Groundhog Days

35 years ago, the American Episcopal Church took unilateral action which threatened to divide the Anglican Communion: then it was ordaining women, now it's gay bishops and blessings. But 35 years on, on the divisive issue they stand somewhat vindicated and the world still turns and Armageddon hasn't happened. Will the same still be true in another 35 years? Probably.

For the record, I thought the world had ended back in 1994 when the SEC got round to ordaining women. I was wrong. The Church has certainly changed but they are in many ways changes for the better. I was there at the Provincial Conference when two friends took to the floor for the Gay Gordon's. Both being male this caused much comment and many said they were being brave. That was within the last 10 years. We have moved on and Laus Deo!

I enjoyed a a rather nice Indian meal last night, munching something from the menu the owners said was made just the way their mother had when they were growing up in tropical Corstorphine. Lovely spinach and lamb and a fair nippy dose of ground green chillies. And yes, before our West Coast correspondents say it, it probably wisnae a patch on the delicacies found in Curry Alley. But good it was and this place doesn't actually sell alcohol so I felt totally comfortable.

Inside out

It's odd to be consulted about what do we do about the swine flu thingy in church. I opined that it was rather a fuss over very little, but suggested "In one kind for the duration". Well, it's a parish with an Anglo-Catholic tradition, so less bother than two person dunkies at the altar rail.

I've been musing that I seem to know or hear of a lot of clergy who end up in the sort of situation I am currently in. Stress, dysfunction, emotional crisis and being overwhelmed. Not all male or single, some married some not - all sorts and conditions as the Prayer Book put it. Why? Books and books have been written about it but from where I stand much of it is to do with unrealistic expectations of self and from congregations, the stress of managing a declining institution and above all being at the same time the ultimate insider and the absolute outsider. Insider because you are the focus of so much activity in the pastoral sphere, the public persona of the charge (hence the old title Parson,)the one who gets it in the neck if Mrs McGlumphie disnae get a visit when she's got the passing bug. (Never mind that you only find oot she was sick when you meet her en route to the bingo after she's recovered). But also the outsider because you are not permanent. You move on in stipendiary ministry. Not matter how much you want to be part of the family, you know you will move out and it must be especially bad after 20+ years in the same place when you retire and rip up a whole network of friendships and familiarity. I think what I am looking for at this stage of my life is a sense of actually really belonging somewhere and with someone. For years I tried to tell me this wasn't the case and now I find it is. Hmm.

Looking around the Church and at its wounded clergy, I wonder if we need our own FoCA in Scotland - Fellowship of Crocked Anglicans? I'd think about joining that.

A new rite, new ritual.

I checked out the recently published Niagara Rite for the Blessing of a Civil (i.e. Same Sex) Relationship and was mildly underwhelmed. Some good bits, some bland bits and some very odd bloopers. Since when was Thomas a Kempis a secular writer? Ain't they heard of the Imitation of Christ in Southern Canada? And JRR Tolkien - know they not that some wag will duly christen this the Hobbit Liturgy for Julian and Sandy? (There, I've done it!!)

Today we had the arrival in the SEC of the Archbishop's (York and Cauntuar) ideas on what to do about Communion in the time of Swine flu. Being off duty and not responsible for the implementation was a mercy, so I have to say I found the use of the Indian palms together and bow gesture at the peace a rather effective replacement for the hugathon we call the peace. Not entirely sure about the dishing out of intincted wafers by the clergy: very slow I thought. And I dislike getting a soggy wafer planked into my mitt, so I did the old Anglo-Papalist tongue out trick. Later it was pointed out that this actually made it more likely to spread infection as the administrator might touch my tongue or lips. Personally, I think that if you think there is a real, serious risk of infection, communion in one kind for the duration seems to be the answer. No mess, no fluid, no problem.

Strife in the Heather!

I am gently amused by some of the stuff in the Hootsmon today about the Great Homecoming Hooley at Holyrood, particularly the rant article by the Vice President of the Clan MacKenzie Society. According to Mr Mackenzie, the clans of the North were all geared to do a 2009 thingummy about the Gaeltach when a sneaky crew of LOWLAND clans jumped in, negotiated with Visit Scotland and sprang this Homecoming lark on everyone with minimal consultation. It also has a nifty price tag attached to getting in to Holyrood park for the Highland Games (I think £15 to watch big hairy men in kilts tossing their cabers et al is a bit steep meself). I think it's the Highland/Lowland schism that makes me grin most. It seems Fraser's, Mackenzie's and other are boycotting this do. It's like "Culloden: the Replay". History tells us that there were more Lowland Scots than Englishmen shooting at the Jacobite's on Drumossie Moor. We just can't get along can we? And the English think we don't like them?

No puritans allowed!

Having watched a wee bit of "Question Time" tonight, I had a sudden revelation as to why George Galloway called his party "Respect": you might respect his political integrity, but you couldn't really like him much. There was just too much of the sanctimonious righteousness about his contributions for my taste. The principled purist or Puritan does little for me in religion or politics. I prefer a little human flexibility, the odd acknowledged flaw to temper the histrionics of the righteous.

Which made me think: using those criteria, what (or rather who) would be my ideal dinner party from religion and politics for a fascinating evening? 4 from each field. Here goes:

God botherers: Harry Williams CR, Lionel Blue, John Henry Newman, Teresa of Avila.

Hacks: Tony Benn, Bill Clinton, Peter Mandelson, Betty Boothroyd.

A mildly eclectic mix but here's why for me: Williams and Blue's autobiographies have moved and touched me for years. Laughed and cried at both of them. Newman was a quite rigid and inflexible mind to look at but he moved from evangelicalism, to Tractarian to RC and learned and grew as he went. Teresa: a late flowering saint with a sense of humour! Tony Benn has zeal but a redeeming with and integrity, Clinton is flawed but pragmatic and brilliant. Mandelson - it would be fascinating to see this able, brilliant and very famously flawed political genius batting off the rest of this crew. And Madame Speaker? Her overviews and observations would be very enlightening.

Anyone else any thoughts or comments?