|
Minister's Blog Page
The Big Issue ! (at the General Assembly)
Well, there is no getting away from what the big issue is going to be at
this year's General Assembly! Can the call by a congregation to an openly gay
minister who is living with his partner be "allowed" by the Church of
Scotland?
Part of the issue is about the right of a congregation to call its own
minister. This was the issue that split the Church in 1843 when the Free Church
seceded. The reunion of 1929 was only possible because the right of
congregations to call their own minister was re-affirmed.
So, on one level, here we have the General Assembly potentially
"intervening" in apparent contravention of that cherished principle
which is at the heart of the Church of Scotland's self-understanding. The
minister in question was called by the congregation after due process and a
congregational vote. By all accounts he was open and honest about his
situation. The Presbytery in question sustained the call by a majority
vote.
So - on that level - no argument, whatever we might think of the underlying
issue.
But a sufficient number of Presbytery members objected (and dissented) on
the grounds that someone living in an openly gay relationship was not fit to be
a minister and they have taken it to the Assembly, and - on the back of this -
another presbytery has asked the Assembly to agree than no-one living with a
gay partner can be a serving minister of the Church of Scotland.
And that - of course - is the real issue.
The debate is polarised, with much heat (and perhaps a little less light!)
on both sides. On the other hand a very gentle and graceful debate by two
ministers on opposing sides of the debate was televised and can be seen at :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8049761.stm
(As it happens I know them both!)
My frustration even with that more gentle debate is that the two positions
are so stereotypical and predictable and apparently irreconcilable (although I
commend their gracious manner!).
It is simply not enough (on one side) to say that "the Bible plainly
teaches…" because in truth it is just not that clear! Careful
exegesis and interpretation (such as we rightly apply to other parts of
Scripture including the role of women in the church, slavery, polygamy etc)
would tend to suggest that, at the very least, the texts on homosexuality are
open to a different interpretation from that which "traditionalists"
affirm.
On the other hand, while the love of Christ and the grace of God should
guide all our dealings with all people, we cannot simply sidestep difficult
ethical issues by continually speaking of the love of God in a way to suggest
that just to use that phrase ends the argument!
And what do I think?
I think that I am not absolutely sure what I think!
I think that we need to have an ongoing and open debate in the Church and
that those in entrenched positions need to get out of their bunkers, stop
attacking the other side as if they were the enemy and begin a real dialogue in
which the outcome is not pre-determined, and there is genuine openness to one
another's viewpoint and - most importantly - to God's Spirit.
I think that as a church we can agree to disagree on this issue - as we do
with others - without it splitting the church. I mean, how ridiculous (or
revealing, perhaps?) is it that with all the breadth of view within the Church
of Scotland that this is the one that threatens to split us?!
I think we need to take the Bible seriously, and engage with it carefully
and prayerfully, which means more than simply saying "the Bible clearly
teaches" or "but that was said then, we now know
better..."
I think that we need a good deal more grace and humility from all sides. The
"traditionalists" are not all mean and unloving homophobes and
the "revisionists" are not all seeking to play fast and loose
with Scripture.
I think that we need to recognise that there are not simply two polarised
positions, but a spectrum of views including those of many who have not yet
come to a position on this matter and who seek a genuine, thoughtful and open
debate.
And I know that I was once firmly of the "traditionalist" view.
However, people's views can change. The church's view can change! After
all, both slavery and racial segregation have in the past been justified and
sanctioned on "biblical" grounds. And within living memory the Church
was opposed to women's ordination.
Makes you wonder.
by Rev David Denniston, on Thu 14 May 2009, 21:53
| Go back to the main Minister's page |
We apologise, but
the Church of Scotland
have imposed a moratorium on the discussion
of this topic. As a result, we have been obliged
to close this page to new comments
|
| Webmaster 10-Jun-09 |
Sorry to post again.
It occurred to me to check out another matter of controversy; birth control. I
had a sneaking suspicion that it might only have been recently that it was
deemed acceptable in the Christian Church (at least amongst Protestants).
I was right.
For example, the editor of a Nonconformist weekly journal in the United States
wrote in 1893, There was a time when any idea of voluntary
limitation was regarded by pious people as interfering with Providence. We are
beyond that now and have become capable of recognizing that Providence works
through the commonsense of individual brains. We limit population just as much
by deferring marriage for prudential reasons as by any action that may be taken
after it.[91][95]
What relevance does this have for the debate on gay relationships? Perhaps that
it is possible for the Church to come to a different mind on a matter even
after 19 centuries of consistent agreement in the opposite direction!
And I suppose that is true of the role of women in the church also.
Yet, I still remain unsure and confused!!
Posted by David on Mon May 18 20:55:16 2009
I think Grant identifies many of the key issues and major
problems. Will we end up with CCTV in manse bedrooms?!
However, I am not sure I would regard any decision to remit the Lochcarron and
Skye overture to a committee or commission as necessarily a fudge. It may be
the context and process whereby some of these difficult, contentious and
important issues can be further explored.
I do agree with the implications of what Grant says re “the substance of
the faith”. I went to hear the controversial American bishop, Gene
Robinson, speak at St John’s during the festival last year. You will
recall that he is living in an openly gay committed relationship with a
partner, and his consecration as a bishop was hugely controversial. I must say
that he was very convincing (even if I still sit on the fence on this issue!).
But what impressed me most was that he indicated that – in terms of
doctrine and theology – he was very conservative! There does seem to be a
confusion of theology with ethics in this whole debate.
Ruth’s opening comments find a resonance in me, as I still remain
uncertain.
That said, I am not sure that simply to speak of loving one another, is
sufficient, and I hope the sermon she heard did not suggest that!
What I think is that the debate needs to be seriously engaged with, and that
whatever view we may take, the discussion must be carried out in love,
acknowledging that God loves all people, straight and gay, traditionalist and
revisionist etc. But simply quoting the great commandment is not enough to
resolve the issue.
That question about today gay issues tomorrow incest (and you could go on) is a
very telling one! On the other side of the debate one could ask, if we are
drawing a line at gay partnership, why did we not earlier draw a line at
remarried divorcees who are ministers (and many are!)? After all, while Jesus
says nothing about homosexuality, he does speak about divorce and remarriage!
I think I get more confused the more I think about it all!
Posted by David on Mon May 18 20:17:21 2009
On strictly Church Law grounds the complaint against the
Presbytery of Aberdeen should fail, provided the Presbytery did not do anything
contrary to Church Law – which, I understand, they didn’t. Of course,
as has already been highlighted, there are as many grey areas in interpreting
Church Law as there are in interpreting scriptures, so no doubt there will be
some spirited debate on this issue!
Of more relevance is the overture from the Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye,
which states (after a preamble) “That this Church shall not accept for
training, ordain, admit, re-admit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the
Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful marriage
between a man and a woman”.
This, in black and white, is the heart of the issue. An invitation to the
Church of Scotland to proclaim unequivocally what its stance on sexual ethics
and the ministry is. Trouble is, the statement proposed is still tinged with
grey, isn’t it? Yes, it would exclude homosexuals, and by extention
heterosexual civil partners and co-habitees, and also non-celibate singles. How
ethical is it for the Church to inquire into anyone’s private life like
that? And what is actually meant by “ministry” in this context? Does
it cover elders, youth workers, administrative and support workers, and the
like? What exactly is a “sexual relationship” or a “faithful
marriage”? And why no mention of love at all? No doubt a committee will be
set up to consider these matters and report back to the General Assembly. Yet
more opportunity for classic Church of Scotland fudge?
We’re on dangerous ground here. Sexual ethics is a complicated area where
what is acceptable to someone is totally unacceptable to someone else,
depending on a host of personal, cultural, experiential and other factors. The
same is true for many other ethical issues, and I think we’ve already
recognised that we can’t look to scripture for absolute answers in every
case. Any statement about the Church of Scotland’s stance should focus on
the factors that unite us, and there are many issues of sexual ethics where I
believe that is the case, including the importance of love, mutual respect,
non-exploitation, and so on. I think it is right that the Church shows
leadership in articulating these clearly. On other matters we should continue
to follow the Church of Scotland’s tradition to recognise “liberty of
opinion on such points of doctrine as do not enter into the substance of the
faith.”
The debate as to whether this particular issue of sexual ethics impacts the
“substance of the faith” will then continue, and over time, with
prayer, reflection, dialogue and the help of the Holy Spirit, we’ll move
towards some sort of answer (even if it’s only to continue agreeing to
differ!) We mustn’t be bullied by any weight of expectation from Church
members, media and society at large, into rushing towards any expedient,
ill-informed, half-thought through statements like this that completely miss
the real points.
Posted by Grant on Mon May 18 15:55:52 2009
I should say up front here, that I can understand, appreciate and
indeed sympathise with the arguments on both sides of this issue, and
personally am currently unable to determine which side aligns with God.
A minster I greatly respected once told me that she would be happy to perform a
blessing for same sex partnerships, as she believed that love should be
celebrated wherever it was found – which I found a very striking point. I
heard a sermon yesterday around the topic of the blog above, and it seemed to
me that the key message there was Jesus’ command for us to love one
another (all of us, loving everyone else, no exceptions!). But, a comment I
heard from someone reflecting on this sermon afterwards, was concerned whether
debating the rights or wrongs of homosexual relationships now, would lead to
debating the rights and wrongs of incestuous relationships in 10 years time ?
Which made me wonder – should love be celebrated wherever it is found
– or is there “good” love and “bad” love ? In a
loving, committed, same sex relationship, or in a traditional marriage where
the husband routinely beats his wife - who decides what is “good” and
acceptable love and what is “bad” and unacceptable love ?
The one thing that seems clear in this debate, it is that both sides can’t
be right, they have such opposing views, that one side must be wrong. This is
why I feel that the church is doing us all a disservice by sitting on the fence
on this matter. I realise that which ever side of this argument the church
finally favours, it will be unpopular both within and outside the church. But,
as the church, we are not here to win popularity contests, we’re here to
win people for Christ and to live kingdom values ! I worry because if our
decision on this matter, does not match God’s judgement, we will either
being placing unnecessary burdens on people, or leading them into sin –
and either way we’ll be held accountable on judgement day. We have to make
the right decision about this, and frankly I don’t think that can be
achieved through heated argument at the General Assembly. I think that can only
be achieved through a great deal of prayer, and God granting us the discernment
to see things his way.
Posted by Ruth on Mon May 18 12:58:15 2009
Interestingly, I have received a few direct email responses to
this posting. They have led me to add these comments.
First, to say that the spirit of gracious and patient and prayerful debate on
this issue that I am advocating needs to include an awareness on the
"traditionalist" side that many of those who would advocate a more
"revisionist" view take the Scriptures very seriously and seek to
understand the contested biblical texts through a process of careful and
thoughtful exegesis, biblical reflection and theological analysis. They are not
all "wishy washy liberals" who are ready to dismiss biblical
teaching.
See for example this article by Dr Paul Middleton (who - as it happens - is a
member of St Cuthbert's!)
http://www.onekirk.org/bible_sexuality.html
On the other hand, "revisionists" need to ask some theological and
ethical questions, and suggest some clearer answers. For example, is it
sufficient to deal with the specific texts (no matter how convincingly) without
addressing what seems to be the New Testament teaching about marriage which -
it may be argued - presumes faithful heterosexual life-long commitment between
a man and a woman. I have yet to read anything from the "revisionist"
viewpoint which clearly deals with this.
But then that leads to another issue which “traditionalists” need to
address. In spite of what appears to be clear biblical teaching regarding
divorce and remarriage, we do not hear of any attempt to bar remarried
ministers (and there are many such) from service, despite what are no doubt the
strongly held personal views of many "traditionalists". Why are we
able to live with "liberty of opinion" on this matter and not with
regard to homosexuality? If there are good biblical and theological reasons
from the "traditionalist" viewpoint for this apparent inconsistency
then, as far as I can tell, they have not been presented.
We can then hit the ball back into the “revisionist” court and ask
for some indication as to where, in their view, the lines are to be drawn?
Again this will need to be argued biblically and theologically. Are “open
marriages” ok? Is polygamy fine? If not (and I don’t think I have
heard anyone suggesting that they are!) then why not and in what way to we
determine the boundaries of sexual ethics.
As I understand it, it is the fear of a complete unravelling of Christian
sexual ethics that forms part of the fear of “traditionalists”.
In the end, all these questions reinforce in my mind the need for the gracious
and prayerful and open debate that I am advocating. Meanwhile, can we not agree
to disagree while we further explore all this?
The American evangelist and writer, Tony Campolo, and his wife Peggy take
different views on this matter (http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/1999-May/000360.html)
and yet manage to be married and to minister together in love.
Posted by David on Sat May 16 10:11:16 2009
For Website issues only, contact :
For all Church related issues, contact :
St Cuthbert's Parish Church. 5 Lothian Road.
Edinburgh. Scotland. EH1 2EP |
|
|
