. I have been very curious about it, since it formed the foundation of the American TEC Book of Common Prayer.

I had no idea that the Anglican Covenant's emphasis on the 1662 English BCP prayer book would have been offensive to the SEC, so you have taught me something.

Well it is a bit rude. Certainly there are plenty in the CofE who would rather use 1549 than 1662 - indeed in may ways the 1928 revision the UK Parliament rejected was a return to 1549.

Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on :

Dear Edward Green:

Thank you! I am learning a lot.

What has especially surprised me is that the 1637 BCP of the Scottish Episcopal Church managed to survive, at least in some ways, as the foundation of their 18th century prayer book, despite the immense outrage non-Anglican Scots felt towards it in the 17th century.

I had always thought that when Charles I was defeated on this issue, that particular BCP just vanished into thin air.

I learn a great deal from my Shipmates in general, and this thread has been especially informative!

[Overused]

Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on :

Dear Edward Green:

An additional thought -- I can't help but think how pleased Charles I and Laud and the two Scottish bishops who worked on it would have been by the 1637 SEC Book of Common Prayer's survival into this era.

They certainly would have been profoundly surprised to see it become the foundation for the BCP of "rebel colonies" nearly 150 years later.

All of them must have felt in their lifetimes as though all that work on that particular prayer book was in vain.

I guess it shows that we can never predict what spiritual projects will succeed or fail and in what ways or how long it will take to see the results.

[Biased]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0