Introduction
This story was originally published on Blogger in December 2023 and was
based largely upon newspaper reports, my personal archives and direct
experience of the events portrayed. By early
June 2026 the article had accumulated 392 page views and had generated three
contacts from former choristers, one of whom was actually the custodian of Malcolm
Love’s archive which deals with the whole imbroglio
generated by Malcolm’s dismissal. This correspondent offered to make
Malcolm’s collection available for my use, a proposition which was quickly and
gladly accepted.
The Love compilation of personal and other papers, press cuttings and
photographs provided much new information which I have used to fill the lacunae
in my original account. However, I am
aware that such an extensive addition to my source material, substantially from
one side of the dispute, places a responsibility on me to differentiate clearly
between facts and opinions and to include attributions to claims which are not
my own.
While much more detail concerning the origin and evolution of this
controversy is included below, the conclusions reached are essentially
unaltered. But an enduring conundrum
remains. How could such a dispute arise
in a Christian community and then persist for years without a resolution
emerging? This revised article gives
some important clues which go some way to uncovering the answer.
Aberdeen
in the 1970s
The Granite City has for centuries been a centre of commerce, industry,
government, professional services and education. As such, it has generally enjoyed a higher
level of income and educational attainment than other parts of Scotland,
outside the major conurbations of Glasgow and Edinburgh. But the 1970s brought major, unanticipated
changes to Aberdeen and its hinterland.
From as early as the 1850s small reservoirs of both oil and gas had been
discovered on land in both Britain and European countries bordering the North
Sea, but it was not until the first half of the 1960s that major gas fields
were proven to exist in The Netherlands and the Southern North Sea. In the second half of the decade exploration
moved north, resulting in major offshore discoveries of oil, such as the
Ekofisk and Forties fields. Many more
discoveries followed. Aberdeen was the
sea port best placed by geography, infrastructure and commerce to act as a
service base for this major new industry and for the next 40 years or so there
was a great increase in industrial and commercial activity in the North-East of
Scotland. This included substantial
construction of both housing and commercial premises to accommodate the
incoming companies and their staff.
Even before the arrival of the new hydrocarbon-related businesses, the
villages of Lower Deeside, a few miles west of Aberdeen, particularly Cults,
Bieldside and Milltimber, had become very desirable places to live for families
that could afford the higher house prices of the area, including people
employed in legal services and higher education. The arrival of the burgeoning oil industry
and the associated influx of well-remunerated staff gave a considerable
stimulus to house-building on Lower Deeside.
Some of the incomers originated from other nations, such as the USA, but
they also came from nearby European countries and, of course, England. Cults and Bieldside’s attraction for the
upper middle classes was substantially enhanced and growth of the housing stock
followed.
At the start of the 1970s there were only two major religious denominations,
with their church buildings in the area, the Presbyterian, East and West, Churches
of Scotland and the St. Devenick’s Scottish Episcopal Church, all being located on the North Deeside Road. The Scottish Episcopal Church is an Anglican
Province, Anglicanism having originated with the Church of England which broke
with Roman Catholicism in 1534. The
Scottish Episcopalians essentially follow the practices and liturgy adopted by
the Church of England. It is not
surprising that many of the incomers to Lower Deeside during the oil boom, who
were religious, chose to worship at St Devenick’s. There are seven dioceses within the Scottish
Episcopal Church, St Devenick’s being located in the Diocese of Aberdeen and
Orkney. Each diocese is in the care of a
bishop. Between 1976 and 1991 the
Aberdeen and Orkney incumbent was Bishop Fred Darwent. He will re-appear frequently as this story
unfolds.
The
Scottish Episcopal Church and the Reverend Kenneth Davidson Gordon (1935 – 2021).
Nationally, the Scottish Episcopal Church is governed by a representative
body called the General Synod which meets annually to consider matters of
national importance such as policy priorities and changes to the legal
framework, the Code of Canons, within which this religious movement
operates. Delegates to the General Synod
represent both the laity and the clergy.
At the level of individual congregations, each church has its own
constitution which adds more rules circumscribing the actions of local clergy
and church officers. Unfortunately, as
will be seen in what follows, at the time of the St Devenick’s crisis which
burst on the public scene in 1983, occasioned by the sacking of Malcolm Love as
choirmaster, the formal rules were not always well drafted, containing both
ambiguities and difficulties of interpretation, as well as failing to
anticipate some situations on which guidance might be sought. Further, both church officials and clergy
usually lacked a deep and comprehensive understanding of the rules they were
obliged to follow, or the limits of their authority.
St Devenick, after whom the Bieldside church is named, was a rather
obscure saint but a friend of the more famous St Machar, an Irish priest who
arrived at Iona with St Columba and who later preached to the Picts of
Aberdeenshire. The Lower Deeside Episcopalian congregation first met in a
loft at Bieldside Farm in 1880 but by 1902 sufficient funds had been raised to
construct the present church building. Kenneth Davidson Gordon was born
in Edinburgh in 1935. His secondary education was at George Heriot’s
School, followed by a degree at Edinburgh University from where he graduated in
1957. Subsequently, he trained for the Anglican ministry at Tynedale Hall
and after a number of junior positions in England and Scotland, he was
appointed rector of St Devenick’s church, Bieldside in March 1971 at the start
of the oil boom, moving to live at the manse, 2 Bailieswells Road, with his
wife Edith Jessica. The couple had married in England in 1964.
Kenneth Gordon was further appointed as a canon of St Andrew’s Cathedral,
Aberdeen in 1981.
Dr Malcolm
Love (1927 – 2006)
Robert Malcolm Love, usually called “Malcolm”, was born in West Derby, an affluent suburb of Liverpool, on 30th March 1927 to Richard Archibald Love, a corn broker, and his wife. Malcolm was their only son. His paternal grandfather was a vicar, and the Loves were a religious family. By 1939, but probably much earlier, Malcolm had become a pupil at the Terra Nova preparatory school which had relocated in that year to a new site in extensive grounds on the edge of Congleton, Cheshire. It is likely that Malcolm Love moved on from Terra Nova in about 1940 when he reached the age of 13. His new place of education was the School of English Church Music, which had been established by Sir Sydney Nicholson in 1929 at Buller’s Wood, Chislehurst. Here Malcolm said, “he learned the rudiments of choir training”. In 1945 the SECM became the Royal School of Church Music and relocated to Canterbury Cathedral. Dr Love also said that he attended the RSCM, so possibly he was a pupil in 1945 after the change of name and the move to the ecclesiastical capital of the world-wide Anglican community. In autumn 1945 Malcolm Love entered Liverpool University to study biochemistry and graduated with first class honours three years later. He went on to post-graduate study in the same discipline, graduating Ph D in July 1951. With such a school education, it is not surprising that Malcolm Love would, post-school, wish to continue his involvement in the most sophisticated and traditional Anglican musical genre, as well as preparing for a career in science.
In January
1949, Malcolm Love was a member of a group of seven Liverpool University students
which gave a recital of seventeenth century choral pieces by Byrd, Monteverdi
and Campian in the City Museum during the National Arts Students’ Festival held
in Leeds. Another fellow performer was
Muriel Hodson. Malcolm and Muriel were
engaged in December 1950. They were
married in July of the following year when Malcolm was 24. Edith Muriel Hodson (usually called Muriel)
was the only daughter of Mr and Mrs Frank Hodson of Aintree, a suburb of
Liverpool. The marriage took place at Brook Road Methodist Church,
Urmston, near Manchester. In 1951, the Loves moved to Aberdeen, and
Malcolm became an employee of the Torry Research Station, where he would remain
for the rest of his professional life. This institute had been
established in 1929 and was concerned with the storage and preservation of
caught fish, and the promotion of unwanted species for use in the human diet.
Malcolm’s scientific career was clearly a successful one. In 1968 he was
one of 38 Government scientists who received a merit promotion to a grade
equivalent to a professor or reader in a university. He authored many
scientific papers and was awarded the degree of DSc (Doctor of Science) for his
published work. Malcolm Love was also the author of four books, including
“The Chemical Biology of Fishes”, which was published in 1970. When
conferences of experts on food preservation were sponsored in Aberdeen by the
research station in Torry, Malcolm Love was an inevitable speaker. In
1972, he presented a paper “Food from the sea” at
a British Association for the Advancement of Science conference for young
people held at the University of Sussex.
He would later describe his scientific research work as lying in the
realm of “chemical biology”.
There was
even more substance to Malcolm Love than scientific excellence and a commitment
to church music. He also became a Judo
instructor at Aberdeen University and picked up linguistic expertise in five foreign languages, French, Spanish,
Danish, Norwegian and Japanese!
Thus, Malcolm Love was both an expert on the chemistry of fish storage and preservation and an expert on church music in the high Anglican tradition. After his relocation to Aberdeen, he immediately became involved in the city’s active classical music scene and came under the influence of Mr Willan Swainson. He had arrived in Aberdeen in 1916 as organist and choirmaster at Queen’s Cross Church. In 1925 he was appointed as part-time lecturer in music in the university, having played a prominent civic role as a conductor, organist and choir master. Swainson was later appointed director of music at the university and remained in that post until 1956. Although the exact dates are not known, Malcolm Love studied voice production under the prolific Swainson.
After their
move to Aberdeen, the Love family first lived at Chattan Place in the city but
by 1954 when their first son was born, they had relocated to 117 Craigton Road,
Braeside on the western edge of Aberdeen. By 1976, the family had moved
further out from the city along the same road, to East Silverburn, Kingswells,
which was originally a mill building with a small croft attached.
Initially, Malcolm Love appears to have worshipped at St Andrew’s Episcopal
Cathedral in King Street and there, in 1965, he met Richard Weddle (“a fellow
biochemist”). Richard also played the
organ and had been a pupil of organists Richard Galloway and Ronald Leith.
Both Malcolom Love and Richard Weddle were then members of the St Andrew’s
choir and would later work together at St Devenick’s church in Bieldside. It is uncertain when Malcolm Love moved his
place of worship to St Devenick’s but, on the evidence of one former St
Devenick’s choirboy, it was in or before 1975.
East Silverburn lies about two miles north of Bieldside.
The origin of the St Devenick’s Choir
Canon A
Austin Foster was the incumbent at St Devenick’s, Bieldside from 1910 until his
death in 1942. He was responsible for
the installation of the organ in the church, which took place before1929. The church subsequently employed an
organist. No evidence has been found for
the existence of an organised choir at St Devenick’s before the arrival of Kenneth
Gordon in 1971. However, in June 1972 an
advertisement was placed in the Press and Journal for an organist/choirmaster
at St Devenick’s, presumable a move which was at least authorised by Kenneth
Gordon. It has not been discovered who,
if anyone, was appointed to this role. A choir was
in existence in December 1972, since it performed at the St Nicholas Festival
in Aberdeen, though, with this one exception, it does not appear to have been
active outside the confines of services at St Devenick’s, its home place of
worship.
A correspondent and former choirboy at St Devenick’s, has reported to me
that, “My brother and I
were both choristers under Dr Love in 1974/5 and possibly 6, although we may
have moved away by then. I have many happy memories of singing under Dr Love
and he was definitely the spark that turned into a life-long love of sacred
choral music”. According
to the sleeve notes on the LP record by the Choir of St Devenicks, published in
September 1981, "The decision to try to create a working Anglican choir
from very small beginnings was taken at the end of 1975 (ie before the formal appointment of Malcolm Love as choirmaster in 1978),
as a gesture of defiance at the trend towards emptying churches and vanishing
choirs. Everyone warned that choirboys were now almost impossible to recruit
and that men who could both sing and read music had almost disappeared from the
scene". It is presumed that Malcolm Love, given his traditional
education in church music, was the moving influence in this development.
But, as the record sleeve notes further state, St Devenick’s, Bieldside, had a
number of disadvantages. The church had no choir school (there were 40 in
England but only one in Scotland) to recruit and train new choristers, there
was no regular income and there were no endowments to nourish the start-up and
meet the recurrent costs of an ambitious choir. Further, the church only accommodated
260 worshippers, it had deadening acoustics, and the organ was small and
limited.
It thus seems
likely that Malcolm Love was informally involved with the St Devenick’s choir
from at least 1975. This informal involvement
seems to have been hinted at by Malcolm Love when he later asserted, “In 1978 the Memorialist (ie Malcolm Love) was formally (author’s emphasis) appointed
Choirmaster of choir of St.D’s church”, though he also indicated that he was
not the originator of the choir.
Further, it seems reasonable to assume, though he did not say so
specifically, that Malcolm, with help from Richard Weddle, was the moving force
in the project to “create a working Anglican choir”.
Worship at
St Devenick’s
The pattern
of Sunday services appears to have been orthodox during the incumbency of Rev Foster. In 1934 the Sunday programme was Holy
Communion 8.30am, Matins and Sermon 11am, Evensong and Sermon 6pm. It is unlikely that this pattern changed
during the rest of Rev Foster’s time at St Devenick’s. A claim has been made that, in the early part
of his time as the rector, Kenneth Gordon’s Sunday services were of a
relatively traditional form, following the 1970 revision, the so-called Grey
Book of the Scottish Episcopal Liturgy.
Such a pattern of worship would accommodate traditional, highbrow church
music, as well as congregational musical participation in the singing of hymns.
Was it the
case that in the first few years of his incumbency, Kenneth Gordon wanted a
choir at St Devenicks? This seems
likely. Further, he must have become
familiar with Malcolm Love, his abilities, interests and intentions over the
three year period from 1975 when serious moves were made to create a
traditional Anglican choir and 1978 when Malcolm Love was formally appointed
choirmaster. It is an almost inevitable
conclusion that in 1978 Kenneth Gordon was satisfied with Malcolm’s work and
intentions, and approved of his appointment.
There was a further significant development in 1978 when an
advertisement was placed in the P&J “Part-time Opportunity. ORGANIST required ST DEVENICK'S EPISCOPAL
CHURCH, BIELDSIDE. Details from Rev K D
Gordon”. The appointee was Richard
Weddle, a long-time friend of, and collaborator with, Malcolm Love. Richard Weddle was also an aficionado of
sophisticated church music.
Malcolm Love later admitted that in 1975 the St Devenick’s choir could
not sing properly, and it lacked men.
Initially the only three adult male members were Richard Weddle, Mr Chew
the organist and Malcolm Love himself.
Also, at the beginning, Malcolm struggled to recruit and retain boy
trebles. But his ambition (he said that
in 1975 his goal was to make the choir famous), unbounded enthusiasm and
personal charisma overcame these early impediments. Choirboys were paid a small stipend, though
this stopped in 1983. Malcolm Love
always sought to make choir practice and trips away from Bieldside fun for the
boys with activities other than singing included.
By 1979, the local Aberdeen newspapers were had started to notice the
existence of the St Devenick’s choir and its performances, both in the Aberdeen
area and further afield. Appearances
included Choral Evensong at St Machar Cathedral (Church of Scotland!) in March
1979 and, at the same venue in June of the following year, including the anthem
“Let all the world” –
Vaughn Williams. The choir was also a
gold medal winner in the church choir category at the Aberdeen and North-East
Music Festival, 1979. In 1980 The Scotsman noted that the
programme for St Giles Cathedral summer recitals included on Wed 9th July at 3pm, “Choir
of St Devenick’s Aberdeen. Music by Byrd, Handel, Stanford, Vaughan
Williams”. Although he was not mentioned by name, Malcolm Love surely was
both the author and the conductor of this programme? Further prominence
for the choir came from an appearance on Grampian TV in December of the same
year when a programme called “Four Faces of Christ”, presented by Campbell
Adamson, the Dean of the Episcopal diocese, appeared with illustrations of its
themes provided by the St Devenick’s choir “conducted by Dr Malcolm Love”. Campbell Adamson soon became a keen supporter
of this choir. The Dean of a diocese was
the next clergyman in status below the bishop in the diocesan hierarchy,
effectively the stand in for, and aid to, the bishop.
The July 1980 concert at St Giles’ Cathedral also provided an insight
into Malcolm Love’s aspirations for his nascent choir in the form of an
information sheet distributed to the audience prior to the St Giles’
performance. The sheet is very
informative about Malcolm’s motivation, charismatic appeal to young people and
uncompromising commitment to musical excellence. It is reproduced in full.
“Saint Who?
“St.Devenick’s
is an ordinary-looking church situated in a strip of ribbon-development on the
edge of Aberdeen. It has no choir school, no musical endowments and indeed no
regular source of income for the music.
“Until
recently there was little in the way of musical tradition either, and the choir
began to take its present form only towards the end of 1975, as an act of faith
and from a sense of outrage at closing churches and disappearing choirs: it is
an attempt to keep at least some of our heritage in a state of vigour.
“Taking
boys from local schools, the choir has increased from seven boys and one man
singer to a total of thirty trebles and fifteen under-parts, a proportion of whom
are here on tour today. The choirstalls at St. Devenick’s are inadequate for
such a number, and are currently being enlarged, thanks to the generosity of
the family of a former singer.
“Phrases
like ’Centre of Excellence’ are bandied' about, but this is a target. In truth
the choir is still in a state of growth and development and tends to differ
from one month to the next, though there has been virtually no turnover of
choristers since the departure of the more unsatisfactory elements during the
first year; boys are now required to play a musical instrument before they are
considered for entry, and there is a short waiting-list.
“A
surprising truth has emerged: there has been no need to grovel by proffering
only light and superficial music in order to attract youngsters to the choir.
Music labelled ’great’ by the musical world at large is enjoyed most, and the
choirmaster has been repeatedly asked, nay, pestered, for a further taste of a
new piece earmarked for the repertoire in the autumn: it was written in the
sixteenth century, and the words are in Latin!
“Welcome
to the concert!”
This public
recognition of the choir in 1979 and 1980 proved to be no flash in the pan. In 1981, Malcolm Love started to compile
recordings for a long-playing gramophone record from the material he had
recorded at the church services and concerts attended and he had plans to take
the choir on a 14 day tour to the east coast of North America in 1982 where he
believed few similar choirs existed, though that style of music was
popular. He had also raised money to
subsidise summer camps for the choir, annual trips to Oban, Cullen and
Edinburgh having already been accomplished.
Another
signal development in the organisation of the choir occurred in 1980. Up to this point, the Bieldside - based choir
had been for membership of boys only, but that deficit was then addressed by
the formation of a girls’ choir, called St Cecilia’s, with Dr Iain Marr
(another chemist and a member of the male choir) as its conductor.
Although it never attained the numbers of the boys’ and men’s choir, St
Cecilia’s was still of a significant size, and it too achieved local prominence
with the quality of its performances. At the Aberdeen and North-East
Music Festival, held in June 1983, the St Cecilia choir won the Paterson gold
medal for the best female choir aged 18 and under. Indeed, most of the St
Cecilia girls were well under this upper age limit. By 1985 the girls’
choir also had its own newsletter.
But, from
about 1981, the relationship between Malcolm Love, on the one hand and Canon Kenneth
Gordon and his Vestry on the other started to become strained. Perhaps Kenneth Gordon was becoming resentful
of the attention that the choir and its larger-than-life choirmaster was
attracting. In this period between the
late 1970s and the early 1980s, I only discovered one reference in the local
press to the Rector making a significant external appearance. It came in July 1980 when he presented a five
minute daily slot on Grampian TV at 9.25am, entitled “First Thing”, in stark
contrast with the frequent media reports on the St Devenick’s Choir and its
leader. Malcolm Love himself appears to
have begun an autobiographical account of this period of his life and an
incomplete manuscript copy exists in his archive. One incident recorded there, in Malcolm
Love’s own words, illustrates that tensions existed between the two men by 1981.
“One
day I caught him (Kenneth Gordon)
out. I was trying to fix a microphone to
the rood screen to record the day’s anthem.
This I have always done if there is a solo sung, so that the boy, or
man, has a permanent souvenir of the occasion.
I could not quite reach and turned to Himself who happened to be
passing. “Where is the ladder kept”, I
asked him. A shifty look, which I came
to recognise again later, brushed across his face, “Oh, there isn’t one”. So I had to go all the way home again to
bring mine. A couple of weeks later I
forgot myself and ejaculated “Hey – where did that come from?” as I saw him
carrying a fine tall ladder out of the church.
“Yes” he replied – and again the shifty look appeared – “You’ve had
problems like this, too, haven’t you? I
really will have to try to persuade the Vestry to buy a ladder for the
church. This is my one”. And he would not lend it to his own
choirmaster”.
There is no
doubt that Malcolm Love was a traditionalist as far as different forms of service
were concerned and, of course, a major part of that tradition was the
incorporation of music by the classical masters. Malcolm had little sympathy with new and
experimental forms of service which were simpler, involved more congregational
participation and used popular musical devices, presumably in an attempt to
stem congregational decline. Malcolm saw
the future differently, especially in the context of the generally more
sophisticated population of Lower Deeside. For him the answer to depopulation was the
performance of classical church music to a high level of achievement so that
the music itself became an attractant.
Further, Malcolm also engaged and retained young boys (and later girls)
through the challenges of singing highbrow music, much of it as a component of
actual church services. Also, his
practices were interspersed with the enjoyment of youthful fun and games.
Unfortunately,
Kenneth Gordon held the alternative view to his choirmaster and chose to experiment
with simplicity and popularity. Another
extract from Malcolm Love’s biographical work from 1982 illustrates the disdain
he felt, at least in private, for the Rector’s innovation.
“A
constant source of irritation was the advertising of the “Family Service”, the
monthly service in which placards with words of choruses were held up for the
congregation to sing from, as in a pantomime.
Sometimes there were “action songs”, the sermon was geared to the
mentality of small children, and a group of middle-aged men and women sang
songs to the accompaniment of a guitar.
As the most trivial service of the month, it seemed inappropriate to
advertise it, and it only, on a large “glow-paint” poster outside the church”.
Malcolm Love
raised the issue of religious instruction for the choristers and offered to
provide it himself but his gesture was spurned by the Rector, who later
nominated Mrs Edwina Clark and Dr Peter Brunt to instruct the choirboys.
The events of late 1982. Malcolm Love is given an ultimatum.
At a meeting
of the Vestry (of which Kenneth Gordon was an ex officio member and chairman)
in late October 1982 a decision was taken, without any form of consultation
with the generality of the St Devenick’s congregation, that the newly
introduced Scottish Liturgy (1982) would for the future replace other forms of
Holy Communion Service at St. Devenick’s, except at the 8.50 a.m. Service on
Sundays; at this service, the Scottish Liturgy would alternate with the 1970
Revision ( i.e., the so-called “Grey” Book).
Even the church elders were not given forewarning of this fundamental
change in the form of worship which, in style, was more participatory and less sophisticated
and did not accommodate classical religious music.
This move,
which had been instigated by Kenneth Gordon, quickly became a major bone of
contention amongst the congregation because many, possibly most, of its members
were traditionalists as far as the form of the liturgy was concerned and did
not want to see a lop-sided change introduced without consultation and debate. That was not the only change that Kenneth
Gordon desired in the organisation of St Devenick’s Church.
Another
historical feature, which the Rector aspired to see swept away was the presence
of the Rood Screen. This feature is a
screen, often of ornately carved wood, separating the nave from the chancel,
particularly in Anglican and Episcopal churches. In effect the rood screen puts a visual
barrier between the congregation and the clergy, and to those churchmen like
Kenneth Gordon who sought closer and less formal contact with the laity during
services, the rood screen was both a physical and an emotional barrier to the
achievement of that end. When the Rector’s
views on the rood screen at St Devenick’s became known, the first person to
challenge his position was the traditionalist Malcolm Love, though he was not
alone in his view that the rood screen should be retained.
A third issue
of contention, possibly seen as being of even greater magnitude than the other
two by the St Devenick’s hierarchy was, superficially, the choir but, in
reality, the choirmaster, whose policy for developing the choir as a major
cultural force in church music put him at variance with the aims of Kenneth
Gordon and his supporters, who simply wanted a compliant choir to sing their
choice of music during services.
In October
and November 1982, concerns had been expressed at Vestry meetings about the
size and control of the fund which had been raised by choir supporters,
principally the choirmaster, Malcolm Love.
It had just been announced by the choir fund-raising group that they
would be holding a sale of donated goods in the Aberdeen Music Hall but the
Vestry intervened to demand that the sale would be under the auspices of St
Devenicks and not the fund-raising group.
This proved to be the opening shot in a campaign to take control of the
monies raised for the choir.
Canon Gordon
had already shown through the means by which he imposed changes to the form of
services at St Devenick’s that he was not democratically inclined, or even
consultative, but was prepared to assert that he was in charge and claim the
authority to impose change, without consulting the congregation and without being
obliged to offer a cogent explanation for any change that he might decree.
The
constitution of the St Devenick Church called for an annual meeting of the
congregation which was held towards the end of the calendar year. The 1982 AGM,
which took place on 9th December, generated substantial discussion
“some of it heated” concerning both the introduction of the new Scottish
Liturgy and the proposal to remove the rood screen. It was a “tempestuous” event, according to
one attendee. A complaint was made to
the Rector about the imposition of the new liturgy. His reported justification was that after
twelve years of “liturgical experiment and revision” St Devenick’s should
settle down to one liturgical form, and to a form “fitted to take us on into
the future”. He claimed that the new
Liturgy would help the cause of Christian unity. The Rector refused to allow the congregation
to vote on the matter, asserting that it was the responsibility of the Vestry
to decide the issue. When the proposal
to remove the rood screen was raised, the Rector said that he had felt for a
long time that this action should be taken and that it fell within the
competence of the Vestry to act in this way.
But then, curiously and inconsistently, he allowed the congregation to
vote on this issue, when a large majority of attendees voted against removal
though this expression of the democratic will did not change his view.
At this time,
December 1982, moves were also afoot, initiated by the authoritarian Kenneth
Gordon, to clip the wings of the troublesome choirmaster, though the concerns
about the choir had not been raised at the recent AGM. Malcolm was summoned to an unpublicised
meeting with the two churchwardens and clergy (Kenneth Gordon and his curate)
on 21st of the month, a bizarre assemblage since it did not
represent any structure described in the St Devenick’s constitution. It was certainly not a Vestry meeting, since
neither the Vestry nor the elders were aware it was taking place. Malcolm Love, clearly suspecting that
something detrimental to the choir’s interests was afoot, proposed that Richard
Weddle, the organist, should accompany him, but the Rector vetoed this
suggestion. Malcolm was to be
unaccompanied. The choirmaster then
asked Kenneth Gordon what the purpose of the meeting was but this information
was withheld. Malcolm Love, an
intelligent man, could see that he would be in an informal meeting where
accurate records might not be kept and that he was the only person representing
the choir and his ambition for it. All
the other attendees he suspected of being in the camp of the choir’s
detractors. Anything said in the meeting
would be deniable if the four inquisitors chose to conspire. Malcolm decided to tape record the occasion surreptitiously
to guard against its proceedings subsequently being misrepresented. Of course, this was an underhand action by
Malcolm Love but one that he justified by claiming it had been for his own
protection.
In a subsequent press report, “one person closely involved with the
choir” revealed that Malcolm Love had been “grilled” on several subjects,
including his attitude to church policy at the 21st December
meeting. Basically, he was put on notice. The managerial hierarchy
was not happy with the high church, traditional musical direction that the
choir was following, which clashed with its own view (ie that of Canon Gordon)
who wanted to see a more informal, less traditional style of worship evolve at
St Devenick’s. The choir and the clergy were on a collision course. If it continued, then the choir would be
“without a choirmaster”.
The church
hierarchy took two formal actions following the meeting with Malcolm Love on 21st
December. It wrote to Malcolm allegedly
summarising the content and conclusions of the meeting and giving him a list of
conditions for the choir continuing in existence and secondly, it arranged for
the Vestry to meet on 6th January 2003.
Before the
meeting of 6th January took place, one vestry member, Ian Findlay,
since he could not be present at the upcoming meeting of that body, wrote a
memorandum (from “Ian” to “Ken”) which he sent to Kenneth Gordon outlining his
views on the agenda items, with the express wish that his memo would be
included in the meeting papers, or at least read out at the event. Ian was a supporter of the choir but also a
loyal member of the congregation who was doing his best to heal the divisions
which had appeared in the church by finding a middle way acceptable to all
shades of opinion. A copy of this memo
found its way into Malcolm Love’s archive and the most significant sections are
reproduced here.
“I
imagine this meeting is to discuss the points raised on 9 Dec about the rood
screen, and the issue re the choir raised with ML on 21 DEC ? If so, may
I make the following contributions for 6 JAN 83” (author’s emphasis).
“Rood
screen – like you, I would take the same scriptural / theological position re
the essentially Old Testament nature of the r.s. in an essentially New
Testament church situation ie that it is in a sense divisive between priest and
body of believers. BUT in the
light of the intense feeling at AGM – I would strongly advise against
pushing the issue any further. Let it die.”
“One
thing the “rood screen hassle” has done clearly is raise the much wider issue of
Vestry consultation with the congregation.
It is, bluntly, inadequate. We
must work out some machinery for this.
Probably cogs in this machinery would include some public display of
Minutes, and advance notice of the next agenda.
But if people want a face to talk to, or an ear at the other end of the
telephone, I am willing (as lay rep.) to play that role or to share it with
People’s Warden, or with Vestry generally – whatever the Vestry decides.”
“Choir. I was – and again I’ll be blunt – distressed
to hear of the meeting sprung upon Malcolm Love on the evening of 21 DEC
82. This – and I say this in great
concern that we are getting into another quicksand of division if we are not
careful – is not the way to solve problems.
Confrontation never gets anywhere.”
“Yes,
of course there is a problem of relationship between choir and Vestry. But let us not forget that it is a problem
stemming from growth, energy, enthusiasm, vitality, etc. How many churches would love to have such
problem!!!!!”
“May
I end with a plea that, on 6 JAN 83, we begin the New Year by sorting out our
whole future “stance” as a Vestry on both issues discussed by opting for peace,
reconciliation, brotherhood, prayerful fellowship and forward/outward movement
... rather than falling into the temptations of internal strife on issues not
worth the spiritual candle, when considered in any sort of spirit of sanity and
Christian love.”
Condensing
Ian’s message into a brief statement, he was telling Kenneth Gordon the
following things. I too would prefer to
remove the rood screen but it would cause another serious division in the
congregation, so I advise you not to press the matter. It was not a smart move to ambush Malcolm
Love and this tactic is unlikely to generate a better relationship with the
choir. The choir is very
successful. Other churches would not
find success to be a problem. We need a
better, more open, more consultative relationship between Vestry and
congregation if we are to prevent similar problems recurring. Let us behave as Christians.
This was a
diplomatic, but direct, plea for accommodation and compromise. Sadly, it told Kenneth Gordon a series of
home truths about his behaviour that he was unwilling to recognise. His response was to suppress Ian Findlay’s contribution
and the Vestry meeting on 6th January proceeded with the other
members being unaware of the memo’s contents or even its existence.
Just at a
time when leadership in Bieldside was required, Kenneth Gordon absented himself
from his charge to take a six-week (half of January and all of February, 1983)
sabbatical break at Lee Abbey, which is located on the North Devon coast
adjacent to Exmoor. Today (2026) it
describes itself in the following terms.
“Lee Abbey, Devon is home to a Christian Community.
A stay at Lee Abbey, Devon is more than a Christian retreat or holiday; it is
an opportunity to encounter Jesus through worship, teaching, ministry and
Community which we pray will transform your life, relationships, community,
environment and world”.
In Kenneth Gordon’s
absence the Churchwardens sent a letter to Malcolm Love, dated 1 January,
claiming to summarise the discussion which took place on the 21st of
the previous month. It is presumed that
the Rector saw and approved the text of the letter. The churchwardens did not ask Malcolm to
agree that this was a fair reflection of the events of that December day but
they were not seeking an agreed position: they were handing down their
unchallengeable version, together with their own demands for Malcolm’s future
conduct, sugared, like a Victoria sponge, with a thin coating of Christian
rhetoric. The text of the letter is
given in full.
“We met with you,
the Rector and Curate on 21 December to discuss various matters of concern. We
are grateful to you for this meeting and feel that the opportunity to have a
frank discussion enabled a number of issues to be clarified. We would like to
reiterate the main points covered.
“It
was agreed that spiritual authority in our Church lies with the Rector. All
aspects of our worship, including musical items, should therefore be in
accordance with the Rector’s wishes. As a consequence of this it is necessary
for you to put to the Rector for approval items which you propose the Choir
should sing at services. This may be supplemented by the Rector and yourself
meeting for discussion at appropriate intervals. You are also required to cooperate
fully in having the Choir sing, or lead the congregation in singing, any item
requested by the Rector.
“The
number of members of the Choir should be reduced as soon as practicable - to
that which can be accommodated comfortably within the choir-stalls in Church.
The reduction can take place by ’natural wastage in an immediate period during
which new members should not be admitted other than with the Rector’s
agreement. In the meantime, Choir members that cannot be accommodated in the
stalls should occupy pews with the congregation.
“You
agreed that proposals for expenditure from the Choir Fund or other Church funds
should be submitted to the Vestry for prior approval because the Choir Fund,
like other Church funds, is the responsibility of the Vestry.
“It
was agreed that Choir practices should not be held at times that clash with
other Church activities. We request that the matter of the holding of practices
on Sunday mornings at a time which clashes with Pathfinders be resolved in
consultation with the Rector as soon as possible, and in the absence of an alternative
solution this practice should be discontinued.
“We
expect the Choir to give a lead to the congregation in the musical worship of
Church services, including the singing of the hymns.
“We
expect you to encourage members of the Choir to play a part in the full life
and worship of the Church, including activities at which they are not
necessarily attending as Choir members.
“We
regard it as important that you recognise that other styles of music besides
those in which the Choir excels are valid aids to, and expressions of, worship,
and that you encourage this view in members of the Choir.
“We
believe that adherence to these points, in recognition of the Rector’s
spiritual authority, is essential for the maintenance of the harmonious
relationships which should be the hallmark of any Christian congregation.
“Whilst
it is hoped that agreement on all these points will result in the resolution of
all matters of outstanding concern to us, we would wish to review the position
at the end of three months, and will expect to see progress on all these points
to the satisfaction of the Rector.
“We
are grateful to you for the untiring work and musical skill which you have put
into leading the Choir over the years. It is a musical contribution to our
worship that today is rarely matched, not least during the recent Christmas
season during which you continued at considerable personal pain and discomfort.
“We
pray that we may all, with God’s help, live and work to His glory alone and the
building up of Christ’s body the Church.”
The content
of this letter was utterly shocking to Malcolm for several reasons. He described it as “the rudest
letter I have ever received”. At
the meeting he said he had been conciliatory.
“Some points raised were unexceptionable but to comply totally would
have ruined eight years of work”. “I was however, prepared to solve the
problems in ways that would have satisfied everybody and would not have caused
decline”. Malcolm Love was also puzzled by the demand
that all music used in services should be approved by the Rector, since he and
Richard Weddle had met with Canon Gordon in August 1982 to plan the entire
music programme up to Christmas. The
meeting has been amiable, the programme agreed and there had been no deviations
from the plan. However, what Malcolm was
now being offered was not a compromise position which would have satisfied the
two factions, which I will categorise as “traditional” and “progressive”, but capitulation
to the demands of the Rector, or dismissal.
Subsequently, Malcolm Love would state, ruefully, that “The rector has
not always welcomed the choir’s role in divine service, and gradually the
choir’s contribution to the worship has grown less”. It is thought that Malcolm did not formally
reply to the churchwardens’ letter at this time but what he did do was to
consult with his friends on its implications.
Malcolm
Love is summarily dismissed as choirmaster at St Devenick’s
Kenneth Gordon returned from his sabbatical leave at the beginning of
March 1983 apparently having decided on a plan of action to settle the
unresolved issues that he had left in suspense at the time of his departure. On the 8th of the month at a
meeting of the Vestry, the body which had the formal power of hire and fire
relating to Malcolm Love’s employment as the choirmaster, the Rector insisted
that that body vote immediately on a proposal to dismiss the choirmaster,
without waiting to review the position at three months. This proposal was approved by seven votes in
favour to four against. The four
dissenters immediately resigned from the Vestry.
The following day, 9th March, Kenneth Gordon wrote a letter
to all members of the choir.
“I
am sorry to have to give you news that will sadden you. The Vestry of our
Church has found it necessary to pass a resolution which leaves us without a
Choirmaster at St .Devenick's. In the
meantime, therefore, Members of the Choir are asked to worship in the
congregational pews and the boys are invited to continue their time with Dr. Brunt
on Sunday mornings, going out to the-Lady Chapel for part of the service. There
will be no further choir practices for the time being. We fully appreciate the work that Dr. Love
has done for the choir, as I am sure that you do. You may well want to
understand what lies behind the Vestry's action and the clergy or churchwardens
would be only too willing to talk to any individuals who may wish to do so
concerning it”.
Two things
were immediately striking about this letter.
Firstly, the dubious sincerity of the Rector in praising Malcolm Love’s
efforts on behalf of the choir and, secondly, the failure to give any reason
for his abrupt dismissal, which must have raised concerns in the minds of the
recipients that Malcolm had been guilty of some unspeakable act.
The letter of
“dismissal” (Malcolm Love’s word) sent to Malcolm Love himself apparently
demanded his resignation. However, it
has not been found in the archive, but Malcolm’s incomplete manuscript autobiography
described its distressing impact on the whole Love family.
“We
were in daily contact with our friend the Dean, and when the letter of
dismissal arrived, Muriel broke down and wept as she tried to read it to him
over the phone. It struck me as worldly
to sack someone in the most dictatorial fashion and then demand that one
provided a service, and not only that but by a specific date!”
In addition
to the Dean, Campbell Adamson, Malcolm was also in contact with the Bishop of
the Diocese, Fred Darwent. Both were
providing advice to Malcolm on his response to the letter of “dismissal” and would continue to counsel him. So, who were these two senior Episcopal
clergymen?
Bishop Fred
Darwent had seen military service with the Royal Inneskilling Fusileers in the
Far East before being ordained in 1961.
He served as rector of several Aberdeenshire parishes before being
appointed Dean of the Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney, serving between 1973 and
1978 and then as bishop from 1976 to 1991.
Campbell Adamson
worked at various times with the armed forces, in Glasgow borstals and jails,
with the Boy Scout movement and he also served as chaplain to the Actors Union
at His Majesty’s Theatre in Aberdeen.
Another personal interest was mental health and he worked as chaplain to
the Royal Cornhill Hospital (a mental hospital), also in the Silver City. Campbell
Adamson was rector of St John’s, Aberdeen from 1970 until 1978 when he was
appointed Dean of the diocese in succession to Fred Darwent, when the latter
was elevated to serve as bishop.
Campbell Adamson was a larger than life character with excellent
interpersonal skills and an enquiring mind.
He wrote books on the history of the theatre in Aberdeen and also on the
origin of nursery rhymes, appeared regularly on television and in the
newspapers and was even in demand as a contributor to Burns Suppers. He had a particular facility for relating to
young people. I only met him once when I
was helping at a scout camp. In a chat
with a group of older scouts Campbell’s way of breaking the ice was to pose an
unexpected question. “Why do we bury dead bodies? After a few stumbling suggestions from the
lads, he gave them his answer. “Well,
they would smell badly if we didn’t”.
Malcolm Love told a not dissimilar story concerning Campbell Adamson in
conversation with the Deeside Choristers, when he was acting as chaplain to the
choir. He opened with, “Well, when I was
a cowboy in Mexico ....”. I do not know
if Campbell ever followed that calling but as a technique for gaining the attention
of young lads, it appeared to work.
After his
stint at St John’s, Aberdeen, Campbell Adamson moved on, in 1978, to become
rector of St Thomas’ Aboyne and St Kentigern’s, Ballater, plus pastoral work in
Braemar, the whole of Upper Deeside. The
Balmoral Estate was on his patch.
Braemar had an Episcopal Church, St Margaret’s which had originally been
built in 1880 to cater for the large number of English visitors who holidayed
at on Upper Deeside in Victorian times.
A summer chaplain used to be appointed each year but, due to declining
visitor numbers that practice stopped in 1972 and St Margaret’s was closed to
public worship three years later.
However, one of Campbell Adamson’s achievements was to reopen St Margaret’s. He conducted the first wedding to be held
there for 20 years in 1981. The St
Devenick’s Choir was engaged to sing at this wedding and also sang in this
church on at least one other occasion.
There is no doubt that Campbell Adamson was a true supporter of Malcolm
Love and his choirs.
Another
component of Canon Gordon’s plan to deal with the “choir problem” on his return
to Bieldside in March 1983 was to remove control of the choir fund from Malcolm
Love, though the full extent of his actions did not become known for some
months. When Malcolm Love assumed the
role of choirmaster in September 1975, the fund contained a balance of £34. Between that date and 9th March
1983, a further £9,017 was deposited in the account and at the point where
control of the fund was removed from Malcolm Love, the balance stood at £5,746. Income came from a variety of sources but the
largest single contributor was Malcolm himself who donated £5,544 to the fund,
derived from supplementary work he had carried out, such as scientific
translating. It needs to be emphasised
that no money from any other St Devenick’s account was ever used to subsidise
the activities of the choir. Its choir
camps had been largely self-funded and thus choir activities had never been a
drain on other, non-choir church income.
There is no doubt that the choir fund, though largely raised by Malcolm
Love, was legally owned by St Devenick’s Church. But the morality of Canon Gordon’s actions
both at this time and in the months and years over which the dispute rumbled,
would be repeatedly questioned.
On the
morning of 9th March, after gaining the authority of the Vestry for
his intentions, Kenneth Gordon gave the Clydesdale Bank branch in Cults, where
the choir fund was lodged, an instruction that the choirmaster and the organist
were no longer to be recognised as signatories for withdrawals from the account.
Malcolm Love’s response to the letter
of dismissal
Both Bishop
Fred Darwent and Dean Campbell Adamson emphatically advised the ex-choirmaster
not to resign, presumably because that might be taken as an admission that
Malcolm had erred in his conduct of choir affairs. Explicitly, Bishop Darwent harboured hopes
that the dispute could be overcome with “goodwill on both sides”, making
resignation unnecessary. Malcolm “penned
a letter carefully, correcting all errors of fact in the dismissal letter” and
then including Fred Darwent’s words of hope.
Malcolm Love then drove down to the Rectory in Bieldside to deliver his
response by hand. The subsequent
exchange with Kenneth Gordon, as reported by Malcolm, follows verbatim.
“I
delivered it personally, and the Rector himself came to the door. His eyes lit up when he saw the envelope in
my hand, “Why, good morning to you Malcolm.”
“I suppose this is goodbye”, I said, very matter-of-fact. He replied hurriedly, almost urgently. “Oh, yes, yes indeed” as though to shut the
door before I could put my toe in. I
handed over the letter. “Perhaps you did
not realise” I said “that if you make a demand like this after instant
dismissal then you should have sent a stamped addressed envelope”. He was momentarily taken aback, but then
recovered. “God bless you in whatever
you do”. He held out his hand. Habits from childhood really are almost
impossible to break, and like a robot I took and shook it, mentally kicking myself
afterwards. Driving away, though, I
could picture his frustration at not finding a resignation within the
envelope. He must have looked forward to
finding out that far from being sacked I had resigned. My action in not resigning triggered off some
very testy and unwise action on his part – he just had to tie everything up and
finish the business”.
One day
later, on 10th March, Malcolm Love received the true dismissal
letter: he had been fired because he had refused to resign. The Rector had also typed an explanation of
his actions which had been photocopied by a Vestry member in time for
distribution to the congregation on the following Sunday, 13th
March. With a dash of cynicism Malcolm
love remarked ““Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”
evidently did not apply at St. Devenick’s”.
The St Devenick’s dispute receives
wide publicity
Inevitably,
the abrupt firing of the choirmaster at a previously low profile Deeside church,
brought a flurry of newspaper reporting and various attempts by gentlemen and
ladies of the press to gain an insight into the full story of Malcolm Love’s
dismissal. Both he and Kenneth Gordon
declined comment to the press at this stage, but others were not so
reticent. An anonymous lady member of
the congregation declared to a reporter that there was more to the story that
the dismissal of the choirmaster for unspecified reasons. Malcolm’s autobiographical account claimed
that she had said words along the following lines, “many of the congregation
were furious at the way the services were geared to the mentality of tiny tots
and that people could not worship in the way that they wanted”. Malcolm guessed the identity of the
informant, phoned her and thanked her for her support and for deflecting
enquiries away from him. The following
day, another long-standing member of the congregation, who may have been the
same informant as the person identified by Malcolm Love, predicted further
declines in the church numbers at Bieldside in yet another Evening Express
report. “My husband and I know of a
number of families who have left the church and have cancelled their covenants
and tithes. If the rector remains the
membership will continue to drop”.
According to the woman, who did not wish to be named, problems with the
church began when changes were made to the format of the service. “He said that we were no longer allowed to
say the Lord’s Prayer and when some members of the congregation objected he
said that if we didn’t follow him it showed how well the devil had been doing
his work”. She added that it was felt
that Canon Gordon was “far too intense” and tried to impose his will on
others”.
The Aberdeen Evening
Express coverage on Friday 11th March detailed several rumours and
quoted Dr Iain Marr, the conductor of the girl’s choir at St Devenick’s, who
was reported to have told a reporter, “There has been a serious personality
conflict. The whole thing has been
handled extremely badly. There will now
be a move to disassociate the choir from St Devenick’s. We don’t want it to disband or cease to be a
church choir but we may try to become the diocesan choir rather than St
Devenick’s”. Iain, who was a prominent
member of the congregational faction supporting Malcolm Love, had thus revealed
some of the current thinking of Malcolm and his advisors.
A popular
feeling had been rapidly generated that survival of the choir, singing
sophisticated church music, was more important to the choir’s supporting group
than loyalty (should that be obedience?) to the Rector, Canon Gordon, and the
maintenance of congregational cohesion. But
the traditional faction did not want to become dissociated from the Episcopal
Church. If the Rector would not
accommodate them and their musical tastes, experience suggested that others
probably would. It was also interesting
that Iain Marr had put down a major cause of the dispute as being a clash of
personalities, rather than a clash of ideologies. Kenneth Gordon had already shown by his
actions that he believed that his position as Rector bestowed on him substantial
authority to decide what course church policy would follow. He was dictatorial, non-consultative (except
with those whose support he enjoyed) and was not above manipulating
circumstances to suit his own interests, such as withholding Ian Findlay’s memo
from the Vestry.
Malcolm Love
was intellectually bright. He also
exhibited a persona which appeared affable and slightly bumbling (in 1988, he
played Mr Bumble in the Deeside Choristers’ production of “Oliver”!) on the
surface but, underneath this amiable exterior, he was an ecclesiastical snob,
who harboured disdain for the simplification and popularisation of Christian
worship. I had also gained the
impression from personal contact with him that Malcolm was, beneath his
agreeable surface, actually a very determined person, intent on achieving his
own musical objectives as his highest priority.
Several
prominent individuals were aware that if any hope of reconciliation was to be
maintained, then those supporting the continuation of the choir should follow a
policy of “least said, soonest mended”.
Iain Marr, an emotional man, perhaps unwisely commented further on the
Vestry letter, “It was horrific. Things
were put down on paper which never should have been”. Others were more circumspect. Bishop Darwent would only say he was “dealing
with an internal matter”. Vestry and
choir member, Michael Partridge, was of a similar view. “I wish everybody would say nothing”. Organist Richard Weddle confirmed he had
resigned but preferred to wait until after the following Monday’s meeting (of choir
members, parents and supporters) before speaking.
The Evening
Express of Friday 11th March also reported that “On Sunday it is
alleged there was “an unprecedented revolt” by some members who refused to
shake hands with the canon when they left the church. During the service, while Canon Gordon was
speaking Dr Love was said to have hurried from the church looking upset. These allegations could only have referred to
events on Sunday 6th March, which was before the issuance of the
“resignation” letter to Malcolm Love.
Thus the cause of the alleged congregational revolt could not have been
the demand for Malcolm’s resignation but some other matter, most likely the changing
of the liturgy.
The Vestry gives its reasons for
dismissing Malcolm Love
On Sunday 13th
March 1983, the Vestry issued a statement to the congregation on the reasons
for dismissing Malcolm Love from his post.
At last Malcolm and the congregation generally were no longer to be kept
in the dark. The text of this message follows
in full.
“Many
of you will know by now that the Vestry has found it necessary to terminate the
appointment of Dr Malcolm Love as Choirmaster of St Devenick’s Church. This will have caused distress to members of
the congregation and we therefore wish to make a statement concerning the
reasons for this action.
The
position of Choirmaster is a formal appointment made by the Vestry. The person appointed is required to sign a
letter of agreement to abide by the conditions of the appointment and is
entitled to receive an honorarium and expenses for his services. As the appointing body, the Vestry has the
responsibility for ensuring that the terms of the letter of agreement are observed
and that the overall interests of the Church are protected.
Over
the past two years (ie since about March
1981) Choir matters have been a frequent subject of discussion in Vestry
meetings and the most important area of discussion has concerned the fundamental
question of what the role of the Choir is in the worship of our Church. You will have observed the increasingly
dominant role that the Choir has assumed in our services and the wisdom of
allowing this trend to continue unchecked has been questioned by members of the
congregation and subsequently in Vestry discussions. In this matter we have looked to the Rector
for spiritual leadership. Equally we
expected the Choirmaster to accept the Rector’s “entire control over the choir”
as he has agreed to do. Regrettably the
Choirmaster has not always been willing to accept this in spite of numerous
discussions with the Rector and a meeting with the complete Vestry. This fundamental difference between the
Rector and the Choirmaster concerning what the role of the Choir is and of how
it should be determined has been dismissed by some as “a conflict of
personalities”. That is untrue; the
suggestion is insulting to both the Rector and the Choirmaster and it tends to
trivialise a vital difference concerning our manner of worship.
The
tensions concerning the role of the choir in the Church were evident during
last year’s Annual General Meeting and, to help to resolve these tensions, the
Churchwardens and the Clergy arranged a meeting with the Choirmaster to discuss
the issues involved. There appeared to
be mutual understanding and a large measure of agreement at the meeting. Following it the Choirmaster was sent a
written record of the issues that had been discussed, which specified the
points where his agreement was expected.
These were not unreasonable and gave ample scope for the continued
development of the choir’s role in the worship of St. Devenick’s Church,
without conflicting with the Rector’s responsibilities as spiritual leader of
the Church and ultimately for its life and worship.
Dr
Love has since shown by his actions that he has no intention of complying with
these points. He has also spoken to, and
written to, a number of members of the congregation in terms that have been
highly derogatory to the Rector and his staff.
At
its meeting last Tuesday (8th
March) the Vestry considered Dr Love’s actions and judged them to have been
inconsistent with his responsibilities as Choirmaster and in direct conflict
with the terms of his appointment. The
Vestry decided, by a majority decision, that as the appointing authority it had
no alternative to accepting that Dr Love had severely broken the terms of his
contract with the Church and that his immediate resignation should be
requested. Dr Love has refused to resign
and, most reluctantly, he has now been dismissed.
We
are all genuinely sorry that this action has been necessary. We all have a high regard for Dr Love’s
musical ability and for his devotion and enthusiasm in building up such an
excellent choir. It is sad that by his
refusal to accept the discipline and restrictions of the post of a choirmaster
in a church, Dr Love should have brought his work at St. Devenick’s to such an
unhappy end”.
Copies were
made of this statement and placed in the church porch for distribution to the
attendees as they left the Sunday service on 13rh March. Later, much later, in December 1984, Bishop
Darwent commented that this letter from the Vestry to Malcolm had been “unwise
and uncompassionate” and that that it was “unwise” for the Chairman of a Vestry
meeting to allow no opportunity for representations to be made by a person
whose dismissal is being considered”.
The Sunday service at St Devenick’s on
13th March 1983
This church
service turned out to be a remarkable affair, attended by both tension and
drama. For a start it was packed with
members on the congregational roll, not all of whom would have made the effort
to attend had there not been an expectation of further developments following
the choirmaster’s sacking. It appeared
that Canon Gordon had made a special effort to encourage his supporters to lend
their presence, including members of the nascent Episcopal congregation from
Westhill, a new settlement developed in response to the advent of the oil
industry. They were temporarily attached
to St Devenick’s until a new interdenominational church building could be
constructed in their own settlement.
Westhill members were generally not involved with the choir, since it
was a long way for them to travel to practices.
The choir’s supporters also attended, crowding together for mutual
support in three pews at the back of the nave, with Malcolm seated next to the
aisle. The new liturgy contained one
progressive feature which Canon Gordon had obviously planned to weaponise in
his campaign against the traditionalists.
Malcolm Love described the extraordinary scene which followed. His account follows.
“A
feature of the new Liturgy is that at one point the people shake hands with all
others within reach. The Rector said the
formal “Let us offer one another a sign of peace”, but then continued, non-liturgically (author’s emphasis), “Today don’t feel limited to exchanging the
Peace just with your immediate neighbours.
If you would like to move anywhere within the church, please feel free
to do so.” So saying he himself came down
the Sanctuary steps through the Chancel arch, down the Nave and right to the
back pew, so that he could publicly shake hands with me! All heads turned and again I could not bring
myself to refuse. Later I came to refer
to this as the “Judas handshake”, because he did it knowing the content of the
defamatory literature already stacked outside in the porch, ready to distribute
to the congregation as they left”.
For a
Christian, this was a very serious charge to level against Kenneth Gordon,
likening him to Judas Iscariot who had betrayed Jesus in the Garden of
Gethsemane for thirty pieces of silver by kissing him on the cheek, but, as
will shortly be seen, Malcolm and his family considered the claims made in this
statement of justification to be highly defamatory. These charges would not go unanswered. Kenneth Gordon’s attempt to appear
conciliatory before the congregation was not subsequently backed up by actions
which were consistent with conciliation and would be judged as being cynical.
The rest of the
service was also packed with incident.
Collectively, the choir’s supporters had agreed not to contribute to the
collection, an action which would have been noted by their opponents as being
antagonistic. Malcolm had decided that
he could not receive Communion from Canon Gordon given his abrupt dismissal on
Gordon’s initiative but that is not how proceedings transpired. Malcolm Love’s autobiography is again quoted.
“We
believe that the Sacred Elements are not invalidated by any shortcomings in the
Celebrant, but we are also not allowed to receive communion if we are in
dispute with anyone. The situation
seemed straightforward enough, and I settled myself in the pew to wait while
others went up to the altar. None of the
choir moved from their seats, but suddenly I felt my arm being strongly, almost
violently grasped. It was Nancy (Nancy
Mercer, was a retired doctor, who had worked for the University of Aberdeen
Student Health Service) our benefactor and long-time friend, now also an
Elder. “For Christ’s sake, come,
Malcolm”. “I can’t”. “Please, please come with me!” What could I do? She was terribly upset, and her hand was
shaking all the way up to the altar, while the faces of the choirmen showed how
the incident had unnerved them”.
So, Malcolm
Love, through his innate politeness, had had to suffer two particular
indignities by attending that first Sunday service after his dismissal: he was
obliged to shake the hand of his oppressor, Kenneth Gordon, and then receive
Holy Communion from him.
A representative
of the Aberdeen Evening Express had apparently been present at the service and
noted that the Rector had introduced an additional lesson into the
proceedings. It had a message for the
congregants and some implicit advice on how they should interpret the current
disturbance. The relevant passage was
“Get thee behind me satan, for thou savourest not the things that be of God,
but the things that be of men”. Gordon
went on to advise his flock, “Let us see, not man, but Jesus, only Jesus. Let us as individuals and as a congregation
unite to follow him. Our prayers and our
focus should be on him”. The implication
was that Malcolm’s devotion to highbrow church music was distracting the
congregation from the true path, which Canon Gordon had prescribed for them.
At the
conclusion of the service the congregation filed out past the Rector and one of
the churchwardens, who stood distributing the document explaining the reasons
behind Malcolm’s sacking. But not every
attendee received a copy. According to
Malcolm Love the recipients were those whom the two church officials knew. Perhaps this was intended to keep information
away from members of the press and casual visitors. Apparently, many people approached Malcolm
outside the church and shook his hand, presumably in sympathy for his
predicament, but he related one particularly disturbing interaction with a
church official, Bryan Bache, the Lay Reader.
“His face was drained of colour and a real study in grief. “I really am terribly sorry, Malcolm”, he
said, stumblingly, “I never thought it would come to this”.”
The parents’ meeting of Monday 14th
March 1983
The immediate
outcome of the sacking of Malcolm Love from his position as choirmaster had
been the resignation of four dissenting members of the Vestry, soon followed by
the departure of five other church officials, Iain Marr, the director of the
girls’ choir, Richard Weddle, the organist, the treasurer, the secretary and
the lay representative. But, the most
remarkable statistic of all to emerge from this down-grading of the St
Devenick’s choir was that of 74 young people who had been associated with the
choir, 69 chose to leave and throw in their lot with Malcolm Love’s new
unattached choir.
Although the
meeting of 14th March was principally to discuss with the parents of
choristers the proposals for the future of the choirs, all the prominent
supporters of Malcolm Love were present too, plus a few attendees who had no
previous connection with the choir. The
meeting was packed, over 100 attendees having turned up.
My wife and I
were both there. We were not members of the
St Devenick’s congregation but, through his friendship with another chorister, our
son had joined the choir. He was
welcomed by Malcolm and given the same opportunities as all the other young
singers. Malcolm was strictly
meritocratic in his promotion of choristers through the various ranks and our
offspring eventually ascended to the position of deputy head chorister,
entrusted with singing the most challenging solo pieces, such as the Magnificat
in C by Sir Charles Villiers Stanford.
However, the presence of choristers of non-congregants did not sit
comfortably with some prominent members of the congregation, one of whom gave
me a severe ear-bashing at an event where we happened to fall into conversation
by chance. But perhaps Malcolm’s
openness to non-congregational membership of the choir indicated that his first
priority was the excellence of the choir’s performances and not its proposed supporting
role in leading the congregation in their hymn-singing.
The meeting
was opened by Michael Partridge, a prominent choir supporter, parent and Lecturer
in Philosophy at Aberdeen University, saying a prayer. He then introduced Malcolm Love to the
audience. Malcolm recorded in his autobiography
that he was particularly moved by the throng arrayed before him and he
described the thoughts that flooded his mind, promoted by the significance of
the occasion.
“Looking
at that sea of anxious faces I realised that they probably felt just as
vulnerable as I did, perhaps more so, and a surge of resolve filled me. It struck me as never before that they were
all part of this great family that the choir had become, and that now was the
chance to pull the whole huge team into a close-knit survival machine”.
At this time
shortly after the sacking of Malcolm Love there was a widespread belief amongst
his congregational supporters that the antagonisms of the last few months could
be overcome and reconciliation could be achieved through the exercise of
Christian compassion, compromise and goodwill, leading to the reinstatement of
the choirmaster. Although he had clearly
been moved by the attendance at the parents’ meeting, I suspect that Malcolm
had already concluded that he would not be reinstated during Kenneth Gordon’s
tenure at St Devenicks and that the immediate future of his choir was likely to
be as a freelance body unattached to any church but welcomed by many. Further, I believe he went into that meeting
with his survival plans already formed, including the messages that he wanted
to impress upon the supporting clan that evening.
Malcolm began
his presentation with a homily, likening the choir’s troubles to the feeling of
loss, even devastation, that a choirboy suffers when his voice breaks but, that
with persistence, he re-emerges with an adult voice which once again becomes an
instrument of pleasure, learning and achievement. Malcolm then turned to the future of the
choirs and pronounced his message of that evening.
““Tonight
I am not going to glance backwards, not even for a moment, to think about what
has happened to us. You know it well
enough. A great future lies ahead, we will
survive and flourish vigorously”.
That was not
the speech of someone who still pined only for the clock to be turned back and the status quo ante to be restored. Malcolm assured his audience that the planned
choir camp would go ahead, subject to the approval of their host church, though
he had lost access to the St Devenick choir’s funds. He then staged the ceremonial admission of
two red cassock-clad choristers at which each boy was invested with his white
surplice by the head chorister. This was
followed by the performance of a short anthem, “My spirit longs for Thee”, by
the adults. As Malcolm himself admitted,
this was a good idea but produced a disjointed performance, below the choir’s usual
standard, due to a deficiency of practice.
Another positive outcome of the meeting was an agreement to name the two
new choirs the Byrd Choir (male voices), with Malcolm Love as the musical
director and the St Cecilia Choir (female voices), with Iain Marr as its
musical director. Collectively, the two
choirs would sail under the title, “The Deeside Choristers”. The meeting then ended with many attendees
rallying around Malcolm, shaking his hand and assuring him of their
support. At the suggestion of one parent
a collection plate was placed at the exit and raised £130, an indicator that
future support would not be confined to warm words.
The Deeside Choristers emerge from the
disruption
Several
problems immediately assailed the choir, if it was to continue with public
performances in churches, or elsewhere.
In addition to lacking funds, it no longer had a set of robes, or a set
of prayer books, or a suitable practice venue.
Those it had been using belonged to St Devenick’s and the present regime
there was not minded to be generous.
Choir practice was resumed the following Thursday, 17th March
1983, a little over a week after Malcolm Love’s dismissal, not in a hired venue,
but at East Silverburn the home of the Love family. Malcolm, in his autobiography, described the
arrangements.
“My
home is a converted water-mill and the building that once housed the grinding
machinery, now our sitting room is big and lofty. We would not have had nearly enough chairs
for choir practice, though, had it not been for the church chairs I had
bought. Muriel dusted the straw and hay
fragments off them and we found that with the easy chairs and the dining chairs
we could now seat 45 singers. Any above
this number had to sit on the carpet, but the smallest boys did not seem to
mind”.
Later, the
Loves went further to adapt their home for the new needs of the choir.
“The
cottage in which the crofter had lived when my home was a mill, is now my
garage and workshop, but the upstairs part affords all sorts of scope for
recreation. My sons had installed a bar,
carpet and easy chairs, and it seemed logical to allow the senior choristers
the use of this place on practice night.
It gave them a place they could call their own now that they could not
use church premises, and as the year went on we resurrected a small snooker
table and table tennis table that our own sons had enjoyed, while a big new
darts board arrived at Christmas”.
The
choristers themselves also showed that they did not lack initiative. Some had been keeping their robes at home but
most left them and their RSCM ribbons and medals, their badges of office and
achievement in this meritocratic organisation, in the church. A few boys sneaked, unobserved, into St
Devenick’s during the week and purloined all the ribbons and medals. They were handed over to their juvenile
owners and Malcolm, quietly admiring their chutzpah, did not intervene, except
to allow the boys to keep their awards, rather than surrendering them, as a
cost-saving measure on graduation to the adult choir.
The Loves hit back
Malcolm and
Muriel Love had three sons, one of whom, Ian, was a practising advocate in
Aberdeen. He authored a long document,
rebutting the charges made against his father by the St Devenick’s Vestry. The document was available for distribution
on 12th May 1983 and it is reproduced in full below.
“A
Statement concerning the dismissal of Dr Malcolm Love from the post of
Choirmaster of St Devenick’s, Bieldside.
“As
most of you will be aware, my father, Dr.Malcolm Love, was sumarily dismissed
from the post of choirmaster of St .Devenick's church, on 8th March 1983,
following a decision by the majority of the Vestry to that effect. Many of you will also have seen a statement
from the Vestry purportedly explaining this decision, which was distributed to
members of the congregation at the close of the morning service at the church
on 13th March, and a circular enclosed in recent copies of St.Devenlcks Matters
referring to that statement. It is in
response to this statement and circular that I am writing now.
“Firstly,
it is within the Rector’s and Vestry’s remit to appoint and dismiss the
Choirmaster. I was astonished, however,
to discover that the Rector, Vestry members and persons distributing the
document were prepared to accept the responsibility for publicising comments
which were at best misleading and in some instances utterly untrue. The general tenor of these comments, and the
relative circular, was to assert that my father had broken his conditions of
appointment, flouted the Rector’s and Vestry’s authority, broken subsequent
agreements, with the Vestry and conducted himself in a manner inconsistent with
his holding the post of Choirmaster, to the extent that “the Vestry has
regrettably found it necessary to terminate his appointment".
“My
father was shattered when he saw this statement, made by people that he had
worshipped with wholeheartedly in Christian communion, week in, week out, for
years. Members of the-congregation who
were not appraised of the true situation would naturally believe the ’official
version' appearing in black and white and even advertised with the church
magazine!
“That
this statement could not be correct becomes obvious when one discovers that the
decision to dismiss my father prompted the immediate resignation of four Vestry
members - a fact tactfully omitted from the Vestry's statement.
“I
now append a note of my father’s observations on specific passages, from the
Vestry's statement of March 13th.
“1. In paragraph 3 of the statement: "we
expected the choirmaster to accept the Rector’s entire control of the choir, as
he had agreed to do when signing his letter of appointment. Regrettably the Choirmaster has not always
been willing to accept this in spite of numerous discussions with the Rector
and a meeting, with, the complete Vestry”.
“It
is difficult to discover what this oblique generality refers to. Every note of
music, psalms, anthems, etc., was agreed for every service, months in advance
at a meeting of the Rector, curate, Organist and Choirmaster.
“2. In paragraph 4 “The tensions concerning the role of the
choir in the church were evident during last year's Annual General Meeting...”.
The
AGM was certainly tense, but the role of the choir was not at issue; it was not
even discussed. It was not raised. No
representations of any description were made by 'the choir' or members speaking
in its name. Two contentious matters were raised: the question of the form of
liturgy to be used at church services,
and the question of the future of the Rood Screen. As I understand it, the whole point of an AOB
is to give an opportunity for members of a congregation to air their views on
matters concerning their church. Many members of the congregation voiced strong
views on these two matters. Given that the choir forms a significant proportion
of the congregation and given the number of people that expressed views on
these subjects, it would, have been most surprising if no choir members had had
views to raise. In any event, surely it is not necessary to defend the right of
the individual to question matters at an AGM? In a Christian community it is
ludicrous, that the word 'democracy' should even require to be mentioned. If it
truly is the case that concerned members of a congregation are to be denied
discussion of pertinent questions raised by them (as indeed happened) and that,
further, their temerity in daring to raise such questions is to be punished by
making a scapegoat of the choirmaster, then Christian values at St, Devenick's
have slipped to a lower level than I am prepared to believe.
"3. The Churchwardens and Clergy arranged a
meeting with the Choirmaster to discuss the issues involved. There appeared to
be mutual understanding and a large-measure of agreement at the meeting."
“This
innocuous-sounding passage is a very benign and inaccurate account of a most
unpleasant episode. After being asked to
attend a meeting on 21st. December, 1982, my father inquired as to the purpose
of this meeting, but the Rector declined to tell him, hardly the best
preparation to "discuss the issues involved”. At the meeting itself, held so soon after
what many people considered to be a very
successful carol service, my father was interrogated for 3 hours without
a break, being, as most know, in a great deal of pain at the time. The scene
was set by Mr.Heueston, who made the following points:
“That
he and others had been concerned for some time, as they showed at the AGM that
the choir and Clergy and the choir and Vestry, were on a collision course, and
that if a colllsion occurred, then "it would result in our having no
choirmaster.’
“He
said that certain points had given great concern to all of the congregation for
quite a nunber of years, that he had heard that various people had been unhappy
about the liturgy and the clergy were unhappy about the choir.
“The
Vestry were said to be concerned about the size of the choir, and that
"the kind of way the choir fund was growing appeared to be almost out of
the control of the Vestry".
“He
gave as an example of "the sort of thing one heard said” that “the choir
had almost declared U.D.I. from the church."
“Now
as anyone at the AGM will remember, a ‘collision course’ was never
mentioned. I have tried to make some sense
of Mr.Heueston’s remarks, but unsuccessfully. 2 . Why the choir and the Vestry
should be on a collision course is a mystery to me. Three members of the Vestry
were in the Choir. The other members of
the Vestry had no contact whatever with the choir or Choirmaster, except for
the Treasurer, who resigned from the Vestry when the dismissal was announced.
The rest of Mr.Heueston’s preamble was no more enlightening. He seemed worried
by the size of the choir, the size of the choir fund, and related matters. I
should have thought that these merited congratulation, not damnation and the
threat of dismissal. He then came up
with a view which he said was the "sort of thing one hears said”, the
monstrously fatuous view that the choir "had almost declared UDI from the
church." How could this be so when the clergy approved ALL the music and determined
the order of service? How could anyone
take, exception to the choir’s being self-funded? This simply means that the
church can apply its other resources as it sees fit without the additional
burden of meeting the choir’s needs. Mr.Heueston
refers to nothing that my father had done which was other than helpful to the
church, let alone unconstitutonal, or as the statement of 13th March would have
it, "Inconsistent with his responsibilities as choirmaster and in direct
conflict with the terms of his appointment".
“This
apart, I am disgusted that my father was treated so shabbily by a ’religious’
body immediately before Christmas, being questioned closely for such a long period
when in such poor health.
“I
need hardly say that my father disagreed with Mr.Heueston’s train of thought
and with comments in a similar vein from the other three protagonists and so
one may safely assume that the "mutual understanding" and "large
measure of agreement" pertained only to the Wardens and Clergy present,
and not, as was implied by the statement, to my father. It would appear from the events which followed
that none of the arguments put forward by my father was adopted by the others
present, or allowed to influence their subsequent actions.
"4. ...the choirmaster was sent a written record
of the issues that had been discussed, which specified the points where his
agreement was expected. These were not unreasonable and gave ample scope for
the continuing development of the choir’s role..."
“These
points are now quoted In full:
“1.It
was agreed that spiritual authority in our Church lies with the Rector. All
aspects of worship, including musical items, should therefore be in accordance
with the Rector’s wishes. As a consequence of this “it is necessary for you to
put to the Rector for approval items which you propose the Choir should sing at
services. This may be supplemented by the Rector and yourself meeting for
discussion at appropriate intervals. You are also required to co-operate fully
in having the Choir sing, or lead the congregation in singing, any item
requested by the Rector.
“2.The
number of members of the Choir should be reduced as soon as practicable to that
which can be accommodated comfortably within the choir stalls in Church. The
reduction can take place by ’natural wastage’ in an immediate period during
which new members should not be admitted other than with the Rector’s
agreement. In the meantime, Choir members that cannot be accommodated in the
stalls should occupy pews with the congregation.
“3.You
agreed” (“I most certainly did not” RML) “that proposals for expenditure from
the Choir Fund or other church funds should be submitted to the Vestry for
prior approval because the Choir Fund, like other church funds, is the
responsibility of the Vestry.
“4.It
was agreed that choir practices should not be held at times that clash with
other church activities. We request that the matter of holding of choir
practices on Sunday mornings at a time which clashes with Pathfinders be
resolved in consultation with the Rector as soon as possible, and in the
absence of an alternative solution this practice should be discontinued.
“5.We
expect the Choir to give a lead to the congregation in the musical worship of
church services, including the singing of hymns.
“6.We
expect you to encourage members of the Choir to play a part in the full life
and worship of the church, including activities at which they are not
necessarily attending as Choir members.
“7.We
regard it as important that you recognise that other styles or music besides
those In which the choir excels are valid aids to, and 
expressions of, worship, and that you encourage this view
in members of the Choir.
“...Whilst
it is hoped that agreement on all these points will result in the resolution of
all matters of outstanding concern to us, we would wish to review the position
at the end of three months, and will expect to see progress on all these points
to the satisfaction of the Rector.”
“While
these points may not seem unreasonable to the casual observer, it should be
noted that the major point no.1 HAD ALWAYS BEEN COMPLIED WITH and that, points
6 & 7 really had nothing to do with my father. Further, the remaining
points would be difficult to implement without damaging the choir’s structure,
as the rapid changes in boys’ voices steadily create gaps which must be filled
to maintain a balanced sound. Notwithstanding this, my father DID ATTEMPT TO COMPLY
In deference to "the Rector’s and Vestry’s request”.
“5. "Dr.Love has since shown by his actions
that he had no Intentions of complying, with these points".
It
is sad that a church authority should print such a statement in the full and
certain knowledge that it was utterly and demonstrably untrue. My father had
made out a rota for reducing the numbers in the stalls as soon as the rehearsals
for the school show were finished. He discussed Pathfinders with Dr. Heddle and
had reached a compromise acceptable to them both. A scheme for the religious instruction of
choristers was already in operation during sermon time under the auspices of Dr
.Brunt and Mrs .Clark, and was working most successfully. The choirmen then
wrote to the Rector, jointly, requesting permission to discuss with the Vestry
the remaining practical points requested. The Rector wrote in reply that this “should
obviously be considered by the Vestry at our next meeting on 8th March, and I
shall include it as an Item on the agenda thereof.”
“The
Rector, however, withheld this letter from the Vestry at that meeting. The
Rector had also withheld a memorandum from Dr .Findlay, a Vestry member, to be
placed before the Vestry at Its meeting on 6th January when the ’role of the
choir’ was to be discussed. It may therefore be that the statement Issued by
the Vestry on 13th March came about through misinformation, and although that
is no excuse for its scurrilous content, the Rector’s actions in withholding
these letters may well have shifted most of the onus of responsibility for this
document fairly and squarely on to his own shoulders.
“6. “(RML) has also spoken to, and written to a
number of members of the congregation in terms which have been highly derogatory
to the Rector and his staff..."
“Once
again, totally misleading. My father has no recollection of writing to members
of the congregation in any terms, derogatory or otherwise. A number of copies
of the Wardens’ letter of 1st January were sent to people on request - surely
permissible, as it purported to come from their representative, the People's Warden.
My father certainly did speak individually to each of the four who had been
present at the 'meeting' on 21st December - the Curate and two Wardens
personally and the Rector by telephone - telling them how outraged he was by
that meeting and the subsequent letter of ’conditions’. There was no question
of speaking behind their backs, a point which he specifically made to each of
them. The meeting and letter were, after all, done without the Vestry's prior
knowledge, later ratified with four dissentions, and badly and unfairly executed
by any decent and honest standards.
“7. At Its meeting last Tuesday, the Vestry
considered Dr.Love's actions and judged them to have been inconsistent with his
responsibilities as choirmaster, and in direct conflict with the terms of his
employment".
“This
damning indictment is both wilfully misleading and utterly unfair. The three
month probation period specified in the ’letter of conditions’ had not nearly
expired: far from my father breaking hls contract, the Vestry had failed to
honour the terms of its own ultimatum! Further, the letter from the choirmen
requesting a meeting to discuss the few remaining practical points had been
suppressed. The Rector was away for part of January and all February, and on
his return did not even mention the choir situation to my father, apart from
refusing to present Choral Evensong on his coloured poster.
“8. Dr.Love has refused to resign".
Quite
true: he was strongly urged NOT to resign by many people and, further, having
complied with the Vestry's stipulation to the best of his ability, hoped that a
modus vivendi was at least possible.
“9. ...his refusal to accept the discipline and
restrictions of the post of choirmaster...".
“This
quaint and untrue statement possibly gives an insight into the thought
processes of Its authors. My father had always operated as choirmaster strictly
within the normal Episcopal system, consulting professional advisers as
required and working to enhance the weekly worship at St. Devenick’s to the
best of his ability, expending no little energy in the process. It is not until
recently that he realised that the Vestry viewed these normal and natural
processes in terms of 'discipline’ and ’restrictions’.
“In
summary, I must first apologise if this statement has seemed bereft of the
normal conciliatory platitudes, but frankly I am disgusted by the whole matter.
“I
certainly would not wish to be part, of a church which condones such
clandestine and malevolent behaviour on the part of its officials. Certainly my father is far more tolerant than
I am, devoting so much time, energy, thought and money towards creating and funding
one of the most effective and enthusiastic church choirs in the whole country,
only to be met with an invidious tissue of half-truths and dismissal.
“How
the Vestry can say "We all have a high regard for Dr. Love’s musical
ability and for his, devotion and enthusiasm in building up such an excellent
choir” when that is the precise reason for his dismissal I do not know. How the newly-appointed ’People’s-Warden’ can
write and act without consulting the people also requires explanation.
“You
will note, I trust, that this statement covers ONLY the points made by the
Vestry: much more could have been written on the unfair nature of the actions.
It is with the greatest reluctance that this ’reply’ is being written at all,
but as persons reading the Vestry’s statement have been known to take it at
face value, something had to be done. I only hope that the church will itself
bring some sanity back into the situation as I am sure it can and should.
“One
thing is absolutely certain. While we would not contest the Vestry’s right to
hire and fire choirmasters as they see fit, my mother, brothers and I concur in
the view that leaving matters as they are with my father’s good name in
unjustifiable disrepute is quite out of the question.
“Ian.
R. Love P 12th May 1983
“187,
Great Northern Road, Aberdeen.”
Evaluating
the actions of individuals from a vantage point more than four decades distant
from the events described gives this author the advantages of hindsight,
perspective and emotional detachment. It
was certainly necessary for the Loves to respond to the charges made against
Malcolm by the Vestry. But perhaps the
document would have been more impactful if Ian Love’s rebuttal of the charges
had espoused brevity and shunned emotion, confining itself to factual
inaccuracies in the Vestry case with contrary evidence, so that those not familiar
with evaluating long and complex documents would not have become lost, or
discouraged, before reaching its terminus.
The
fundamental charges levelled against the former St Devenick’s choirmaster were
that he had repeatedly broken the terms of his contract of employment and
flouted the authority of the Clergy and Vestry.
This being so, I was surprise that there was no direct reference to the actual
terms in the contract and no copy of such a document was produced by either the
Vestry or by Ian Love. No such document
was found in Malcolm’s archive.
However, what
is immediately clear is that both Vestry and Clergy were completely out of
their depth in dealing with employment matters.
Collectively they seemed to lack any appreciation of the need to make their
charges specific and to back each one up with clear, factual, supporting
evidence. Vague generalities and
assertions, which was all they could offer, were not just inadequate but
inappropriate. Perhaps the most
egregious example of the Vestry’s flawed approach was their claim that choir
problems had been raised at the 1982 AGM, when such a debate was completely
absent.
Ian Love’s
document was helpful in indicating that his father had attempted to accommodate
the wishes of Canon Gordon, for example by proposing a rota of attendance at
services to achieve a practical reduction in numbers of choristers present in
church. It also produced a further
example of Canon Gordon withholding documentation from the Vestry which may
have had an impact on those responsible for composing and signing off the
“ultimatum” letter to the choirmaster.
When Ian
Love’s document reached Kenneth Gordon, which surely it must have done, one
wonders if he read it carefully to the last paragraph? Did he pick up the hint of further action if
the wrongs Ian Love claimed his father had suffered were not addressed? Either way, Kenneth Gordon’s approach
remained to “tough it out”.
Attempts at reconciliation are
redoubled
Shortly after
the release of Ian Love’s rebuttal of the charges made by the Vestry against
his father, Malcolm and Muriel Love went on holiday for two weeks but in their
absence other activists were hard at work on behalf of Malcolm. There was clearly a hope that Bishop Fred
Darwent could intervene to bring about reconciliation. Several of Malcolm’s supporters spoke with
the Bishop and, at that stage, he was prepared to listen to anyone who turned
up at his door. The Bishop subsequently
met twice with the St Devenick’s Vestry.
He asked them to reconsider the dismissal of Malcolm Love as choirmaster
but received a blunt refusal even to consider such a move. Apparently, Bishop Darwent believed that he
lacked any authority to force the matter on the St Devenick’s Vestry and he was
left with the dilemma of how to react to this difficult situation. He was an admirer of Malcolm Love and his
choir but also believed that the Rector of St Devenick’s had to be supported in
his mission. Darwent’s solution was to sit
on the fence, with one foot either side, gently leaning one way then the other
as pragmatism required. He issued a
statement which was handed out to the congregation after the Sunday service on
15th May 1983. His message
expressed sorrow at the situation which had developed, but stated that the
decision was the Vestry’s and that he supported the Rector. He asked for love,
compassion and compromise but his emotional hand-wringing was devoid of obvious
impact on the dispute.
Some of those
who had been to see Bishop Darwent returned with an enigmatic message from the
diocesan leader, “Look to your constitution”, he had said. And the activists, several of whom possessed
higher degrees, did just that and quickly found the section at which, they
presumed, the Bishop had been hinting: the Special General Meeting! A General Meeting involved the whole
congregation which would likely be more amenable to compromise and
reconciliation. The relevant wording of
section 6 of the St Devenick’s Constitution follows.
“General
Meetings of the Congregation may be held at other times when the Vestry or a
majority thereof may consider it necessary, and the Vestry shall be bound,
within twenty-one days, to call a General Meeting on receiving a Requisition in
writing to that effect signed by not less than fifteen Members od the
Congregation; but the purpose for which such meetings are called shall be
notified on the two previous Sundays during Divine Service, either verbally or
in writing posted on the ordinary Notice-Board on the Church door, and it shall
not be competent to discuss any other business at such Meetings. The forms of procedure at such Meetings shall
be the same as in respect of the Annual Meeting.”
I have not
uncovered the requisition letter but it is clear from other sources that three
topics for discussion were included, the form of Liturgy, the future of the
Rood Screen and the reinstatement of the choirmaster. The draft must have been completed by 12th
May 1983 and Edwina Clark (wife of a senior lecturer in Geography at Aberdeen
University) and Brenda Parsons (wife of the professor of Soil Science at the
same institution) were given the job of collecting signatures. Although 15 was the minimum number needed to
validate the requisition, it was decided to gather many more to guard against
the Rector trying to invalidate some promoters of the document. In fact, 44 signatories were appended to the
letter delivered to the secretary of the Vestry on 22nd May. The Rector then decided the date of SGM would
be Monday 30the May 1983, thus allowing two Sundays for the required
announcement to be made to the congregation.
He informed congregants of this arrangement by letter.
A group of
Malcolm Love’s most prominent supporters met to discuss the following day’s SGM
after the service on 29th May.
They agreed that their primary objective was reconciliation, the
establishment of Malcolm Love’s blameless reputation and his reinstatement as
the St Devenick’s choirmaster..
The Special General Meeting of the St
Devenick’s congregation held on 30th May 1983
The Bishop’s
representative, the Dean, Campbell Adamson, attended this meeting but was not
allowed to chair it as Kenneth Gordon insisted, as was his right under the
constitution, on assuming that role.
This move by the Rector suggested that he was intent on using the levers
available to the chairman to steer the meeting in a direction he favoured. It surely would have been preferable to have
a neutral person in the role if the cause of compromise were to be served.
In total,
about 170 people turned up to the SGM, including a substantial number from
Westhill, some of whom had to ask the way to the church hall, the venue of the
meeting. Those from Westhill were
allowed to participate fully in the proceedings even though the ideas being
discussed did not really affect them, which upset Malcolm Love’s supporters,
since they thought there were grounds in Canon Law to exclude their
participation. The meeting started at
7.00pm and went on for four hours. It
began with a 45 minute preamble by the secretary to the Vestry but, once the
debate of substantive issues got underway the atmosphere became very tense and,
at times, heated. Many pleas were made
for reconciliation but there was no hint from the Vestry that they were
planning any move in that direction.
Remarkably, since the meeting had been called to deal with three
separate issues, only one was debated – the status of the choirmaster. Mr JSR Cruickshank proposed a motion that
Malcolm Love should be reinstated. It
was carried by 85 votes to 59. The only
undertaking given by Canon Gordon in consequence of that result was that the Vestry
would consider it at their next meeting.
The passing
of a motion at the SGM to reinstate Malcolm Love, buoyed up the hopes of his
supporters. On 2nd June 1983,
the choirmen and some parents met at the Loves’ house. They decided to draft a letter to the Vestry
“expressing willingness for reconciliation”.
It was posted the following day.
Also about this time Ian Findlay, who had previously tried to influence
the thinking of the Vestry in the direction of reconciliation, sent another
missive to the that body, proposing the creation of a liaison committee between
the choir, the Vestry and the congregation.
A further action by Malcolm Love’s supporters to impress upon the Vestry
the earnest of their wishes for reconciliation, involved several choir families
and disaffected members attended the Rector’s Family Service on the morning of
Sunday 5th June.
The next
meeting of the Vestry was scheduled for 13th June, when the passing
of the resolution to reinstate Malcolm would be debated. The choir supporters felt they needed to be
ready to respond to press enquiries following that meeting, whatever the
verdict on reinstatement. They met the
day before the Vestry meeting and drafted two alternative responses, one
assuming reinstatement, the other a refusal to take Malcolm back. It was a case of “Hope for the best but plan
for the worst”. The traditionalists were
right to suspect that the clerical leopard had not changed his spots. On 13th June the decision was
taken not to re-employ Malcolm Love as the St Devenick’s choirmaster. However, instead of making an immediate
announcement, especially to the sponsors of the requisition and to Malcolm Love
himself, the information was withheld until it appeared in the P&J on 14th
June. Kenneth Gordon had taken a
statement direct to the P&J office and requested secrecy until the story
appeared in this Aberdeen daily the following morning. That was the way in which many members of the
St Devenick’s congregation, including Malcolm Love, discovered the outcome of
the Vestry meeting, by reading the headline, “Sacked choirmaster to stay out”.
Kenneth
Gordon also authored a letter, printed on pink paper, which was delivered to some,
but not all, members of the congregation.
No original copy of this letter has been uncovered but it is known to
have contained the following items.
“the appointment of Dr. Love again
would not be in the best interests of St. Devenick’s”
(Canon Gordon) “could not, in conscience
before God, concur in such an appointment either now or in the foreseeable
future”
“Things
have come to light since, and events that have followed, Dr. Love’s dismissal
have made this very clear to me. I could
have no confidence in any assurances that were to be given for the future by
Dr. Love... In the present, and any foreseeable, circumstances, re-instatement
of Dr Love would in my opinion cause alarm and disquiet beyond the bounds of
St. Devenick’s and would have implications for the rest of the Diocese and
possibly throughout the Scottish Episcopal Church”
There can be
little doubt that composing and arranging for the distribution this letter were
unwise actions by Kenneth Gordon, since the missive hints at serious
shortcomings in Malcolm Love’s past behaviour, both before and after his
dismissal on 8th March 1983, but without making the allegations
specific, or giving factual evidence for their veracity. Did he not even suspect that Malcolm Love and
his family would be likely to take formal action to clear Malcolm’s name, which
might have made him more circumspect?
At the recent
SGM, Ian Findlay, a member of the Vestry, had made a proposal for the creation
of a liaison committee to link the Vestry to the congregation. Kenneth Gordon took action on 15th
June to create such a group but instead of asking the Deeside Choristers to
nominate members for this new body, he made his own selection and while he had
nominated some supporters of the ex-choirmaster, such as Ian Findlay, Barry
Fenwick and Midge Harbottle, he had circumscribed any discussions they might have on
reinstating Malcolm, or on clearing his name, by his refusal to take him back
under any foreseeable circumstances and by making further opaque allegations
concerning Malcolm’s behaviour. The
liaison group was likely to be seen as a paper tiger. A meeting of this liaison group was arranged
for 27th June and a notice announcing this event posted in the
church porch, This caused some consternation amongst the members of the group
who were supporters of Dr Love and the choirs because the notice could have been
taken to imply that they were present, not as individuals but as
representatives of the Deeside Choristers, which they were not, having been
selected by Kenneth Gordon.
The Action Group for Reconciliation
and Reform comes into being
The informal
group of advisers to Malcolm Love, which contained some significant intellects,
now realised that reconciliation was not going to happen either quickly or
easily. In consequence they decided to
reconstitute themselves under the formal title of “Action Group for
Reconciliation and Reform” and held their first formal meeting on 18th
June 1983. The name of the new body
hinted that the activists had broadened their aims to include changes to the modus operandi of the officers of St
Devenick’s. One of the first actions of
the newly constituted group was to write to Bishop Fred Darwent on 24th
June requesting a meeting. Darwent
responded, not by offering a meeting, but by directing the group to his recent
letter to the congregation. The Action
Group, which was a formally separate group from the Deeside Choristers,
realised that many members of the St Devenick’s congregation would be unaware
of their existence and purpose. To
address this deficit, the reply that they drafted to Bishop Darwent’s recent
letter which had failed to respond to a request for a meeting, was sent to all
members of the St Devenick’s congregation, which they hoped would address the
concerns of congregants who felt isolated and powerless in the aftermath of
Canon Gordon’s intransigence.
A group of
young people from the choir also wrote to Bishop Darwent about this time, but
they received the same brush-off as the Action Group, being directed to his
recent letter to the congregation at that time posted in the porch of St
Devenick’s. Some youngsters from the
choir also wrote to the local newspapers making an important point about the
inspiration they took from Malcolm Love and his evangelical impact on the young
members of the choir. “Dr Love is a
great inspiration to all who know him.
He has introduced many young people to the church through the two
choirs”.
On 27th
June an informal meeting took place between representatives of the two sides,
the Deeside Chorister contingent including both adult singers and parents of
junior members. The other side contained
representatives of the Vestry. The
meeting was amicable and the prospect of a better relationship in future, in
the form of a substantial donation from the choir fund and occasional
appearances to sing at St Devenick’s services, seemed a possibility. But Kenneth Gordon was not present and the
Vestry representatives may have been free-lancing without his approval for the
suggestions at which they had hinted.
They never happened.
Bishop Darwent’s intervention
The Bishop
had been active behind the scenes but had got nowhere in encouraging Kenneth
Gordon to be more conciliatory. Faced
with an impasse he eased onto his St Devenick’s-leaning foot and dispatched a
further letter to the congregation which was read out in church on Sunday 26th
June 1983. Its content was deeply
dispiriting to Malcolm Love and his supporters.
Darwent, employing the standard rhetoric of senior clergy, relayed that
he had been "praying” and ’’agonizing" extensively over the St
Devenick’s problem, which he characterised as “continual feuding” in an attempt
to appear even-handed. He was searching
for a solution but Canon Law endowed the clergy with certain "rights and
privileges" and when these entitlements had been exercised "prayerfully,
with the integrity which one expects from all clergy, and in good conscience before
God”, which, he had been assured had been the case, then he had to support the
St Devenick’s clergy in the exercise of their rights. That being so, he had to accept their
position and urged the members of the congregation to support Kenneth Gordon
and his curate. This letter from Fred
Darwent was badly received by Malcolm Love’s numerous supporters. They resented the suggestion that both sides
had been feuding when they had sincerely sought reconciliation and had been
repeatedly rebuffed, and they did not accept that Kenneth Gordon was a superior
authority in determining what was the will of God. The missive seemed to be so different in tone
from the previous letter that Bishop Darwent had written to the congregation on
15th May.
The Deeside Choristers Choir formally
comes into existence
On adopting
the title, “The Deeside Choristers”, for the now-independent choir, it was also
necessary to draw up a constitution for the new organisation. This had been drafted by 19th June
1983 and was ratified at a meeting on 28th June at which a committee
was also elected. Malcolm Love was
chosen as Director of Music for the new choir, Iain Marr became Choirmaster of
the St Cecilia Choir, Richard Weddle the organist and Barry Fenwick was elected
as Chairman. The choir and its
supporters were now acting independently of St Devenick’s Church, a community
from which they felt alienated, which was a serious matter for committed
Christians. An effort was made to remove
this deficit by holding services in the WRI Hall in Cults. On 26th June, a private service of
Compline, led by Dr Nancy Mercer, was conducted at this venue attended by about
100 people. Some former members of the
St Devenick’s congregation moved their allegiance elsewhere, the most popular
new religious affiliation being to the Church of St John the Baptist in Crown
Terrace, Aberdeen. A further private
service of Sung Evensong, with about 100 attendees, was held in the WRI Hall,
Cults on 21st August, with Michael Partridge leading on this
occasion. One week later the remarkable
number of 40 choristers and parents worshipped at St John’s, Crown Terrace.
Throughout May and June 1983 choir practices went ahead and a programme of events started to emerge. On 1st June the St Cecilia Choir won the Patterson Gold Medal at the Aberdeen Music festival. They were competing against three other competent choirs. The 25th June 1983, saw the Deeside Choristers and the St Cecilia Choir mount a concert in the theatre at the Deeside Community Centre, Aboyne, which included a performance of “Above him stood the seraphim” by the Tudor composer Richard Dering (1580 – 1630). Further, the choirs had by this date sufficient invitations to make up a full programme of performances through to the end of the year.
The 1983
choir camp took place between 2nd and 11th July based at
Bishop’s Auckland in County Durham, with a full programme of activities. Fortunately the Vestry of St Devenick’s
allowed the choir to borrow a set of robes.
There was, of course no call on them at St Devenick’s. The Byrd Choir gave a concert at St. Peter's
Church, Bishop Auckland, sang Compline at Escomb Parish Church, and Choral
Evensong at St. Andrew's Church, Bishop Auckland, Ripon Cathedral, and Hexham
Abbey, with a different music programme on each of the three occasions. The choristers also joined services as
members of the congregation at St Andrew’s, Bishop Auckland and at Durham
Cathedral. Members of the choir also
took a day off from singing to walk to the High Force waterfall in Teesdale. Everywhere they went, the choristers were
given a warm welcome. During the autumn
of 1983 there were choir appearances at St Margaret’s, Braemar, Pluscarden
Abbey, St Clement’s, Mastrick and (St Ceceilia’s Choir) St Peter’s, Culter. At Pluscarden Abbey, a community of Catholic
Benedictine monks situated near Elgin, Morayshire on 18th September,
the Abbot addressed the Byrd Choir in the following terms.
“I
know you’ve come primarily to worship and praise Almighty God. You’ve done that splendidly, very
beautifully, very prayerfully. This
church is not a parish church; it is a monastic church where the monks gather
seven times a day to praise and worship God; I feel we have something in
common. We will remember you in our
prayers”.
In August
1983 the committee of the Deeside Choristers agreed to invite the Dean of the
Diocese, Campbell Adamson, to become their patron, which role he readily
undertook. He was an important allay to
gain but, sadly, he did not survive long in the role. Campbell Adamson died suddenly on 3rd
September 1983.
Macolm and
Muriel Love, ever keen to add a social element to the doings of the Deeside
Choristers, held a barbecue at East Silverburn on 20th August. My wife and I attended this event which was a
lot of fun and demonstrated the coherence of the choir’s supporters. I particularly remember complementing Malcolm
on the spicy barbecue sauce on offer.
Apparently it had been prepared by Muriel to a recipe she had obtained
from an ethnic contact.
The severance
of the choirs from their connection with St Devenick’s caused continuing
problems from a lack of supporting materials, such as robes and hymn books, and
an absence of funds to replace them.
Raising a new fund became an imperative and a sale of goods was planned
for the autumn. Such was the confidence
of the Deeside Choristers’ Committee in the success of the upcoming sale that
an order for new hymn books was placed before the event took place. Was this an act of faith, or a business
decision based on experience?
The Deeside
Choristers continued their programme of appearances throughout the autumn of
1983. The choir and its supporters were
leading two separate but parallel lives, one the pursuit of excellence in
classical church music and the other the engagement with the progressives in St
Devenick’s Church concerning legal and spiritual issues, together with wholly
practical matters such as the election of the new Vestry. Malcolm Love, Iain Marr and the singers
seemed to sail on unaffected by the turbulence surrounding them. On 3rd November the St Cecilia
Choir sang in the Arts Centre in Aberdeen and on the 5th of the
month there was a celebration of Bonfire Night for the choristers. The Byrd Choir appeared at St Machar’s
Cathedral, Aberdeen on 20th November and four days later a further
private service was held in the WRI Hall, Cults. It was attended by about 85 people, George
Patterson led the service. In the run-up
to the end of 1983, the Deeside Choristers had a particularly heavy programme
of appearances, singing in the following venues. St. Thomas’, Aboyne; The Parish Church of
Glenmuick, Ballater (St Cecilia Choir); St. Clement’s, Mastrick; St. Mary’s,
Carden Place; St.- Peter’s, Culter (Carol Service sung jointly by 75 singers of
the Byrd and St Cecilia Choirs) and St Mary’s, Carden Place (four men, seven
boys, and four girls).
On Christmas
Eve, an evening service of lessons and carols was held in the WRI Hall,
Cults. George Patterson read a prayer
and lessons were contributed by Brenda Parsons, Gordon Simpson, Freddie Gowar
(Consultant Thoracic Surgeon and one of the first doctors to recognise the link
between smoking and lung cancer), Gavin Clark, Malcolm Ingram (Senior Lecturer
in Chemistry, Aberdeen University), and Pat Mugliston (retired Aberdeen
University librarian). The lessons were traditional, and were taken from the
Authorised Version of the Bible. Three of the Carols were sung by the Deeside
Choristers without congregational participation, the remaining eight being
congregational. At least in this modest
venue the traditionalists were free to worship and celebrate Christmas as they
pleased.
The Deeside
Choristers’ year ended with an organised party in the WRI Hall on 29th
December, with the programme including games, food, cartoons and a disco, for
about 40 attendees. This was a typical
aspect of Malcolm Love’s organisation of the choir, to leaven intense musical
activities with youthful fun events. Since his dismissal in March 1983, it appeared
that Malcolm Love had been concentrating on his duties as Director of Music for
the Deeside Choristers and avoiding giving the impression of being an activist
campaigner for his own reinstatement.
The Action Group for Reconciliation
and Reform becomes very active
One of the most
active members of the Action Group was George Patterson, a Lecturer in
Jurisprudence at the University of Aberdeen, jurisprudence being the theory of
law. George and his colleagues began a
systematic study of both the Canon Law of the Scottish Episcopal Church and the
Constitution of St Devenick’s Church, because it was under the authority
deriving from these two sets of binding rules that decisions had been and would
in future be taken concerning Malcolm Love, the liturgical practice and the
general conduct of affairs at St Devenick’s.
A Legal sub-committee of the Action Group was created to accommodate the
work of George and other traditionals of a similar bent, and it was very active
over the summer of 1983. As a result of
the work of the Legal sub-Committee, it was thought that major defects in both
drafting and operation of the St Devenick’s constitution had been
uncovered. It was decided to seek the
requisition of a further Special General Meeting for the purpose of evaluating
(a) The discharge by the Vestry of their functions within St. Devenick’s
Church; (b) The need for revision and
reform of the constitution of St Devenick’s Church. The requisition was read out in church, as
required by the constitution on 4th and 11th September
It was also
agreed to write to members of the congregation informing them about the issues
under investigation. The letter was
drafted by Nancy Mercer and George Patterson.
Its dispatch was organised by Ian Findlay and it alerted the congregants
to several issues of concern, including, the way in which the Vestry had
introduced the Scottish Liturgy, 1982, the termination of Dr. Love’s contract
and its failure to act on the resolution passed at the last Special Congregational
Meeting ( 30th May, 1983 ), the presentation of the informal meeting between
some members of the Vestry and the Deeside Choristers supporters as being
representative. Also, the present form
of the St. Devenick’s Constitution.
The mere fact
that a letter had been sent to the congregation miffed Kenneth Gordon and the
other members of the Vestry for two reasons.
It had been sent without their permission and the letters had been
addressed using contract details which had not been supplied by any authorised
official. The Vestry appeared to be
demanding veneration of their authoritarian role in the St Devenick’s
community.
A further
submission was prepared by the Law sub-Committee for Bishop Darwent’s
attention, relating to desirable changes to the St Devenick’s constitution and
on the matter of the introduction of the Scottish Liturgy, 1982 there. It was posted about 21st August
1983.
The Special Congregational Meeting of
12th September 1983
From the
start, this meeting took on an air of menace orchestrated by Kenneth Gordon who
insisted on presiding. Further, he
failed to invite the Bishop, or his representative, to be in attendance. All attendees, about 110 in number, were
asked to sign their names on entry, presumably to exclude any non-congregants
from the proceedings and Kenneth Gordon asked if any representatives of the
Press were present before opening the meeting.
He then asked all those who had signed the requisition letter to declare
themselves by standing up, so that the congregation should know their
identities. This move, dictated from the
chair, must have felt intimidating to at least some of the sponsors. After the meeting had concluded it was
discovered that Kenneth Gordon had employed a further, potentially disastrous,
controlling mechanism. Professor Ian
Parsons had turned up late to the meeting but was refused admission by the
Rector’s Warden, John Heueston, who was guarding the locked door to the
hall. There were over 100 congregants
inside.
Given the
subjects nominated by the authors of the letter of requisition, it was unlikely
to remain a calm and polite meeting for long.
As usual, some highly respected members of the congregation sought a way
to bridge the chasm which had opened up within the congregation. Dr Peter Brunt (Consultant Gastroenterologist
at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and a man who held a medical appointment to Queen
Elizabeth the Queen Mother) proposed the establishment of a committee, chaired
by the Bishop and with representation of the various points of view within the
congregation to undertake a fundamental re-examination of the future of St.
Devenick's Church. Another, more
limited, compromise position proffered was to introduce an additional service,
perhaps at 9.30am on Sundays, to allow both forms of the liturgy to be
offered. But, in spite of the
reasonableness of these ideas, they were not pursued. Possibly in the heat of the moment, Mrs
Edwards, a supporter of Canon Gordon and a co-opted member of the Vestry, had said that the Action Group for
Reconciliation and Reform should be renamed the “Action Group for the
Reinstatement of Dr. Love and the Removal of the Rector”. This contribution was hardly calculated to
contribute to a resolution of the problem.
Another issue
was raised at the meeting, the fate of the Choir Fund, which at that time had a
balance of over £5,000 and had largely been raised by Malcolm Love from the
fees he had received from scientific translating and lecturing. The fund was no longer accessible to the
Deeside Choristers and this troubled some members of the congregation, given
the identity of the main donor. One
attendee, Gordon Simpson, made a compelling case for the Vestry to return the
money to the Deeside Choristers.
After extensive
debate, with voices being raised on both sides, the following motion was
proposed by Ian Nicholson, (a Plant Scientist).
“In
view of the congregation’s loss of confidence in the members of the Vestry to
act as their representatives and in the interests of restoring unity and
fellowship in the congregation, the elected members of the Vestry should resign
prior to the next Annual General Meeting.”
The motion
was passed by 66 votes to 40. It must
have been obvious to Kenneth Gordon that the composition of his Vestry could
change dramatically at the next AGM.
Presumably because of the unfavourable outcome of the Special
Congregational Meeting from his point of view, Kenneth Gordon continued his
efforts to control the external perception of the St Devenick’s imbroglio by immediately telephoning an
account of the meeting to the Editor of the P&J. The report in the
following day’s paper did not mention the nature of the topics discussed, the
resolution, or its passage. He seemed to
be trying to present a “nothing to see here” image to the external audience.
The day
following the Special Congregational Meeting, Bill Mackintosh, the Chief
Reporter at the Evening Express, phoned George Patterson and he made a
statement about the meeting. A new
report under the heading “’New row rocks church hit by choir sacking”,
incorporating some of George Patterson’s information, duly appeared in that
day’s evening edition. Bill Mackintosh’s
piece contained the following statement which laid bare what had
transpired. “A special congregational
meeting has raised vital questions on the running of the church, the role of
the vestry and its accountability to the people who elect it. And in an
unprecedented move it passed a vote of no confidence in the vestry members it
had elected. By 66 votes to 40 it called for their resignation prior to the
church annual meeting at the end of the year. And those who hoped the simmering
row could be kept off the boil have been disappointed again”. George Patterson had clearly spoken in measured
terms as the following quotation from George shows.
“The
meeting was a difficult one and it showed there is deep concern and division
within the congregation. In spite of
this there were a number of very helpful and positive suggestions which one would
hope would bring an improvement to the state of affairs in the future”...”The
church’s constitution is obscure and unsatisfactory on a number of points
relating to the relationship between the congregation and the vestry”.
The Action Group for Reconciliation
and Reform continues its work
The Action
Group met four days after the special congregational meeting and decided to
publicly repudiate Mrs Edwards’ claim that the its aims had changed. While frankly accepting that the
reinstatement of Malcolm Love and the displacement of Kenneth Gordon might go a
long way towards achieving reconciliation, it reaffirmed that its aims remained,
“the reform of the procedures which had allowed the present unhappy situation
to develop, and the reconciliation and re-uniting of the congregation”. Precisely, Reform and Reconciliation. Secretary Ian Findlay was instructed to write
to Fred Darwent, who had not been represented at the Special Congregational
Meeting, to inform him of the congregational vote, the suggestion of Dr Peter
Brunt to form an investigative committee, and the Rector’s manipulation of
information about the meeting sent to the local Press. That was the immediate communications issue
resolved but it was also accepted that the Action Group needed, in addition, to
write to the congregation.
On 23rd
September 1983, Bishop Fred Darwent replied to George Patterson’s recent letter
concerning the St Devenick’s constitution and the Liturgy. He proposed to George that the Action
Committee should withdraw its request that the question of how the St
Devenick’s constitution might be altered be subject to judicial review because
the Vestry had agreed that this was a necessary action and would itself submit
a Petition. George readily consented to
the Bishop’s proposal. Both sides were
of one accord that a particular section of the constitution “had no, or at
least, no clear meaning”. Fred Darwent
also questioned if it was necessary to subject the mechanism by which the 1982
Liturgy was introduced at St Devenick’s to judicial review but might instead be
decided locally. George Patterson went
along with this idea. Was Fred Darwent
trying to keep this issue of contention away from the curiosity of the national
church officials? A meeting was arranged
between Dr Clive Dilloway (Secretary to St Devenick’s Vestry and a senior
manager with BP), and George Patterson for 28th September to discuss
the two legally contentious issues, constitution and liturgy. The meeting took
place in a good atmosphere and Clive Dilloway conceded that there was a valid
concern about the lawfulness of the Scottish Liturgy,1982’s introduction. As such, the matter needed to be
authoritatively examined.
Michael
Partridge and George Patterson met with Bishop Darwent on 29th
September to explain their reasoning for concluding that the 1982 Liturgy may
not have been legally introduced at St Devenick’s and thus they believed there
was a need for a judicial determination of the issue. The Bishop’s preference was to try to resolve
the matter locally by discussion between representatives of the differing
viewpoints, under his chairmanship.
George Patterson supported the Bishop’s idea and agreed to put it to the
next meeting of the Action Group. The
matter could not be resolved locally, possibly because of a lack of competence
in Canon Law, and on 3rd November an Initial Writ was lodged with
the Registrar of the Scottish Episcopal Church “craving (a) declarator that
the introduction of the Scottish Liturgy, 1982, was unlawful, and (b) interdict
prohibiting its further unlawful use”.
Almost a week later, George Patterson met with the Rector to explain the
implications of the Writ and to advise him to seek legal advice if he proposed
to mount a defence of his actions in introducing the new Scottish Liturgy.
The 1983 Annual General Meeting of the
St Devenick’s congregation
This meeting
was due to be held on 22nd November and had the potential to be
highly controversial, bearing in mind that the election of a new Vestry would
be held. Both sides of the dispute at St
Devenick’s made substantial preparations for the meeting.
The Action
Group met to compile a list of candidates for a place on the Vestry whom they
would find acceptable, given their known positions on matters such as the 1982
Scottish Liturgy, the Choir Fund and the reinstatement of Malcolm Love as
choirmaster. A letter was composed for
distribution to members of the congregation encouraging them to attend the
AGM. It referred to instances of the
inaction of the present Vestry, such as the failure to act on the motions
passed at the SGMs of 30 May (when a motion was adopted urging the
reinstatement of Malcolm Love) and 12th September (when the present
Vestry members were urged to resign before the next AGM) and the proposal to
create a representative committee chaired by the Bishop to consider the future
direction of St Devenick’s. Also, aware
of the potential for hostilities to break out, the missive urged attendees to
participate “in a friendly and constructive spirit”. This proved to be a pious aspiration. The letter was posted out to congregants on
18th and 19th November.
At a meeting
of the Vestry held on 15th November, that body gave the Rector
authority to buy a new Vestry minute book, even though the book then
presently in use was not nearly exhausted, still having 30 empty pages. His action was unexplained but a suspicious
person might think that he was seeking future control of access to the minutes
of previous meetings of the Vestry, by retaining possession of all old minute
books. The Rector made reference to the
writ concerning the legality of his introduction of the Scottish Liturgy, 1982
at St Devenick’s at the 11.00am service on Sunday 20th November 1983,
and he told the attendees that both he and the Vestry would be lodging
defences. He also identified the
pursuers named in the Writ, which included two people, Gordon Patterson and Ian
Nicholson who were standing for election to the Vestry. The Rector also held a meeting with the
Diocesan Registrar on 21st
November, when two items were discussed, the Writ and the authority of the
chairman at the upcoming AGM.
At the Annual
General Meeting on Tuesday 22nd November, which was attended by
about 110 people, when the minutes of the previous two SGMs were considered
(usually the least contentious part of any formal meeting), George Patterson
and Ian Nicholson objected to inaccuracies and omissions in the record. This was followed by Joyce Mowat and others
questioning the “the incomplete and misleadingly complacent nature” of the
Vestry’s Annual Report, particularly concerning the two SGMs held during the
year which were barely mentioned, with no indication of the business, or
outcomes, in each case. Gordon Simpson
also gave an accounting analysis of the financial statement and concluded that
expenditure had exceeded income, presumably as a result of the significant
contraction of number of congregants.
In addition
to the Annual Report from the Vestry, the Rector made his own report on the
events of the past year. This included a
carefully-worded and caveatted apology “to anyone to whom he might, unintentionally,
have caused distress during the past year”.
There was no hint as to whether he intended Malcolm Love to be included
within this statement. He then went on
to present himself as a victim of the circumstances to which he, in large
measure, had contributed. He claimed
that he and his family had been caused distress, especially by the issuance of
the Writ. Kenneth Gordon clearly felt
that this was either a challenge to his authority, or a criticism of his
competence, or both.
Before the
election of a new Vestry took place, Kenneth Gordon again identified George
Paterson and Ian Nicholson as named pursuers on the Writ. Was the Rector urging his supporters to vote
for the “correct” candidates for Vestry office?
His actions were certainly capable of being interpreted that way. After this manoeuvre, Kenneth Gordon sought
to proceed immediately to the election of officers but was thwarted by a
bizarre and unexpected interruption by an excited Mr Barton, a Vestry
member. He entered on a rambling and
incoherent monologue which appeared to be a criticism of the Action Group whose
members he seemed to accuse of sending malicious communications, both by post
and by telephone. Even the Rector
appeared puzzled by this intervention and asked Mr Barton if he was resigning
from the Vestry, perhaps expecting a positive reply, but Barton’s answer was in
the negative! Another Vestry member, Mrs
Gibson also indicated that she was not resigning but Dr Dilloway regretted
that, for business reasons, he would be stepping down (he had been appointed as
the manager of the Sullum Voe Oil Terminal in Shetland). With two existing members declining to demit
office, that meant that there were eight vacancies to fill on the Vestry.
The election
then apparently got underway with a show of hands for the Lay
Representative. But then there was a
most dramatic development. The Rector
suddenly ordered everyone to lower their hands, announcing that he had
forgotten to exclude some congregants, those whom he had not placed on the
Congregants’ Roll, from voting. He
picked out Professor John Parsons and Mr MJD Mowat and told them that their
votes would be recorded separately. At a
later stage he subjected Mr Robert Maybank to the same indignity, telling him
he was ineligible because he was a member of the Vestry at St Clement’s,
Mastrick. Maybank was too shocked and
confused to protest that the Rector’s statement was untrue. Brenda Parsons, John’s wife was deeply
affected by this public humiliation of her husband. Although she was a candidate for election to
the Vestry, she immediately withdrew her nomination, apparently being unwilling
to serve on a representative body which was characterised by such belittling
behaviour.
After this
inauspicious start, the election was eventually completed and the result was a
disaster for the Rector and his supporters.
All the new Vestry members were traditionalists and Malcolm Love
supporters. The list of new Vestry
members follows. People's Warden, Peter
Brunt; Lay Representative, Gordon Simpson; Vestry members, Edwina Clark, Ian
Findlay, Midge Harbottle, Seamus Maclnnes, Ian Nicholson, and George Patterson.
However, Kenneth Gordon had not yet
exhausted all his tactics for, if not controlling, at least frustrating, the
will of the new Vestry. On the
termination of the AGM, the Rector met briefly with the new Vestry and it was
agreed that Mrs Dowson and Mr Sim, both Canon Gordon loyalists, would continue
in their roles as Honorary Treasurer and Secretary respectively until the first
full meeting of the new Vestry. Then
came the sting: Canon Gordon informed
his new Vestry colleagues that that meeting would not take place until 30th
January 1984, 69 days hence and almost 20% into their year of office. It constituted an unprecedented delay
compared with recent years. If the
Vestry did not meet, it could not act.
There was
some reporting in the P&J of the events which took place at the St
Devenick’s AGM. One of their reporters
phoned Malcolm Love and he gave an impromptu reaction, the tone of which was
inaccurately, but understandably, reported as being a “sign of peace”. Malcolm was quoted as saying, “I would say it
is now a conciliatory Vestry and there is now a much better chance of everybody
working together ... We would love to return”.
But, as will be discovered, Kenneth Gordon was not about to throw in the
towel.
On Sunday 27th
November all the newly-elected members of the Vestry, who were free to do so,
attended the 11.00am service at Devenick’s to demonstrate their commitment to
reconciliation but it was difficult to detect a similar sentiment emanating
from Kenneth Gordon. It was now
anticipated that the work which had been carried out by the Action Group would,
in future we subsumed by the new Vestry, which would allow the Action Group to
be reconstituted as an association of friends within St Devenick’s.
The new Vestry wrestles with Canon
Gordon
The eight
newly elected members of the Vestry wrote to Mr Sim pressing for an early
meeting because of the need to consider what defence needed to be submitted
concerning the Writ and also because a delay until January was generally
undesirable. They then received a
knock-back from Bishop Fred Darwent who, they were told, had ruled that it
would be unconstitutional to convene a meeting of the Vestry before
Christmas. George Patterson, the lawyer,
was puzzled by this decision and tried to discuss the issue with Kenneth
Gordon, pressing that for legal reasons the Vestry should be meeting before 27th
December, the date by which any defence to the Writ must be lodged. The Rector’s response was that he was about
to write to Vestry members and on 5th December he did so, informing
them that there was no reason for a Vestry meeting before January 1984, on the
advice of the Bishop that there was no urgent need for such a meeting
concerning the Writ. Ian Findlay
received the letter from the Rector on 7th December and in a chance
meeting with Fred Darwent the same day mentioned Kenneth Gordon’s claim that
the Bishop had advised that the matter of a defence to the Writ was not
urgent. Fred Darwent was clearly
surprised that his advice had received this interpretation, which suggests that
Kenneth Gordon might have been distorting the Bishop’s advice for his own purposes. On 8th December a further letter
was sent from six of the new members to the whole Vestry membership repeating
the view that an earlier meeting of the Vestry was essential. Ian Nicholson phoned the Rector on the
assumption that such a meeting would be sanctioned and asking if the Church
Hall would be free on Tuesday 13th December. Kenneth Gordon, unhelpfully, could not say if
the Hall was available so, in frustration, Ian nominated his own home as the
venue. When Kenneth Gordon learned of
this arrangement he petitioned Bishop Darwent to declare the meeting
unconstitutional because it had not been convened by him. Darwent, in turn, took advice from the Diocesan
Registrar before reverting to Kenneth Gordon with the decision that the meeting
would be illegal. Shortly afterwards,
the activists of the Action Group discovered that the timetable for lodging a
defence to the Writ had become more relaxed.
George Patterson had phoned the Diocesan Registrar and discovered that
Bishop Darwent had requested an extension to the deadline for submission by
three weeks. Was this Fred Darwent’s own
tactic to defuse the stand-off with Kenneth Gordon by placing the new deadline
after the planned first meeting of the new Vestry? It looked that way.
The death of the Reverend David Howard
David Howard
died at the tragically early age of 49 on 13th December. He had been ordained in 1979 and had been
curate at St Devenick’s for two years before taking up a position in
Hereford. David returned to the
North-East of Scotland in July 1983 as the Episcopal hospital chaplain for
Aberdeen, as well as acting as Episcopal chaplain to students at Aberdeen
University. This loss was felt heavily
by the congregation at St Devenick’s as their former curate was
well-liked. He died while being attended
by Dr Peter Brunt, a prominent member of the St Devenick’s congregation and a
clinician most dedicated to the welfare of his fellow men. Peter Brunt once said to this author, “If
anyone in Aberdeen needs to see me, they can see me tomorrow”, such was his
personal commitment. David Howard was a
beneficiary of Peter’s principled stance.
Kenneth Gordon issues an apology to
Malcolm Love
Coincidentally,
on the same day that David Howard died, Canon Kenneth Gordon issued a formal apology
to Malcolm Love. The statement was sent
to all members of the St Devenick’s congregation. No copy of this apology was found in Malcolm
Love’s archive but the following account, taken from the P&J and the
Evening Express is thought to constitute the full text.
“I
regret if any members of the congregation have construed any part of the letter
of 14th June as an attack on the character or integrity of Dr
Love. No such attack was intended, I
apologise to Dr Love if any part of the letter caused him distress and for any
harm that may have been occasioned to his reputation, I wish to repeat that the
healing of relationships requires time and patience and that is my sincere wish
that there be no continuing dispute between myself and Dr Love”.
This does not
look like an apology from a man burdened with guilt and remorse for some unwise
act. The wording is grudging and
qualified, suggesting that not everyone would take offence at what Canon Gordon
wrote. The statement also seems to hint
– “healing of relationships requires time and patience” – that Kenneth Gordon
would not be changing his behaviour towards Malcolm Love anytime soon. When asked for his thoughts on the apology,
Canon Gordon would only say, “The terms of the letter which I have sent to
members of the congregation have been adjusted between solicitors acting
respectively for myself and Dr Love and no further comment on the matter is
necessary”. Apparently, lawyers
representing the two protagonists had been exchanging iterations of the draft
statement for some time before an acceptable wording for the text was
finalised.
Malcolm Love
was clearly relieved that he had been exonerated, which can be seen from the
tone of his statement to the Evening Express.
“Life has been made very difficult for us this past year, but choir
members and parents, many members of our congregation and the clergy from several
churches have given us support and understanding when we most needed it. Now that my name has at last been cleared, I
hope they will feel that their trust was justified and offer my warmest
thanks”.
1984 - new year, new Vestry, new hope?
The new
Vestry met formally for the first time on 20th January 1984. It contained a majority of members who, as a
result of the events of the previous year, had an agenda for change. While 1983 had early on seen three major
issues in need of attention (retention of the rood screen, wider use of a
traditional Liturgy and reinstatement of Malcolm Love as choirmaster) that
agenda had grown. New aspirations
included proper access to the choir fund for the choir, resolution of the issue
of the lawfulness of the introduction of the 1982 Scottish Liturgy, the introduction of an alternative mechanism
for the confirmation of young people than preparation by Kenneth Gordon, and a
more open, accountable and democratic system for conducting the affairs of the
church.
Kenneth
Gordon and the previously constituted Vestry had taken the view that the list
of congregants should be treated as a confidential document, which could only
be accessed with the authority of the Vestry.
That body, newly constituted, wanted that secretive approach to change
so that access to the list of congregants, with addresses, would be open to any
constituent member of the congregation.
However, individuals would have a right to withhold their name or
address, if they wished to do so. But at
the Vestry meeting of 27th February Kenneth Gordon made clear that
this change would not occur and the congregational roll would not be made
available, even to members of the Vestry.
This authority of the Rector was subsequently confirmed by the Bishop. Further, confirmation of this position was
endorsed by the Episcopal Synod which met on 20th December 1984.
With regard
to the general status of the Deeside Choristers, Kenneth Gordon stated flatly
that this choir would not be invited to sing at St Devenick’s because they were
now constituted as a separate organisation.
This was a curious argument because the Deeside Choristers received both
invitations and warm welcomes from many other churches, including from places
of worship adhering to other denominations.
Although the
new Vestry had been democratically elected Kenneth Gordon asserted that their
role was merely advisory and he had the authority to ignore their advice should
he believe that it was in the interests of St Devenick’s to do so. The reformers had won the battle at the 1983
AGM but they had apparently not yet won the war. Their year of office, during which they had
hoped to achieve so much, quickly took on the aspect of trench warfare with
little hope of a quick solution to the problems besetting their church. In a typical example of the confrontations to
which the Vestry could look forward, a proposal to lend the choir robes, which
no longer had a use within St Devenick’s, to the Deeside Choristers and also to
allow them to use the church hall for practice, was thrown out basically due to
the Rector’s opposition. He accused the
proposers of the motion of deliberately engineering a provocation against him
and his family but did not explain how he had reached this conclusion.
With their
Vestry blocked from making progress on matters of concern at St Devenick’s,
many individuals went knocking at Fred Darwent’s door to visit their
unhappiness on him. He claimed that although the situation was “very sad”, he was powerless to intervene. This anguished hand-wringing did not go down
well with the frustrated congregants, so 88 members submitted a statement to
the diocesan head which read as follows.
"We are members of St. Devenick’s Church, Bieldside, and are
extremely unhappy about the situation at our Church, a situation that is
causing distress to a large part of the congregation, some of whom are
continuing to attend; but others feel they can no longer do so." With this missive a list of 27 former members,
who had recently left the St Devenick’s congregation because they could no
longer tolerate the situation there, was also submitted. Surely Fred Darwent could see that standing
on the sidelines issuing anguished pleas would not for long substitute for
effective action?
The Bishop attended the Vestry meeting of 2nd
April 1984, no doubt hoping to mediate reconciliation, and Kenneth Gordon did
make a concession of sorts in that he announced, with no discussion, that "for the next six months the Grey
Book (the traditional Liturgy) only would be used at the 8.30 Communion. After six months St. Devenick's would revert
to the present pattern of using the Grey Book and 1982 Liturgy alternately at
8.30”. But that was it! When Bishop Darwent asked him to consider
allowing an occasional evening service at which the Deeside Choristers would
participate, Canon Gordon stated bluntly that he would not invite the Deeside
Choristers singing in his church.
The
frustration at the then present state of affairs boiled over and led four
prominent members of the St Devenick’s congregation to make their unhappiness
with the state of affairs in their church public by parading their concerns in
a letter to the editor of “The Scotsman”.
It is reproduced in full. They
did not hold back.
“Sir,
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has come and gone, with some of
its problems receiving wide publicity.
This week the General Synod of the Episcopal Church of Scotland meets in
Perth: one may well ask, what from its agenda will hit the headlines? Possibly there will be topics which some of
the clergy would prefer not to have publicly discussed.
A
year and a half ago we had a thriving congregation at St Devenick’s in
Bieldside – a church full of young people as well as older, enjoying
worshipping the traditional services and music of the Episcopal Church. A serious rift, with many of the congregation
now feeling quite unable to worship in their own church, developed as a result
of the Rector, Canon Kenneth Gordon, insisting that everyone adhere to his and
only his choice of forms of worship.
The
emphasis has changed so much that the traditional services have now been
virtually abandoned and this without the congregation being asked for their
views. Fifteen months ago the
choirmaster was dismissed because his views did not coincide with those of the
Rector. The combined choirs of around 70
voices, some 50 of them of school age, were told that their services were no
longer required.
A
congregational special meeting voted resoundingly for the reinstatement of the
choirmaster and the return of the choir: this has always been opposed and
blocked by the Rector. A second special
meeting voted for the resignation of the elected vestry members who had not already
resigned in protest: they remained in office.
At the AGM a new vestry was elected and has since voted for the
reintroduction of traditional services with the return of the former choir
(which is still very much alive) as well as for the retention of modern forms
of worship for those who prefer them: these proposals have been vetoed by the
Rector.
The
editorial of the latest issue of Newscan, the independent news magazine of the
Scottish Episcopal Church raises a number of pertinent questions, some of which
are particularly relevant to the long drawn out dispute in our church:
1.
“What authority does a Bishop have over his clergy?
Many
of us feel that our tragic situation need never have arisen had the Bishop
exercised his authority and stepped in at an early stage. Is there no mechanism for alerting a Bishop
to impending disaster and for requesting that he take appropriate action?
2.
“How do clergy, vestry and congregation relate”?
Should
not the previous vestry have taken note of the wishes of the congregation and
pressed for action by the Rector or, failing that, by the Bishop? Should the Rector not have felt obliged to
respect the voice of the congregation and their newly-elected vestry?
3. How are minorities to be safeguarded?
We
should rather ask, “How can majorities be safeguarded from the whims of a
Rector who refuses to take account of their spiritual needs and
preferences?” Should it not be the prime
aim of any clergyman to make the most of the goodwill, effort, ability and
talent in his congregation and to cater for all reasonable shades of preference
in forms of worship old and new, and thereby to create a genuine unity among
all his flock?
These
are questions which Episcopalians must start trying to answer now. The ecumenical movement aiming to promote
co-operation and eventual unity between Churches is receiving widespread
support. Is it not too much to hope for
that this movement may take hold first within individual congregations and that
the strength of the Christian faith should be revealed in its ability to unite
the differing shades of opinion of those who share a common belief in God and
respect for the teachings of Jesus Christ?
FJ
Sambrook Gowar, Iain L Marr, Brenda Parsons, Mary Robertson”.
This letter
contained a pointed and comprehensive critique of the failings of the St
Devenick’s rector, Kenneth Gordon. There
was a lesser criticism of the ineffectiveness of the bishop, though it was
qualified by the acceptance that his legal powers within the church were not
well understood. Surely the Scottish
Episcopal hierarchy could no longer dismiss the events taking place in a small
church on the outskirts of Aberdeen as merely a little local difficulty of no
national significance, especially given the professional status of Freddy Gowar
as one of the country’s leading thoracic surgeons?
Gordon
Simpson, who took a particular interest in financial matters held a meeting
with the Bishop and the Diocesan Registrar in May 1984 concerning the choir fund
under the control of the St Devenick’s Vestry.
It seemed clear that the fund legally belonged to the church but the
Bishop gave his opinion that the morally correct course would be to transfer a
sum equivalent to the former Choir Fund from St Devenick’s to the Deeside
Choristers. The Vestry agreed with the Bishop’s position
and proposed donating £6,000 to the Deeside Choristers but Kenneth Gordon
vetoed the move.
As ever the
Diocese of Aberdeen and Orkney was short of money and at the end of February
1984 the Finance and Administration Board of the Diocese resolved to inaugurate
the Aberdeen Diocesan (Sustentation) Programme, sustentation being a fancy word
for seeking donations from congregants for the maintenance of the diocese. The Board had concluded that the level of
giving within the diocese was too low and needed encouragement. Gordon Simpson had earlier pointed out that
St Devenick’s was running into financial difficulties at least partly due to
the reduction of the congregational roll with the concomitant reduction in
donations. The Vestry urged the
congregation to increase its level of giving by 40% to address the financial
problem of their church but that was a big ask in the then present
circumstances. The Diocese-wide
Sustentation programme produced a free quarterly newsletter, called the
“Gazette” to educate congregations about the programme. The first issue was produced in April 1984
and was accompanied by a commendatory letter from the Bishop but the copies
sent to St Devenick’s seemed to get misplaced.
They had been stored on the floor in the church porch, where they were
unlikely to be spotted. It was only
after Dr Peter Brunt queried why the “Gazette” had not been distributed at St
Devenick’s, which he did at the Vestry meeting of 5th November 1984,
that the explanation became clear.
Kenneth Gordon had taken the view, and claimed that the Bishop backed
his opinion, that the Sustentation Programme was “not appropriate” for St
Devenick’s “at the present time”. This
appeared to be because “visitors” on the programme (a rough equivalent to
“chuggers”) would be visiting individual members of the congregation to
persuade them to give more money and that might be uncomfortable in the case of
articulate dissidents. There was also
the problem of the confidential status of the congregants’ roll to be overcome. Peter Brunt, the mildest and most reasonable
of men, was not happy with this explanation.
He felt that it was “a serious matter” that the Rector had not consulted
the Vestry. Heavy criticism, indeed!
There were
hints at this time, July 1984, that Kenneth Gordon was being affected by the
constant stress of ploughing his own furrow against articulate and forceful
opposition. In the middle of the month
he absented himself for a two week break, the second such absence he had taken
in the previous five weeks. During the summer
of 1984, the Vestry agreed to lend both robes and music books to the Deeside
Choristers. The Secretary and Mrs Edwina
Clark were delegated to liaise with Michael Partridge concerning suitable
arrangements for the loan of the robes, while Michael Partridge was asked to
contact Mrs Hundtofte regarding books of music.
Curiously Kenneth Gordon intervened unnecessarily in the agreed
arrangements regarding the music books.
He personally took them round to Michael’s house, accompanied by Mrs
Hundtofte, and told Michael to keep them and if they were of no use to the
Deeside Choristers, to get rid of them.
This did not look like an act of generosity on the part of the Rector,
but a desire to see this traditional church music banished from his charge.
There was
another bizarre intervention by Canon Gordon in September 1984. Bishop Fred Darwent had insisted that the St
Devenick’s Vestry should conduct a poll of the congregation concerning
liturgical preferences and he further requested that the two churchwardens
should act as tellers and should then communicate the results to him. But the congregational roll was unavailable
to members of the Vestry due to the diktat of Canon Gordon. He then intervened in the process to conduct
the poll himself with the help of one of his trusties, John Heueston, who was
no longer a member of the Vestry. This
put the churchwardens in a difficult position because they could not vouch for
the any results. In fact the results of
the poll were never published and it is unknown if the results ever reached the
desk of Fred Darwent. It was a shining
(if that be an appropriate adjective) example of the chaos which Canon Gordon’s
behaviour had generated. In effect Canon
Gordon was bypassing the official Vestry by creating his own shadow Vestry,
populated by his chosen trusties.
Another example came to light at the November 1984 meeting of the
official Vestry. Kenneth Gordon
announced that St Devenick’s had been represented at an area meeting on the
Sustentation Programme by Mr John MacCormack, who was not a member of the
Vestry but had been nominated by Canon Gordon.
Meanwhile the
musical reputation of the Deeside Choristers went from strength to
strength. Regular visits were made to
other local churches and Malcolm Love received an invitation from Grampian TV
to take the Byrd Choir to St Peter’s, Culter on 27th January1984, a
church where they were well respected, for the recording of a service. The Choristers’ Director of Music also
started to plan for that year’s summer camp which he hoped to take to Clermont
Ferrand in France. In July 1984, the
Deeside Choristers penetrated as far north as Inverness and Strathpeffer,
singing music by classical composers such as Scarlatti, Schutz, Handel, Bach,
Cleall, Mendelssohn, Rachmaninov and Kalinnikov. The Byrd Choir received another invitation to
sing at Pluscarden Abbey on Sunday 2nd September 1984 which, for
Malcolm Love, was a most delicious pleasure.
Malcolm remarked, “Never forget how lucky we are to be able to sing a
full Evensong in cathedral style”. He was determined that his choir would
perform with near perfection and so he arranged an additional practice of the
anthems and other items he was planning for the Pluscarden programme when the
men and boys of the choir met in the WRI Hall the previous week for a private
service. In those pre-internet days the
quickest means of communication with individual choristers was by telephone but,
with 70 or more singers to contact on occasion, it became necessary to recruit
additional administrative help for this task.
Five mothers of choristers volunteered to provide telephone help. Invitations to perform at other churches
continued at a high level such that they received requests to sing at two
venues with which they had close connections, St Clement’s, Mastrick and St
Thomas’, Aboyne, on the same day, Sunday 23rd September. Each was a special occasion for the host
church, the former the dedication of a new organ and the latter a welcome to a
new incumbent. Malcolm Love concluded
that both requests must be satisfied and so the choir was split into two groups
and one sent to each venue. Fund-raising
continued with a, now annual, sale of goods at the Langstone Kirk in the middle
of Aberdeen’s main thoroughfare, Union Street on 29th
September. The Langstone opened onto a
forecourt bordering this street and was an ideal location for attracting
passing shoppers.
In October
1984, Fred Darwent, still shifting from one leg to the other in his attempts to
mediate in the St Devenick’s quagmire, committed his own mis-step by failing to
apply that basic managerial rule when intervening in a difficult situation,
“ETF – Establish The Facts”! Likely,
information had reached Fred Darwent via Kenneth Gordon that Episcopal services
were being held by the dissidents locally but not under the auspices of St
Devenick’s. If Gordon was the informant,
he was probably agitating for this ecclesiastical competitor to be shut down. The
Bishop wrote to Malcolm Love, assuming he was the organiser of the private
services being held, frequently in the WRI Hall in Cults, and instructed him “to
cease the services forthwith”. This was
a mistake for two reasons, firstly, Malcolm Love was merely the choirmaster and
not the organiser and secondly, that the Bishop had the authority to intervene
in a private act of worship. When the
truth of the situation was explained to Fred Darwent, he withdrew his
“instruction” and arranged instead to meet the true organisers of these private
religious meetings. No doubt he then
came up against the legal brain of George Patterson and made absolutely no
progress in his mission. Darwent was
simply unable to demonstrate any cogent legal or moral reason why the services
had to cease. This incident again raised
the thorny problem of the extent to which the authority of the clergy extended
and emphasised that it was long overdue a legally competent determination. There was a further meeting, on 17th
December, between the Bishop and 23 members, or ex-members, of the St
Devenick’s congregation to discuss the issue of private services. The attendees were entertained to more
hand-wringing, though the Bishop was deserving of some sympathy for having to deal
with such a difficult priest as Kenneth Gordon.
Fred Darwent had asked Kenneth Gordon to behave differently and then
even pleaded with him to soften his approach, but was rebuffed. The Bishop explained that he lacked the
authority to order Kenneth Gordon to change his ways. Unfortunately, Fred Darwent was an agreeable
and accommodating man who could always see the other person’s point of view and
unused to delivering hard messages.
Kenneth Gordon had got away with obdurate behaviour in the past and there
was little prospect of his behaviour being ameliorated in the future.
Bishop Fred
Darwent had been petitioned in September 1983 for a determination of the status
of the Scottish Liturgy 1982. Finally,
16 months later, he published his decision which was (quoting from George
Patterson’s assessment) “he did not know (a) whether this is a variation on
either the Scottish Communion Office or the 1662 Service, or (b) what
procedural constraints (if any) apply in the case where an authorised variation
on a service is substituted for that service without variation, or (c) whether
there was some set of procedures which might enable an innovative form of
Liturgy to be lawfully introduced. He threw no light on the meaning of
’’liturgical experiment””. Perhaps the
traditionalists posing these issues should not have expected their Bishop to
know the answers to complex legal issues but he was surely unwise to sit on the
matter for over a year before saying he was unable to provide answers.
On 15th
May 1985 there was more of his usual approach from Bishop Darwent. He made a statement to members of the St
Devenick’s congregation calling for "love, compassion and compromise". Sadly it was as ineffective and
inconsequential as his previous interventions.
The 1984 Annual General Meeting
The year’s
AGM took place on 27th November and, at last, a vote was taken on the proposal
made some time previously by Dr Peter Brunt that a working party of the
congregation should be established, representing all shades of opinion to
investigate and make proposals concerning two substantial matters of
disagreement, the relationship with the Deeside Choristers and the forms of
worship employed at St Devenick’s. This
new body would report back to the congregation in due course for its proposals
to be considered. However, even before
the vote was taken, Canon Gordon said he would not cooperate with such a
body. The motion to establish such a
committee was then passed by 42 votes to 17.
Later, the Vestry endorsed the proposal but Canon Gordon then added to
his previous statement, writing in a letter to the congregation that he did not intend to make any further change in the form of worship at
St. Devenick’s in the future. He was
asked to explain the reason why he was ignoring the clearly expressed wishes of
the congregation, at which he retreated into his standard response in such
circumstances – that it was the responsibility of the clergy to decide such
matters. Malcolm Love was asked for his
opinion on the decision to establish a working party. His response was positive. “This is the first little bit of success that
we have had. ... It is very much our wish to return but we would only go back
if we are welcome. It must not be
grudging”. The story was briefly covered
by the Evening Express only, under the clever, but misleading, heading
“Harmony note in choir row”. It appeared
that the dispute had been going on for so long that it was no longer judged to
be newsworthy by the local newspaper editors.
At the meeting of the Vestry on 20th December
1984, that body voted to communicate with the congregation explaining why the
working party had not at that date been established. But the problem was that the Vestry could not
communicate directly with the congregation because it did not have access to
the roll of congregants. The letter
would have to be given to Kenneth Gordon for him to dispatch and he refused to
guarantee that he would carry out that task!
Another apology to Malcolm Love
Just before
Christmas 1984, the Vestry sought to make amends for the errors of its
predecessor by voting nine votes for and none against (the Rector abstaining)
on a motion to issue an apology to Malcolm Love and his son, Ian Love, for
statements made about them in March and May, 1983. The five-part letter of apology finally saw
the light of day in March 1985 and attracted a small report in the Evening
Express. Regrettably, it did not contain
the full text of the letter and no copy was uncovered in Malcolm Love’s
archive. The relevant section from the
Evening Express follows. “There was no
allegation of moral wrongdoing, nor was there a “real reason” for the dismissal
which was too discreditable to reveal ... In the letter of apology to Dr Malcolm
Love and his son Ian, the Vestry regretted Dr Love was dismissed from his post
without any sufficient reason and that attempts to justify this action had
amounted to a campaign to discredit him.
Both the Rector and his curate dissociated themselves from the action of
the Vestry”.
It couldn’t happen here
By early 1985
the traditionalists who had been active in seeking change at St Devenick’s were
suffering very mixed emotions. They were
all deeply committed Anglicans, they loved the congregation of which they had
all been members, and some still were, but they were also deeply frustrated
that their wishes concerning fundamental aspects of worship at St Devenick’s
had been changed without consultation, against their wishes and, so far, they
had been unable to reverse trends which they regretted. Some were also angry and even bitter at the
way they had been treated. But they also
worried for the future of the Scottish Episcopal Church. If these changes could be imposed against the
will of the majority at St Devenicks, similar circumstances could emerge in
other congregations. They resolved to give
an account of the events at St Devenick’s as a warning to other
Episcopalians. Be vigilant for the
future of your congregation, even if you believe, as embodied in the title of
the document that “it couldn’t happen here”.
Perhaps the authors of the document were suggesting that readers in
other congregations should add the question, “Could it?” to their title.
The document
was produced by a group of seven, whose identities were hidden amongst the
larger gathering of 23 signatories, six of whom were elected members of the
then current Vestry, perhaps to afford the authors some protection from
potential retribution. The full list of
those indicating their support for the document follows. Elected members of vestry – GW Paterson, IA
Nicholson, Mrs I Parsons, GW Simpson (Secretary), Mrs B Clark, FJ Sambrook
Gowar. Others. Miss N Robertson, Mrs HW Kosterlitz, Mrs IM
Humphries, Mrs Mary Gowar, Prof Ian Parsons, Barry Fenwick, Brenda Kay, Stephen
Marr, Mrs JD Simpson, Mrs IA Nicholson, Mrs JA Carmichael, Miss Maggie
Carmichael, Gavin KD Clark, Joe Hains, Rosemary Patterson, Andrea K Marr, K Turffrey. Noticeably, Malcom Love and Iain Marr were
not amongst the signatories. Perhaps
they judged it wise not to give their detractors the opportunity to brand them
as agitators working in their own interest?
The document,
describing how the situation then obtaining at St Devenick’s arose, was
accompanied by the following, covering letter.
It was sent to all the Episcopal congregations in Scotland, though being
addressed to Anglicans, too, suggests that some copies went to congregations
located in England but where and how many has not been uncovered.
Dear
fellow Episcopalians/Anglicans,
“The
strange story enclosed with this letter is an actual case history.
You
may find it hard to believe, but the incidents really did happen.
We
have sent it, with our compliments, to Episcopalians/Anglicans as a warning, so
that you can do whatever is possible to ensure that what has happened to us
does not happen to you. If even one congregation of devoted Christians is saved
from the sort of unhappy and disillusioning experiences which we have been
enduring here, our efforts will have been well worth while.
One
thing you can do in any event is to study your Constitution. Does it protect
the atmosphere of mutual trust and respect which ought to characterise the
Christian family? Consider very carefully any alterations or substitute
Constitution which may be proposed, lest they water down what safeguards you
have. Try to strengthen your Constitution where it seems dubiously vague and
think how it relates to and complements the Canons (which will over-ride it in
cases of dispute). Read the Canons. Their evolution over the years has been
suffused with tolerance, and directed towards a wise balance between the powers
and duties of the clergy and those of the laity in church affairs. Uphold this
spirit in the Canons, and do not support those changes or interpretations which
are, or could be, harmful to it.
If
the Church is to be an effective moral force, the Church must maintain the
highest standards of behaviour and of personal integrity. It is on this basis
that the laws of the Church have been founded, tried and tested. But read our story.
With
fraternal greetings”.
The
introductory section of the document is also reproduced here because it shows
clearly the strength of feeling generated by events at St Devenick’s, the
failure of the hierarchy to take action and the inability of individuals to
rise above petty personal considerations to defend and promote the interests of
the congregation and the Episcopal Church as a whole
IS THERE A FUTURE FOR
THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH?
Scottish
Episcopalians love their Church. It has successfully survived bitter
persecution in the eighteenth century, and, from being "the shadow of a shade",
it grew considerably in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Clearly
it has had something of great importance to offer. But for several decades now it has been
losing adherents. For those who are
seeking to do God’s will, does this Church still have something of distinctive
- or even unique - importance to offer? Is it being faithful to its heritage?
What will happen if present trends continue? We are sending this document to
many Anglicans both in Scotland and in England because we are convinced (i)
that our Church is in serious danger, but (ii) that it can be saved if enough
people recognise the danger and act accordingly.
What
are your immediate reactions if you are asked what our Church is like? That it
is kindly? Tolerant? Possessing a beautiful Liturgy? Slightly bumbling perhaps
but all right in the areas where it matters?
How
would you react if you were told that a particular congregation of the Church
had recently changed out of all recognition, and now was subjected to authoritarianism,
intolerance, secretiveness, anti-democratic procedures, and had been deprived
of much of its heritage - not because the members of the congregation desired
these changes, but simply because the Rector, who had ministered to us without
major disagreement for 11 years, had apparently developed an unusual view of
his "spiritual authority"? Probably you would be horrified; but you
would think of your own congregation, smile, and think "Oh, but it
couldn’t happen here!" You might also think "If anything did go
wrong, the Church has its own resources to promote reconciliation and
compromise; and, as a last resort, the Church has its Courts to ensure that
nothing is done contrary to the Code of Canons".
WE
HAVE NO WISH TO CAUSE HURT TO THE MANY WISE AND DEDICATED CLERGYMEN WHO WOULD
NEVER DREAM OF CAUSING DISCORD IN THEIR CONGREGATIONS, AND FOR WHOSE MINISTRY
WE SHOULD ALL BE DEEPLY GRATEFUL.
But
what has happened to one congregation, through the convergence of a number of
unusual factors, could happen to other congregations, including your
congregation; and, as things now stand, there would be virtually nothing the congregation
could do about it. Moreover, there is
cause to be sceptical about the Church’s internal resources, and especially
about its Courts. We have learnt these
lessons from a bitter experience at St. Devenick's Church, Bieldside, Aberdeen.
This was a happy, prosperous church, proud of its traditions, with a large and
lively congregation, which was a cross-section of the local community.
Everything they organised they did with enthusiasm. Various youth
organisations, especially the robed, traditional choir, flourished. But in the
space of two years all this has changed.
The
number of communicants at St. Devenick’s has dropped by 170 (37% of the total)
since Advent, 1983. The congregation is split in two; long-standing friendships
have been severed; there has been a great deal of distress; and many of the
young people now want nothing more to do with the Christian Faith, which for
them is completely discredited. This is a tragedy for all concerned, and from
the point of view of its institutional survival, the Church certainly cannot
afford such losses.
The
whole style and atmosphere of worship at St. Devenick’s is different now. Those
who have, in some cases, worshipped here all their lives have been made to feel
that they are strangers in their own church, and indeed have been told that if
they are not prepared to accept what the Rector offers in the way of worship
they should go to some other church. The Rector has taken no notice of votes at
Special Congregational Meetings, he does not co-operate with the elected
representatives of the congregation; and he has put forward no positive
proposal to alleviate the distress which his own controversial policies have
caused. Needless to say, St. Devenick’s is now an occasion of scandal in the
area, both to worshippers at other churches and to non-churchgoers.
Of
course, the eccentricities or blunders of a particular clergyman do not in
themselves call in question the credibility of the Church's whole structure.
But this question is raised, in a very uncomfortable form, by the way in which
the higher authorities within the Church have responded to the St. Devenick’s
crisis. The congregation of St. Devenick’s, both individually and through their
elected representatives, have tried to obtain help and guidance from their
Bishop and, as a last resort, from the
Episcopal Synod. However, nothing has been done to make the Rector of St
Devenick’s honour his promise to promote peace, unity and order within the
congregation (a promise he made, like any other clergyman, at his
institution). The congregation - more
than half of it, at least - asked for bread; but they were given a stone. This
is exactly what was predicted by some of their friends and relatives who have
already abandoned the institutional Church. They say ’’There is no point in
trying to get justice in the Church. The Church is run by clergymen for their
own benefit. They will close ranks; they will turn the blind eye; they will
simply bend the rules to suit themselves. It is naive to think that the Church
is any less corrupt than secular institutions.”
Sentiments like these express the attitudes of many outsiders. Such
criticisms - which are by no means uncommon - cannot be written off as if they
were simply the product of ignorance or perversity. Unhappily there is plenty
of evidence to support them. But if these criticisms are justified in the case
of the Scottish Episcopal Church, this Church surely has no future.
Therefore
we give an abridged outline of the events as they happened. We think that they
make a gripping story, albeit a very sad one. But these events are important
because of their implications for the future of the Episcopal Church, and so we
pose a number of additional questions. We ask you to consider the facts in the
light of the questions, and, when you have done so, to take whatever action you
can to help the Church in a very dangerous situation. We doubt if many of you will
feel that everything in the Episcopalian garden is fresh and blooming. Those of
you who recognise that all is not well, and that the Church’s finest traditions
- its sense of fairness and tolerance, its commitment to both Catholicity and
Reform - are endangered, must act. Talk
about it with your friends. Bring the subject up at Vestry meetings and
Congregational Meetings. Those who are
members of Diocesan Synods, press for explanations. Above all, those who are
members of the General Synod, remember that any changes to the Code of Canons
require a two-thirds majority in each of the three Houses. Press for changes
which will help to restore the authentic spirit of Episcopalianism. Refuse to countenance changes towards greater
intolerance, autocracy, secrecy. The obvious trends in this direction are not
irreversible. But it only needs undue complacency on the part of good people to
enable folly and fanaticism to triumph. Be in no doubt; an intolerant,
autocratic, and secretive Church will, by the end of the twentieth century, be
an irrelevant anachronism”.
Other disputes over modernism in the
Anglican community
Over the
period starting in1984, it became clear that the root cause of the problems at
St Devenicks, ie a conflict of opinions on the forms of service to be employed
and the role and style of music in Christian worship, proved not to be unique
to Bieldside. An article by reporter
Brenda Parry in the Daily Telegraph of 15th February 1984 noted “The
increasing number of disputes between clergymen and their organists...”. There was a consistent pattern to the
disputes, “...many of the recent problems had arisen as a result of the
introduction of new services where everyone was much more involved. In some cases organists had felt insecure and
threatened ...”. Clergy then took the
view that they had the authority to decide on the form of worship and that led
to the resignation, or dismissal, of the organist.
Malcolm Love learned of a number
of cases with similarities to the St Devenick’s dispute and made contact with
some of the traditionalists who had been ejected from their positions. John Dyer of Saffron Walden in Essex told him
that their choir had similarly been summarily disbanded and forced to go
independent, singing in other churches.
The Wymondham Choristers, Norfolk, similarly had to become independent
in the 1980s. Very recently, a similar
dispute arose at Wymondham Abbey with many choristers complaining to the Bishop
that the new vicar was employing “high-handed management” and local speculation
suggesting that the root cause was “modernisation”. Another dispute occurred at St Andrew’s,
Bishop’s Auckland, which the Deeside Choristers had visited in 1983 during
their annual camp, in 1990. The organist
of 35 years, Keith Crosby, had been fired by a new vicar, Rev John
Marshall. One of Crosby’s “crimes” was
alleged to be playing too loudly and drowning out Marshall during prayers. This event followed the resignation of the 39
members of the Parochial Church Council en
bloc, claiming that Marshall was “not spiritual enough”! Malcolm Love had been in contact with Crosby,
presumably to offer him moral support.
He probably needed it, as the Bishop of Durham urged the congregation to
back their minister. Another, typical
example of a dispute between a modernising minister and a traditional
congregation occurred at St Aiden’s Church, Billingham, Teesside in 1988. The Rev Colin Hurford wanted evangelistic
music at his services rather than traditional hymn-singing. The organist of 18 years standing, Tom Hudson
said that he did not mind playing modern music but resigned after getting an
instruction on how to play the new tunes.
Malcolm Love had been in touch with Tom Hudson. The choir planned to walk out on Sunday 30th
October. One choir member said, “The
vicar will not give us traditional music, so what is left for us. We go to church to pray, not to jump about
singing. It’s like a circus”.
This type of dispute had even
afflicted the most prominent Anglican church in the land, Westminster Abbey. “The Times” reported in December 1987 that –
“Mr Simon Preston organist and Master of Choristers
at Westminster Abbey is leaving the abbey later this year partly as a result of
a gradual change in music policy towards more modern settings of the liturgy,
the Rev Alan Luff, the abbey’s Precentor and Sacrist, said yesterday. Since 1981 the abbey has used one of the
modern versions of the Church of England service of Holy Communion, the
Alternative Services Book, which it has proved difficult to combine with
classical settings of the Latin rite by Haydn or Mozart, or 16th
century composers such as Palestrina, Tallis and Byrd. Mr Luff who is responsible to the dean and
chapter for music in the abbey, said that Mr Preston who had achieved a world
reputation as an organist and choral conductor, preferred those classical forms
to music specially written for the new Anglican liturgy. He said, “I am sure that Tallis and Byrd
would be clapping Simon. They based
their music on Latin rather than English texts”. He added, “The Anglican music which exists
for the ASB is not very high quality”.
Relations between Preston and the abbey authorities remain cordial
allegedly.
At least the disagreement was
handled openly, honestly, with respect and, at least on the surface, without
rancour. Something that should have
happened at St Devenick’s, but did not.
The
St Devenick’s situation becomes a national issue
Newscan was the independent news
magazine of the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Any issue of interest to Episcopalians could be debated within its
pages, its balanced editorials likewise analysed thorny issues and individuals
could make their personal views known through letters to the editor. Freddy Gowar, Iain Marr, Brenda Parsons and
Mary Robertson had authored a letter in The Scotsman in April 1984 which drew
attention to a number of issues of authority within the Scottish Episcopal
Church which had been raised in an editorial in the then current issue of
Newscan. This proved to be an effective
way to turn the St Devenick’s affair from a parochial dispute to a national
issue.
In June 1985 the same news
magazine published a substantial article on the St Devenick’s affair, summarising
its essential features and commenting on the strong sense of grievance felt by
some members of the congregation which led to the wide circulation of the
document that the authors hoped and intended to be a wake-up call to other
congregations to be vigilant concerning any proposed changes in personnel,
constitution, procedures or liturgical content.
The article then went on to deal with the dispute over the access to the
roll of congregants which the Rector was using to prevent the circulation of
letters to the congregation from the Vestry of which he did not approve. Did he have authority to take this
action? To try to get a resolution of
the question, the Vestry had first appealed to their Bishop, who declared that
the Rector did enjoy this authority, and then to the Episcopal Synod. The Synod, sitting as a court (the first time
this had happened for more than 100 years) since the matter involved the
interpretation of Canon Law as it applied to this point, declared, “Having
heard the parties, the Episcopal Synod dismissed the Appeal and found the
appellants liable to meet the expenses of the Appeal, restricted to £300.”
This judgement was disappointing
for the appellants but in some ways the Synod’s additional comments were even
more so.
“It is unnecessary for us to go into the rights and
wrongs of these incidents, since the appeal before us is of a legal and
technical nature, but it would be wrong for us to deal solely with the legal
and technical aspects of the unfortunate position which has arisen without
referring to the deep distress caused not only to the congregation but also to
the whole Episcopal Church when Rector and vestry are unable to work together
amicably, and with tolerance for each other’s shortcomings, in spreading the
Gospel and maintaining and extending the Christian family ... the Canons cannot
cover all possibilities and they rather embody the spirit of how the Church
expects its affairs to be conducted; proceedings ... should be irradiated with
tolerance and conform to the higher
norms of human conduct, to say nothing of the grace of the Gospel. The
challenge to all parties concerned is to find a way in which the Gospel of
Reconciliation can change accusations into understanding and bring all
concerned to seek for a common solution rather than to see their cause triumph.
It appeared to be being
even-handed in apportioning blame between the Rector and the Vestry and it told
the warring parties to solve their problems locally through the pursuit of
Christian virtue. The majority of the
Vestry, as then constituted, felt that they had consistently sought compromise
and that it was Kenneth Gordon, through his various controlling and blocking
manoeuvres, who was lacking in Christian spirit. The attempt to levy costs on the appellants
also caused irritation and they refused to pay.
What was the Synod for if not to decide such issues? Could it be that this was a subliminal
encouragement by the Synod, directed to other potential appellants, to think
twice before taking legal issues to the highest authority?
The national discussion of issues
emanating from the St Devenick’s situation was further stimulated by two
letters to the editor of Newscan from prominent members of the St Devenick’s
congregation both appearing in the July 1985 issue of the magazine. The first from Ian Nicholson continued the
warning that things which had happened in Bieldside could be expected to arise
elsewhere in the Episcopal community.
“There
are, or there are perceived to be, certain things seriously amiss in the way we
in the Eposcopal Church are currently conducting our affairs. The underlying issues touch on such matters
as the obligations and rights of the clergy and lay people; the role of
Bishops; and the proper place of the Canon Law in the Church’s life.
Problems
similar to those which have arisen at Bieldside can be anticipated elsewhere
precisely because of the continuing deficiencies in the Church’s institutional
arrangements.
The
St Devenick’s Vestry asked the Church’s highest court to rule on a
controversial issue that had been damaging relationships.
The
Episcopal Synod has indicated that there were reasons of law why a Vestry does
not have access to the Register of Baptised Members and Adherents. There were also other grounds, which were
clearly reasons of expediency. As
regards the latter the Synod concluded “If the Register was known to be open
for inspection by the Vestry or congregation, the Rector would be restricted in
what information he could safely record in it.”
I must confess that the force of the Synod’s legal analysis is not clear
to me. However, if the same standard of
reasoning as is applied by the Bishops to the non-legal aspects underlies their
approach to the legal issues, there must be some grounds for scepticism about
the whole judgment.
With
regard to the legal basis of the judgment, the Chancellor of the Aberdeen
Diocese has advised the Vestry that there was no justification for the
imposition of the Episcopal Synod’s own costs.
Surely
the Church must now decide whether or not the canonical position, as defined by
the Episcopal Synod, is in need of reform?
Is it really defensible that Registers which are the property of the
congregation should be secret documents?
The second
letter was from Mary Robertson who accused the hierarch of double standards
when it came to the ordination of women, the need for better protection for the
rights of the laity and the failure of Kenneth Gordon, without mentioning him
by name, to engage meaningfully in the process of seeking reconciliation
through discussion and compromise.
“Why
is it that our Bishops invoke the requirements of Canon Law when the majority
of them do not want the ordination of women, yet Canon Law is ignored by
Episcopal authority when our congregation at Bieldside invoke it on other
matters, eg Canon XXIII (11) which is of sufficient importance to be printed in
our Scottish Prayer Book though numbered there as XXIV (11).
This
section protects the rights of congregations when a Rector tries to introduce
changes in worship unacceptable to the congregation generally. Our Church is governed by Laws which protect
the laity as well as the clergy. In
spiritual matters the people are entitled to expect from clergy of all ranks
justice and impartiality.
May
I also make a simple factual comment on the final paragraph of the article
headed “Problems at Bieldside in last month’s “Newscan”. For around two years our congregation have
been pleading for reconciliatory measures to be initiated. Far from struggling to maintain an entrenched
position, or to score “victories”, our Vestry have worked unceasingly on our
behalf to try to achieve peace through compromise. They have not succeeded because peace is only
possible where both sides seek reconciliation”.
Ten years of Malcolm Love’s choirs on
Deeside
Nineteen
eighty five was a signal year for Malcolm Love’s choral activities on Deeside
because it marked a decade since he was informally put in charge of the choir
of St Devenick’s Church, Bieldside.
Since that initial assumption of responsibility he had been officially
appointed as choirmaster at St Devenick’s in 1978 and fired from that post in
1983. Malcolm immediately formed the
Deeside Choristers, different in name but essentially the same choir as its
predecessor in both philosophy and membership, the St Devenick’s choir ceasing
to exist, having been completely denuded of personnel.
A free
admission concert was held at St John’s, Crown Terrace on Saturday 28th
September to celebrate this decade of devotion to excellence in choral
music. Composers whose works were
featured included the classical masters Bach, Monteverdi, Stanford, Palestrina
and Handel, but with a surprising extra, “The way you look tonight” from the
1936 film “Swing time”, the music for which was composed by Jerome Kern. Was this a favourite of the youthful Malcolm
Love? When an account of this
performance appeared in the P&J it was written by a music critic (“AC” –
Alan Cooper) for the first time, not by a reporter. For Malcolm Love, that was recognition that
the Deeside Choristers were being taken seriously as a musical force in
Aberdeen.
Many
of the youngsters who received their choral training under Malcolm’s tutelage
remarked subsequently that they had found him to be inspirational. When they finally left the choir, typically
to attend university, those who had developed a fatherly relationship with
Malcolm often kept in touch and several letters were uncovered in Malcolm’s
archive from his musical sons. One from
“Mark”, who had become an undergraduate at Dundee University, was particularly
interesting. He found himself living
close to Dundee Episcopal Cathedral, which had a choir. Mark had attended practices there for a few
sessions but had decided not to join the choir formally, even though he
assessed the trebles as being “good” but the underparts as “terrible”. In his opinion the choir was not as competent
as the Deeside Choristers. However, his
main gripe about the choir was the style of discipline. “If you make a mistake you have to put your
hand up and get yelled at”. This
practice was not a bit like Malcolm Love’s style. He was demanding in his musical standards but
did not resort to humiliating the authors of musical errors. Mark finished with, “I’ll be home to sing
with a proper choir at Christmas”.
The intervention of the
Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church
There
is a brief and enigmatic exchange of letters in Malcolm Love’s archive between
him and the Very Reverend Andrew Herron from late January – early February 1986
which is highly informative about the Scottish Episcopal Church’s final attempt
to solve the St Devenick’s problem.
Enigmatic because Andrew Herron was a high ranking member of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, having
served as Moderator in 1971 – 1972. In
1986 he was in retirement but still active as the Editor of the Church of
Scotland Yearbook.
Malcolm’s
justification for writing to Andrew Herron was that his friend Miss Mary
Robertson had been in correspondence with Andrew Herron in 1985 and had shown
his “understanding letter” to Malcolm.
The subject of Mary Robertson’s letter to Herron is unknown. Malcolm’s immediate purpose in sending his
letter to Andrew Herron was to tell him that Mary Robertson had recently died, suddenly.
“I
write in sorrow. Mary died very suddenly
in November 1985 in her 71st year, and her passing has removed one of the
biggest-hearted and loving souls from our midst. It occurred to us that you
might not know this, and a group of friends asked me to get in touch. She left
£100 to 'her beloved choir boys' and never ceased to support them after the
disgraceful happenings at St. Devenick's three years ago”.
This
paragraph seems to imply that Andrew Herron knew of the goings-on at St
Devenicks and possibly had expressed some interest, or opinion, on the
situation because Malcolm then opened up on the most recent developments at
Bieldside. This concerned a visit in
November 1985 by the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, with the Bishop,
to Bieldside for a meeting with the Vestry and with Kenneth Gordon
present. The Primus at the time was
Bishop Alastair Haggart. He retired from
this post in December 1985, so this visit must have been one of his last
missions in office. Malcolm Love’s account
of the meeting, which must have come from one of his supporters who was present,
follows.
“You
would, I'm sure, be interested at the latest development.
In
November, the Primus of the Episcopal Church came to BieIdside, having offered
to mediate. He and our Bishop met the whole Vestry of St. Devenick's in the
presence of Mr.Gordon, the rector, and in a formal speech which he was
virtually too upset to give, the Bishop told everyone that after long
consultations with both sides, he and the Primus had decided that for the good
of the whole congregation he ought to encourage the Rector to look elsewhere
for his future in the church. The Rector replied that if he felt directed by
the Holy Spirit, perhaps between two and twenty years hence, he would move. The
Primus said that he thought the Rector had not understood. He was being
recommended to make himself available for a possible, but not yet identified,
move to take place in six to twelve months' time. This did not exclude the
direction of the Holy Spirit and would be for the good of the congregation as a
whole. THE PRIMUS RECOMMENDED THE RECTOR NOT TO IGNORE THE 'GODLY ADMONITION’
OF HIS BISHOP.
What
is now being kept very quiet, for some reason, is that Mr.Gordon has since
written to the Primus and informed the Bishop that he does not intend to move
for at least seven years.
Our
Bishop is very upset but maintains he is powerless. I should perhaps add that
the Bishop is a kindly and caring man, who gives the choir (i.e. the Deeside
Choristers, formerly the choir of St.Devenick's) considerable support behind
the scenes, but he is quite incapable of dealing with a problem of this
magnitude.
When
Mr. Gordon was installed at St.Devenick's, he took a solemn vow to 'promote
peace and harmony within his congregation' and 'to obey his Bishop’ (I haven't
got the exact wording here). His reply at the time to both items was 'I will so
do, God being my Helper’. The utter
meaninglessness of the procedure is now, alas, apparent.
The
day after the sacking, nearly three years ago, it was, you may like to know, on
the shoulder of a Church of Scotland Minister that I went to weep. However,
when an old lady from our congregation told me recently "After 45 years I
now have no spiritual home", I realised again that we must soldier on.
The
Choir flourishes, and I enclose a Diary for your interest. It is much harder
work to keep it going without a permanent home, but we have made so many
friends in the last three years and are welcomed by all sorts of churches -
Church of Scotland, Episcopal and even Roman Catholic. St.John's, in the centre
of town, has been marvellous to us. We sing there regularly, once a month, and
last year their Rector prepared six of our youngsters for Confirmation - a
great joy. We cannot be his own choir, though, because there is already a
resident choir of large size.
Finally,
I can say that part of the boys-and-men’s choir hope to sing at St.Giles',
Edinburgh, at 6 pm on Sunday, May 25th. It would be a great thrill to meet you,
and you would find that we don't look downtrodden in the least!
With
every good wish.
Yours
sincerely”.
What a
breath-taking revelation! I was
previously unaware that this meeting had taken place and there is no mention of
it, in spite of its incendiary subject, in the local press. Was information not notified to the print
media, or, as noted previously, had the St Devenick’s story become such old
news that it was now judged to be unlikely to sell copy? Surely, the former explanation seems the more
likely, in which case, bearing in mind the only solution to the problem now
seemed to be the retirement of the incumbent or a visit to the Bieldside Manse by
the grim reaper, perhaps the traditionalist activists had decided that there
was nothing to gain from further publicity.
Perhaps they would just have to allow the effuxion of time to solve the
problem?
There are
several aspects of Malcolm’s revelations which deserve further comment. Firstly, the comment that Fred Darwent was
incapable of solving the St Devenick’s problem.
He was too nice, too indecisive and afraid to step out of the middle
ground. Secondly, the church hierarchy,
even employing the authority of the Primus, whose advice to Kenneth Gordon, was
brutally frank, lacked the power to move Kenneth Gordon against his will. Thirdly, Kenneth Gordon clearly knew his
legal rights and showed the hierarchy the same unbending determination that he
had employed to deal with his local detractors.
God’s will, or guidance, was being employed on both sides of the
argument!
The 1985 Annual General Meeting
This meeting took place on
Tuesday 3rd December and, like those of the previous two years, it
proved to be controversial. However,
none of the proceedings were reported in the local newspapers and the events
are imperfectly known only from various documents discovered in Malcolm Love’s
archive. This omission of the event by
the local press confirms that the St Devenick’s dispute, though far from
settled, had become passé for the readership of the P&J and the Evening
Express.
One of the most important tasks
of the attendees at this AGM was to elect new members to the Vestry, bearing in
mind the existence of two opposing factions within the congregation. The rule governing voting procedure was
contained in Article 8 of the St Devenick’s constitution whose wording, in the
amended version that I discovered, follows.
It is not clear to me that this was the definitive version in force at
the time of this AGM. The wording of a
document produced by George Patterson suggests that it might not have been.
“8. VESTRY.- The Vestry except for provisional
appointments after mentioned shall be elected at the Annual Meeting by the
Congregation from among their number, and shall consist of not more than twelve
Members, who shall have management of the temporal affairs of the
Congregation. Of these twelve members,
the Rector the two Churchwardens and the Lay Representative shall be ex officio
members and the Rector shall be Chairman of the Vestry, and he – or, in his
absence, the Chairman elected by the Meeting – shall have a casting as well as
a deliberative vote. The Vestry shall
meet at least twice a year. Four shall
be a quorum. Of the Members of the
Vestry, two shall retire at the Annual Meeting each year according to a
rotation to be fixed by the Vestry and such Members shall be eligible for
election to the office of Member of the Vestry only after an interval of twelve
months; if more than two members are nominated to fill the vacancies thus
created the election shall be decided by the vote of the Members present at the
Annual Meeting. Vacancies occurring
during the year may be provisionally filled up by the Vestry, and provisional
appointments so made shall continue until the next Annual Meeting of the
Congregation, when the provisional appointments may be confirmed or new
appointments made by the Congregation”.
In the middle of the election
process, after the retirement of two ex-officio members, Canon Gordon, who, of
course, was in the Chair, sprang upon the assembled congregation a new
interpretation of Article 9, that is that the two retiring members of the
Vestry had to be Ordinary Members, ie people who were not his supporters in the
1984 – 1985 Vestry. He said this
interpretation of Article 9 had been suggested to him by the Registrar for the
diocese. This is not an obvious reading
of the wording given above and it is not how Article 9 had been interpreted at
AGMs over the past decade. It was an
interpretation favourable to Kenneth Gordon and his faction. Further he had given no prior indication to
the Vestry that this change would be introduced. In the past the Vestry had decided who would
be stepping down. This was very unusual
and irregular behaviour by Kenneth Gordon but, it has to be said, not out of
character given his previous manipulations of process.
Another matter of great concern
to the traditionalist faction was the inclusion of substantial numbers of Trinity,
Westhill congregants in the meeting with voting rights. Trinity at Westhill was a new interdenominational
church which was completed in 1981.
Today (2026) it appears to be essentially a Roman Catholic community,
though it was built for interdenominational use. On 24th November 1985 the
Episcopal congregants at Trinity, Westhill, elected their own provisional Vestry
and, of course, St Devenick’s members took no part in that election. It looked clear to many of the congregants
present at the St Devenick’s AGM that, in view of the pending independence of
Trinity, Westhill, it would be morally improper for members of that nascent
congregation to participate in the election of Vestry members at
Bieldside. When this matter was raised
at the 1995 AGM, the Assistant Curate, Rev Ian Ferguson, claimed that he had
been given no indication by the Bishop that Westhill would become independent
and the status of the Westhill congregants present was deemed to be valid. (in early 1996, this issue was put to Bishop
Darwent and he was clear in his assertion that Rev Ferguson had been given a
clear indication that independence would happen, in the presence of people from
Westhill. Subsequent voting for three
members of Vestry was very close so the votes of Westhill congregants could
well have been decisive.
The role of a meeting chairman
should be to regulate the speaking so that no one speaks without the invitation
of the chair, all voices are heard and no one is allowed to dominate the
discussion to the exclusion of others.
The chair should also refrain from expressing personal opinions unless
in the context of needing to exercise a casting vote. Also, voting must be in accordance with the
constitution of the body concerned. A
chairman behaving in this model fashion can then expect to be granted the
respect of all those present in the meeting.
Unfortunately, Kenneth Gordon did not know of, or failed to conform
with, these simple principles on various occasions but particularly at the 1985
congregational AGM at St Devenick's.
Some Vestry members were still
unhappy with the presence of Westhill representatives and a motion was duly
proposed and seconded calling for the election of ordinary members to be
postponed until the status of Westhill attendees had been resolved. The Chairman refused to allow the congregants
to vote on this motion, so voting for Vestry membership went ahead with Westhill
attendees voting, or not, according to their consciences.
Kenneth Gordon was also accused
of time-wasting by planning a long initial musical section and by reading a
letter from a non-member, yet congregants who wished to speak on the topic of
the visit by the Primus (presiding bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church)
were time-limited to three minutes each.
Could this have been because they wanted to discuss the recent visit by
the Primus? Did Kenneth Gordon deliberately
burn time to limit debate on issues he was not keen to see discussed? Who knows?
But that interpretation could be assigned to his behaviour. The blunt advice given to the Rector at the
meeting with Vestry, Primus, Bishop was, of course known to all members of the
Vestry including the Rector’s Warden. He
ridiculed the Bishop’s “flawed logic” on this topic at the AGM but was not
called to order, as would have been the apprpriate function of the Chairman.
One further set of actions by the
Rector appeared to be detrimental to the chances of some candidates being elected. Immediately before the voting took place
Canon Gordon described one candidate as having only a “tenuous connection” with
St Devenick’s, though it was later demonstrated that this person was qualified
to vote, being a confirmed member of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Canon Gordon then went further in his
critical comments both upon the above candidate and on three others, claiming
that their nominations had been received “late and on plain paper”, yet neither
alleged breach of procedure made by Canon Gordon was a requirement for
qualification, either by Canon Law, or in the St Devenick’s Constitution. All four candidates were supporters of the
traditionalist faction in the congregation, which may have been a significant
factor. Again, it looked as though
Kenneth Gordon may have been denigrating these people as a device to influence
the direction of the impending vote.
By the end of 1986 following the
AGM, more than three and a half years since the sacking of Malcolm Love, it had
become clear to the activists seeking reconciliation for the disaffected and
former congregational members, that Canon Gordon was not going to change his
attitude, that the church, locally and nationally was powerless to compel him
to change, or leave, and thus that Malcolm Love was unlikely to be reinstated
as choirmaster at St Devenick’s and the Deeside Choristers would probably not be
seen in its choir stalls. Kenneth
Gordon, by his obduracy had fractured his congregation, reduced his attendance
and suffered a substantial decline in income, and he had no choir to sing
either classical music or his preferred modern, lightweight, participatory
replacements. The church hierarchy,
while not covering itself in glory through failing to take decisive and timely
action must have heartily wished that Kenneth Gordon had shown an ability to
negotiate and compromise with his detractors.
The Deeside Choristers, Malcolm Love’s Phoenix-like successor to the
defunct St Devenick’s Choir on the other hand, had survived the split from its
mother church, though not without major obstacles to overcome, such as no
gowns, no hymn books, no adequate rehearsal space and, especially, no choir
fund. Its musical standards had been maintained
and even enhanced, it had no difficulty recruiting new members and it was
receiving a constant stream of requests from other churches, some Episcopalian,
some not, to sing furth of Bieldside.
Malcolm Love, despite his advancing years, was maintaining his
enthusiasm for the project. It was not
the outcome that he and his supporters desired but he, and they, would learn to
live with it.
The
1986 AGM of the St Devenick’s congregation
By the 2nd of December, when this
meeting was held, Kenneth Gordon was secure in the knowledge that he could not
be displaced from his position but the dissidents, clear that their efforts to
achieve reform at their church were likely to be ineffective, were becoming
disheartened and their numbers were declining.
However, some were tenacious and held on. But, unlike 1983 when the dissidents held a
clear majority in the congregation, the two factions, progressive and traditional, for and against Canon Gordon,
were now about even-steven. Thus, should
Kenneth Gordon be successful in removing the vote from any attendees at the
AGM, as he had done in the past, the impact on the outcome of the election
could be significant.
As night
follows day, Kenneth Gordon did intervene before the vote for the election of
four members of the Vestry took place to claim that three attendees, Mrs. Kay
Carmichael, Mr. Steve Knowles and Mrs. Sue Knowles had not been invited to the
meeting because they were not listed on the roll of people who had received
Holy Communion in the last year. All
three disputed this claim and asked the Rector for an explanation, which was
not forthcoming. The matter was decided
by issuing all voters with a coloured ticket to attach to their votes. Green ticketed votes were immediately counted
to give a provisional result but orange votes, which stigmatised the three
congregants whose status had been disputed were kept in a separate envelope to
be counted only if an appeal to the Bishop to declare them to be legitimate
were to be successful. Kay Carmichael
was deeply upset by Canon Gordon’s behaviour.
“I was angry and hurt ... it’s such a nasty thing to happen in a
church. It should not happen in a
church. Subsequently she went to see
Bishop Fred Darwent. He listened
sympathetically to her story without giving an immediate judgement.
Three days after the AGM, Bishop
Darwent declared the provisional results should stand and that the orange votes
need not be counted. This decision by
Fred Darwent was utterly baffling, especially as two of the results would
likely have been overturned by the inclusion of the three additional
votes. Mr. Seamus Maclnnes would have
been elected as People's Warden (by a majority of two votes), and Mrs. Midge
Harbottle as Lay Representative (by a majority of one vote). That was not the end of the matter. In March 1987, the three excluded congregants
appealed to the Episcopal Synod of Bishops sitting as a Court, to declare that
they were legitimate members of the St Devenick’s congregation, which Court
upheld the appeal. Kenneth Gordon
appeared at the Court accompanied by a solicitor, thus incurring more needless
expense for St Devenick’s.
By 1988, Brenda Parsons appeared
to be the only Malcolm Love supporter who was a member of the St Devenick’s
Vestry.
Iain
Marr resigns as Director of the St Cecilia Choir
At the end of June 1986, Dr Iain Marr was forced to resign as the
director of the girls’ choir due to pressure of work. This faithful
servant in the cause of church music on Deeside last appeared with the girls of
St Cecilia’s on Sunday 23 June at Glenmuick church. He had initiated
the girls’ choir and been its director and conductor for eight years.
Malcolm Love, as ever the willing horse, stood in as a replacement for Iain on
a temporary basis.
The
fate of the Choir Fund
Meanwhile, during 1986, with
Kenneth Gordon clinging, limpet-like, to his post, the skirmishing went on, in
particular concerning the Choir Fund. To
recapitulate, Canon Gordon removed the Choir Fund from the control of Malcolm
Love and Richard Weddell in 1983 and then placed it under the control of the St
Devenick’s Vestry. No money was drawn
from the account and, sensibly, it was placed under the care of the Treasurer
for the diocese who invested it. In
financial year 1986 – 1987, £648 was withdrawn from the fund, though the
purpose of the expenditure was obscure, St Devenick’s not having a choir at the
time. In January 1987, the control of
the Choir Fund was returned to the St Devenick’s Vestry. That body indicated that it was planning to
have the church’s organ repaired at a cost of more than £6,000 and that it
planned to take the money from the Choir Fund.
At the 1987
AGM of the congregation the matter of the Choir Fund was raised again. The following resolution was passed by 26
votes in favour to 13 against, there being 8 abstentions, “That this meeting
affirms, in keeping with the expressed view of the Bishop, that morally the
choir fund belongs to the DS Choristers".
Now, on an earlier occasion, Canon Gordon had pointed out to the Vestry
that legally the funds were held in trust for the benefit of St Devenick’s but
that the proposal to transfer the funds to the Deeside Choristers could be
advertised and, if no one objected, the transfer of funds could take
place. What happened when the proposal
was so advertised? ONE congregant
objected and the money stayed with St Devenick’s! This story did reach the pages of the Evening
Express which reported the 2:1 vote in favour of transferring the money to the
Deeside Choristers. It also reported
another unusual Fred Darwent conclusion, which was that “part” of the money
should go to Malcolm Love’s choir. The
Evening Express reporter also phoned Kenneth Gordon to ask for his view on the
proposed transfer. He declared that
legally the money belonged to St Devenick’s.
On the moral position, all he would say was that he had “no
view that he wished to publicise”.
Utter frustration with the intransigence of Kenneth Gordon caused three
members of the St Devenick’s congregation, Edwina Clark, Brenda Parsons and
George Patterson, all supporters of the Deeside Choristers, to write a letter
(published on 11 December 1987) to the Aberdeen Evening Express, exposing the
legal problem with transferring the fund to the choir and pointing out the very
simple action that the rector could take to effect a remedy. They did not
spare Kenneth Gordon’s blushes, if he ever had any, when they wrote, “…and (in
spite of the views of his bishop and the congregation) Canon Gordon has set his
face against any form of reconciliation with the choristers. Hence the
legal obstacles”. This letter essentially marked the end of the campaign
to assert the moral right to some of the money raised on its behalf and for the
reintegration of the Deeside Choristers with the church that, through the drive
of Dr Malcolm Love with his supporters, had created one of the most successful
church choirs that Scotland had ever seen. It can only be counted as a
tragedy for St Devenick’s Church, Bieldside and for the wider Episcopal movement.
Malcolm Love
then re-entered the fray, engaging a solicitor to prepare a memorial on the
origins and fate of the St Devenick’s Choir Fund. The conclusion of the barrister instructed to
provide an opinion on the ownership of the fund was clear-cut. The funds legally belonged to St Devenick’s
Church and could be used for any church musical purpose. Unfair as the outcome was, Malcolm Love and
his supporters had no option but to accept that they could not use legal
process to regain control of the money, which they considered had been immorally
purloined by Kenneth Gordon.
The music programme expands
The
programmes of music undertaken by the two choirs went on as before, with
repeated visits to familiar venues, such as the St Margaret of Scotland
Episcopal church in Braemar, St Kentigern’s, Ballater, St Machar Cathedral,
Aberdeen, All Saints, Buckie, St Andrew’s Cathedral, Aberdeen and, of course,
St John the Evangelist, Crown Terrace, Aberdeen.
New
venues, such as the magnificent Salvation Army Citadel and the Mitchell Hall,
Marischal College, both in Aberdeen, Cults Academy, the place of education of
most of the choristers, the Phoenix Hall in the Camphill Community at Newton
Dee, St Ninian’s Cathedral, Perth, St Drostan’s, Old Deer, the chapel at Blairs
College after it ceased to be a Catholic seminary in 1986 and where an annual
service of lessons and carols was held for many years, the Denburn church in
Aberdeen, the Church of the Holy Rude in Stirling, and many others were added
to its singing locations. The range of musical offerings also expanded
into such productions and works as the “Dracula Spectacular” described in the Press
and Journal as “an outrageous send-up of horror movies” and the works of modern
composers such as Benjamin Britten and John Rutter. “Lenten Images”, a musical reflection on the
period before Easter was performed in the chapel of Blairs College in March
1992 by the combined choirs of the Deeside Choristers, including a bass solo by
long-standing choir member, Barry Fenwick and a contribution by Alan Moody, a
graduate from the trebles, on the trumpet in “The Trumpet shall sound” from Handel’s Messiah.
Malcolm Love’s attachment to the
performance of choral music in cathedrals was well-known and he was justifiably
proud of having secured engagements in York and Beverley Minsters, Ripon,
Carlisle and Chester Cathedrals and several Scottish Cathedrals. He also felt that another of his successes
was being able to take singers to churches which lacked their own choir. Malcolm Love was notably open-minded about
where his choirs sang and relaxed about the family backgrounds of his
choristers. In 1990 he said “The
youngsters come from families of all Christian denominations – or none; our
main carol service in December 1988 was sung in a Catholic church, led by a
minister of the Church of Scotland and in which we took a collection for the
Salvation Army!
Overseas visits also occurred from time to time, such as the visit to
Clermont Ferrand in France, a twin city of Aberdeen, in 1992. The choirs also toured in Holland and Denmark. Fred Darwent wrote to Malcolm Love in 1993, “I am pleased to hear the Camp went
well. You really do a superb job with
the choirs and I am happy to be associated with you and them in some small
way”. This was a fair assessment of the
progress of the Deeside Choristers under the charismatic leadership of Malcolm
Love. The praise came from a charming
and well-meaning clergyman whose association with the choir went back to about
1982, but it is difficult to avoid the reflection that the path of evolution of
the Deeside Choristers might have been entirely different if Fred Darwent’s
leadership skills had matched his affable nature.
However, there was one familiar venue amongst the many in and around
Aberdeen to which, as far as I can determine, the Deeside Choristers never
returned. The Episcopal Church of St Devenick, Bieldside, which deficit
may have been the greatest regret of Malcolm Love’s life.
Just as there had been a celebration in 1985, when the choir reached a
decade of existence, in 1999 Malcolm Love started to plan for another
celebration on the Deeside Choristers passing their silver jubilee in 2000. He wrote a letter to the editor of the MBC
(Milltimber, Bieldside and Cults) News announcing that planning was underway
and that boys might like to join the choir in time for the celebration. In September of the same year, an open
evening was held at Cults Primary School, showcasing the history of the Deeside
Choristers and launching the Silver Jubilee celebrations.
I had been present in York Minster in the early 1980s when the Deeside
Choristers, then still to establish their musical reputation, were invited to
sing in that magnificent venue.
Fittingly, in 2000 as part of the Choir’s Jubilee celebrations they
again sang in the seat of the Archbishop of York. That event must also have given Malcolm Love
pause for thought. Did he reflect on how
far his creation had travelled in the intervening years?
Matthew Duncan was asked by the Evening Express for his most memorable
occasion with the Choristers and he related an occurrence during a tour of
Holland in 1994.
“We had been
rehearsing very hard and we finished perfectly at the exact moment the church
bell rang in time. There was spontaneous
applause – which really shouldn’t happen in church. It was an overwhelming moment”.
Another incident, equally unforgettable but
for a different reason, was visited on the Deeside Choristers while they were
singing in St John’s in 2002 as part of the Festival of Light. Part of the ceiling collapsed around them
but, with praiseworthy professionalism, they continued singing!
One musical performance during the Jubilee year, a performance of the Faure
Requiem at St John’s, Crown Terrace, must have given particular satisfaction to
Malcolm Love’s supporters – because Malcolm himself took one of the baritone
solos. The performance was reviewed in
the P&J by music critic Alan Cooper in glowing terms.
“SUNG
with heartfelt warmth and sincerity Faure's Requiem was the centre piece
of this years Lenten Images from the Deeside Choristers. The performance, in St
Johns Church. Crown Terrace, was conducted by Lynn Black. The organist was Dr
Andrew Morrisson of St Andrews Cathedral. His steady rhythmical playing
underpinned the certainty of all the choral and solo singing. Soprano Lisa Beare
sang the Pié Jesu with power, confidence and real beauty of tone. The two
baritone solos were shared between the seasoned experience of director Dr
Malcolm Love and Matthew Duncan, one of the principal tenors who delivered the
Libra Me with power. The opening section of the concert was devoted to music by
Mendelssohn and CV Stanford. Mendelssohn’s I Wailed for the Lord, featuring
soprano Melissa Hogenboom and treble John Pickup, was delight with a satisfying
balance struck by the soloists, choir and organ”.
The main
Jubilee celebration was a dinner held at the Aberdeen University Staff Club on
Saturday, 16th September.
Former choristers were invited to attend and over 100 people came on the
evening. Reaching 25 years was a
significant achievement for the Choristers bearing in mind the many obstacles
which had been encountered on their path to survival. The year 2000 was also significant for
Malcolm Love for another reason. He was
elected a Foreign Member of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences for work he did
jointly with Prof Georgy Schulman on the biochemical ecology of marine fishes.
Another
recognition for merit came Malcolm’s way in 2001 when his former chorister,
Matthew Duncan, who had joined the choir at the age of eight, but was at that time
an adult member of the Byrd Choir and a local councillor for Cults, nominated
Malcolm Love for an Evening Express Aberdeen Champion Award.
Malcolm Love reaches the end of the road
Malcolm Love said during his
career as choirmaster of the Deeside Choristers that he had no intention of
retiring and, as far as I can determine, he never did formally step down from
his role. But the march of time spares no one. By 1990,
when Malcolm Love had reached the age of 63, Neil Cathmore was frequently being
engaged to play the organ at services involving the choirs and he also started
to conduct the boys’ and girls’ choirs, a role shared with Malcolm Love.
Malcolm was still active with the Choir during 2004, when he attended the choir
camp on the Isle of Cumbrae. His last engagement as the conductor of
the choir appears to have been in December 2004 when the Deeside
Choristers’ Service of Nine lessons with Carols was presented at St Mary’s
Church, Blairs, “Seasonal refreshments” were available after the
service and a voluntary collection in aid of Shelter, the charity supporting
the homeless, was made. Neil Cathmore later assumed the baton when
Malcolm was unable to continue through ill-health.
Life goes on for the Deeside Choristers – but not forever.
In 2009, the Deeside Choristers were still continuing to perform at
about the same level of intensity as in Malcolm Love’s heyday. In that
year, Neil Cathmore described the choir as follows. “We are an
enthusiastic, friendly choir of over fifty girls, boys and men. Now in our 35th
year, we have broadcast, recorded, sung in many of the great cathedrals, and
toured abroad. Our mission is to teach children to sing from a musical score,
to enable them to learn, appreciate and enjoy choral music of the great masters
and to perform with modesty and dignity”. Clearly, by this date, the St
Cecilia Choir had been amalgamated with the boys’ choir, perhaps a pragmatic decision
to dispense with two conductors,two separate sets of rehearsals and programmes
and, perhaps also, to accommodate declining participation.
In 2014, the MBC (Milltimber, Bieldside and Cults) News reported on the
Deeside Choristers as follows. “The Deeside Choristers would like to wish
all readers of the MBC News a Happy Easter. Some eight years since the death of
its founder, Dr. Malcolm Love, this local Soprano, Alto, Tenor and Bass (SATB)
choir continues to flourish and inspire. Our last engagement was on Sunday,
30th March when we sang “Music at 6” at St. Machar’s and our next will be
participating in the Diocesan Choral Festival at St. Andrew’s Cathedral on
Sunday, 11th May. Rehearsals are every Wednesday during term-time, 6.15 to 8pm,
in the Main Hall, Camphill, Murtle Estate, Bieldside. We would like to
encourage all youngsters, (aged 7 and above) who are enthusiastic singers to
consider joining our ranks, especially after the summer holidays. Experienced
Tenors and Basses are also warmly welcome at any time”.
Sadly, by 2018, the Deeside Choristers had ceased to exist as an active
choir and the “Deeside Choristers” registered charity is currently listed as
“inactive”. As far as I can determine, the choir has not been reactivated
to the present (2026).
Why did the relationship between Kenneth Gordon and Malcolm Love break
down?
Kenneth Gordon arrived at St Devenick’s in 1971 and for the next 11
years he appeared to favour, or at least tolerate, a traditional form of
liturgy as characterised in the “Grey Book”.
Malcolm Love took control of the St Devenick’s Choir in 1975 and
appeared to work harmoniously with Kenneth Gordon until about 1981. The two apparently met together at intervals
when the Rector would approve the music that Malcolm Love was proposing for
inclusion in forthcoming services. At
the time that Malcolm Love was recruited as the choirmaster he must have seemed
an ideal candidate for the role, given his background and training. But
it appeared that sometime before 1981 that Kenneth Gordon developed an
aspiration to make worship at St Devenick’s more informal, presumably because
he believed that such a change in form of worship would be effective in
retaining and enhancing the size of the congregation. A small choir would
not be an impediment to such a change and could play its part, perhaps by
singing works which were not too long and not too highbrow. Kenneth
Gordon perhaps did not anticipate that the charismatic Malcolm Love would grow
the choir both in its numbers and in its musical repertoire. Both these
aspects were problematic for the move to a more informal form of service.
Malcolm Love also commented later that during his period as choirmaster at St
Devenick’s he noticed that more and more of the prayer book was being omitted
from services and that only the modern English Bible was being employed, but he
did not indicate a date when this trend started. The success of the choir
became an impediment to Kenneth Gordon’s plans for liturgical reform and he
tried to exert his authority over Malcolm Love both in reducing the size of the
choir and in diminishing its prominence in services but appeared to lack the
negotiating skills which would have allowed his aspirations to be delivered
painlessly. But it was too late. By late 1982, the choir had become
very popular both within the church and outwith its confines and a sizable
section of the congregation resisted Kenneth Gordon’s modernising
aspirations. For him, the form of worship was dominant over the success
of the choir, while for Malcolm Love, the development of the choir, singing a
classical repertoire and taking part in traditional Anglican services,
especially in the great cathedrals was what, as a committed Christian, drove
him forward. In this case, the success of the classical, ironically,
stood in the way of modernisation!
The Spring 1981 edition of “Ruff Stuff”, the magazine of the St
Devenick’s choirs, contains a contribution by Kenneth Gordon which seems to
outline his concerns about the appropriateness of sophisticated high church
music in worship in a small suburban church such as his. His invited contribution started by offering
“heartfelt thanks” to everyone concerned with the St Devenick’s choirs but did
not mention any individual by name. His
piece continued in an unusual form in that he simply quoted from the writings
of others about the role and form of church music. Thus, words of criticism with which he
appeared to sympathise were not his own writings. But he would hardly have included such
pointed quotations if he had not meant to send a message to the choirs and
especially the moving force behind them.
Two examples will suffice to make the point. “Does scripture lay down any principles for
the kind of music we should use in worship?
Certainly, the Old Testament holds up to us an ideal of musical
excellence. But it was an excellence
that was meant to draw attention to the Lord rather than to itself, and to
encourage rather than inhibit the congregation”. “The choir is part of the whole people of
God, and not some special hybrid group set apart from both clergy and
congregation. It is the servant of the
congregation, leading and supporting the whole body … The music of worship is
not the special preserve of a chosen few but the inheritance of all the people
of God; it is the practical expression of the priesthood of all believers”.
Later in the same edition of “Ruff Stuff” there was surely entered a
reply to the criticism I have attributed to Kenneth Gordon. The author of this rejoinder was not
identified but it is difficult to find anyone other than Malcolm Love as the
leading suspect. “In the late 1950s a
Bishop said that poor music uttered with a sincere heart and voice was just as
acceptable in God’s ears as the most finished performance of a Bach cantata;
that God wasn’t a music critic, and that what music was performed in Church and
the manner in which it was performed should not rest on the value judgements of
trained musicians (you might ask “Why bother to employ them, then?”) The writer went on with an even more mordant
comment. “Might one not say in reply
that God isn’t necessarily tone deaf, and that he has endowed us with the
faculty of taste? Many of us would
recoil from the thought of sending to someone we loved or respected a tawdry
greetings card containing doggerel verse, yet it is precisely the musical
equivalent of this which some are eager to inflict on congregations and suggest
that the young should subsist only on such a diet”. (author’s emphasis).
The incumbent at St Devenick’s was a determined and uncompromising man
who clearly believed that he was in charge in his church and that his writ was
law. On the surface, Malcolm Love was amiable and affable but underneath
this smiling exterior was an equally steely countenance unwilling to surrender
the achievements of eight years’ hard work. Given such opponents, a
disassociation of the choir from St Devenick’s was probably inevitable,
followed by a fracture in the coherence of the congregation. Such a split
might have been mended, ruffled feelings smoothed, and calm restored had
different personalities been involved. But Kenneth Gordon and his then
supportive vestry felt their authority had been challenged and this hardened their
approach. Compromise to them might have appeared as weakness and loss of
authority. Malcolm Love might have been accommodated by taking his choir
to other venues to sing the more highbrow and traditional compositions, while
presenting a smaller choir at St Devenicks to satisfy the needs of Canon
Gordon. But such compromise could not be entertained by the
incumbent. Perhaps for him the matter had become personal, and he was
determined not to work with Malcolm Love in the future.
Unfortunately, tactics were employed by both sides which inflamed the
tensions. Malcolm Love secretly recorded the proceedings of the meeting
in late 1982 which presaged his dismissal as choirmaster and that riled the
vestry and clergy. They, on the other hand seemed to adopt the view that
the end (removal of Malcolm Love) justified the means (fabricating reasons).
Accusations were made against the character and integrity of the ex-choirmaster
which were baseless and later had to be withdrawn, leaving the emperor naked.
There were other issues, too, which grated with Kenneth Gordon and his
loyalists, concerning the choir and they concerned the population from which
the choir recruited its members. During the 1970s and 1980s, Lower
Deeside underwent a major expansion in house building to accommodate the
incomers attracted by the North Sea oil boom. These incomers were mostly
in senior and well-paid positions, many of them from furth of Scotland, and
they were used to both thinking and acting for themselves. They added to
the existing middleclass population of the area, which was already well
represented with professionals and academics. Such a population was proud
of the success of the St Devenick’s choir and happy to stand up to be counted
in its defence. Not all were regular churchgoers which led to the telling
remark of Kenneth Gordon’s spouse about those making the most noise.
Allied to this irritation was another. The wife of a prominent couple,
who had been members of the congregation for many years, upbraided this author
because the parents of some choristers did not attend church at all, and she
expressed the view that the offspring of such people should not be in a church
choir or singing religious music. There is one further factor which may
have been significant. Kenneth Gordon was a strong supporter of Scottish
Nationalism at a time when this political movement was in its infancy. He
would not have found many amongst the incomers who shared his aspirations for
an independent Scotland, which perhaps bolstered his determination not to be
pushed around by eloquent incomers.
Most people in their journey through life will have experienced
situations, often at work, where they observe two colleagues who simply cannot
stand the sight of each other but could not clearly enunciate the reasons why
this was so. I saw such situations several times during my career,
exemplified by one acquaintance who said of another “He lights my fuse”.
Did Kenneth Gordon and Malcolm Love share such an irrational, mutual
antagonism?
The death of Kenneth Gordon.
Malcolm Love’s nemesis, Kenneth Gordon, retired as rector of St
Devenick’s in 2001, though in retirement he returned to Bieldside as Honorary
Assistant Priest between 2010 and 2018. He died in 2021, aged 86. A
eulogistic obituary of him was published online. Its author, perhaps
wishing not to speak ill of the dead, or perhaps through ignorance of events
from 35 years previously, made no mention of the Deeside Choristers affair which
impinged heavily on Kenneth Gordon’s life between 1982 and 1987. The
obituary summed up his character as follows. “We will all miss Ken for
his intelligent and incisive contributions to discussions and for his humanity
and shining faith”. His friends may remember him that way, but there were
many on Deeside who saw him differently.
The death of Malcolm Love.
In 2001, Malcolm Love was diagnosed with cancer and though he survived
with this condition for a further five years, it was probably responsible for
his progressive withdrawal from active involvement with the Deeside Choristers,
his last conducting engagement thought to have been at Christmas 2004.
Malcolm Love died, aged 79, on Easter Day, 16th April, 2006
at his home of many years, East Silverburn, Kingswells. The funeral
notice, posted online, read as follows. “LOVE. R. Malcolm Love DSc,
Fisheries Scientist, late of Torry Research Station, founder of the Deeside
Choristers, died peacefully at home, on Easter Morning. Much loved husband of
Muriel, loving father of Andrew, Ian and Timothy, proud grandpa to his ten
grandchildren. Friends and colleagues are invited to the funeral at St. John's
Church, Crown Terrace, Aberdeen, on Thursday, April 20, at 12.30 p.m.,
interment thereafter in Skene Cemetery”.
Malcolm's death was reported, along with an account of his life in both the
P&J and the Evening Express. His son Andrew said: “He wasn’t just a choirmaster, he took a real interest
in the choir members as people and really did act as a father figure to them.
He was much loved and will be sadly missed.”
Four months after his death, the Deeside
Choristers organised a memorial concert to honour the memory of Malcolm
Love. It was held in St Machar’s
Cathedral, Aberdeen, a Church of Scotland establishment, bearing silent witness
to the regard in which Malcolm was cherished across the spectrum of Christian
denominations. The works chosen for
performance were all favourites of the Choristers’ late leader and inspiration,
which included Gabriel Fauré’s Requiem.
The concert was free and anyone was invited to attend and, if desired,
to sing. An orchestra and choir of about
70 performed to an audience of 200. A
collection realised £628 which was donated to Marie Curie Cancer Care by
Muriel, Malcolm’s widow at a service of choral evensong held in Pluscarden
Abbey, one of Malcolm’s favourite places of worship and a Catholic institution,
where he was always made welcome.
Although he is memorialised in stone at Skene, Malcolm Love’s true
memorial lies jointly in his published scientific work and his music-making,
but especially in the achievements of his magnificent, but ephemeral, creation,
the Deeside Choristers.
Don Fox
20260623
Acknowledgement
I am deeply grateful to Matthew Duncan, firstly, for preserving Malcolm
Love’s archive and, secondly, for generously making it available to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment