There is a piece in the Herald on and apparent leak of the report of the Church of Scotland’s Special Commission. This was the commission that was set up after the debate about whether a presbytery could induct a minister who is living in a civil partnership.
The exact remit was this:
“A Special Commission composed of nine persons, representative of the breadth and unity of the Church, to consult with all Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions and to prepare a study on Ordination and Induction to the Ministry of the Church of Scotland in the light of the issues (a) addressed in a Report welcomed by the General Assembly of 2007: “A challenge to unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexualityâ€, and (b) raised by the case of Aitken et al v the Presbytery of Aberdeen, and to report to the General Assembly of 2011.â€
If the Herald is to be believed, then I was not far wrong in what I predicted at New Year. At that time, I said that:
The Church of Scotland will have a rocky General Assembly with a moderately conservative report from their Special Commission. (No more gay ministers, no questions to be asked about sexuality of office bearers but also no removing anyone currently in any post on the grounds of their sexuality).
It is said in the Herald that they will recommend a new commission for a couple of years, a ban on further inductions of partnered gay clerics, a ban on training for gay candidates in same-sex partnerships and also a renewed ban on C of S people talking about it in public. (This last ban in the so-called moratorium, which is and always was madness, if you ask me). Oh, and no removing people already in post.
There is a lot of discussion in the Herald about who would leave the Kirk if different policy decisions were made. If I understood the report correctly, just over 20% of session members said they would leave the church if gay clergy were allowed to proceed to ministry whilst just under 10% would leave if the opposite held true. This leads to the schism-alert headlines that we’ve come to know very well within Anglicanism.
The trouble with this approach to the issue is that it makes doctrine the captive of the bully. It also creates false “extreme” wings and an equally false central position which tries to play off each side. It also fails to capture the reality which is that good hearted liberals slip away in the wars of attrition – leaving because they simply cannot stomach what they perceive as the intolerance of a church which does not represent their values and ethics. How many gay folk have left the C of S already? How many family members? How may young people? People like that slip away. In my experience, those who take a less tolerant view of gay people in the church are more likely to work together to make the big threats about taking their money or members away en bloc.
What will be most interesting will be to read the report in full – it is reported to be 50 pages worth and the Church of Scotland tend to do that kind of theological reporting better than anyone else.
The figures we have so far are really only figures that can generate hysterical headlines. What will be really interesting will be to see the breakdown, if it is published, from one presbytery to another.
The really shocking headline that the Herald might have run with today is that if gay clergy were allowed to be appointed unimpeded then 80% of the kirk elders would stay loyally in place living the gospel in their parishes. That would not always have been so and represents an astonishing period of change over the last 20 years or so, the time that I have known the Church of Scotland.
What a thought, that Jesus has been appointed by his Father to make judgements about homosexual behaviour. I’d never considered that a possibility.
As one of those gay folk working in mission and from a diverse congregation, I’m unlikely to get away from the mindset of acceptance or non-acceptance of those who are gay. Its rather fundamental to me after all.
I do agree that the task is about loving one another and engaging in mission and being conformed to the likeness of Christ. I do think that my own attempts to live out that mission are sometimes impaired by the reputation that the church (often rightly) has, of being vile to people.
It was good to read that we can agree in our task!
I sense a poignancy in your saying –
I’m unlikely to get away from the mindset of acceptance or non-acceptance of those who are gay.
But think of the concept of acceptance/ non acceptance in areas where you may not feel so personally identified(!)but yet want to be involved –
thieves, liars, murderers, adulterers, gossips, drunkards.
Surely the issue that determines our relationships/friendships with any of such is not one of acceptance/ or non acceptance [at least of the people themselves rather than as that with which they are associated!] but rather with our agreed task.
I’m not at all intending to equate homosexuality with any of the activities listed above [as a lifestyle!!] – rather I’m only in the business of trying to isolate out the attitude of acceptance/non acceptance in our relationships.
>I’m not at all intending to equate homosexuality with any of the activities listed above
And yet you do make that comparison.
And it is vile and offensive to do so.
You see, William, I never make a comment which equates the non-acceptance of homosexual partnerships with homophobia. I do however, consider it is downright foolish to fail to see that many homosexual relationships are good and blessed and of God. Folly, happily for all of us, is not phobia.
Making the analogy between faithful partnerships undertaken in the belief they are good and blessed and acts of theft etc etc is – well, let us say it shows where you are coming from. For a start, it shows you believe that gay people undertake their relationships KNOWING they are wrong. And that is just the start.
Let me put it this way. Dante, when he envisioned himself in Purgatory saw himself suffering the penalty of two of the Deadly Vices. I admit that in essence I am guilty of at least two of the vices you list. However, for the overwhelming length of my life I have not yearned to be personally involved in sex with another woman.
So, what are you going to say of me? Given you do not that accusation to throw at me, how will you demolish MY arguments?
Because sadly the church or even the Church is not rejecting gay people on well based arguments, but because some of those who wish to reject them are prepared to fight dirty.
And while I’m at it – nobody can offer a guarantee that any TYPE of relationship is free from sin. Of course a gay couple can have a deeply flawed sinful and exploitative relationship, just as a straight couple can. Two women die each week in the UK as a result of their male partners. ANY relationship can be more sinful than it is good. What I am arguing for is the acceptance that a gay partnership can be just as much source of beauty and growth as a straight one – just as blessed by God.
Rosemary – I think I can see what you are arguing for in terms of certain relationships, but it seems to me you have overlooked what I was arguing for. [indeed in each comment I’ve made here!]
I’ve been arguing against the very concept of non acceptance!! – yet you seem to be getting involved with the quality [or otherwise] of the arguments used by those who reject [see your comment – the Church is not rejecting gay people on well based arguments, but because some of those who wish to reject them are prepared to fight dirty.]
And we would certainly agree that none of us is without sin in anything we do.
Would we not also agree, as was said earlier, that however poorly our words or our actions may be judged by others, we are about seeking to be conformed to the likeness of our Lord and Saviour.
Acceptance is this.
A heterosexual young couple turn up and church and the priest says: ‘How lovely! It does me good to see young people so happy and in love. And you are planning your wedding? Well, if you would like us to, we would be happy to help!’
Non-acceptance is this.
A homosexual young couple turn up at church and the priest says: ‘Oh, you are together? Well we are happy to welcome you here despite that, you know! And you are planning your wedding? Well, actually, I think you will find it is a Civil Union, and I really don’t think I can bless it. Of course I welcome you as I do all poor sinners, but I cannot affirm the sin.’
While the script reads like that (mercifully not at St M’s) you are not talking about a situation where there is only love and no question of acceptance or non-acceptance.
You have a more level playing field where the priest says: ‘Lovely to see you. I am happy to support all couples. We do a series of seminars on the quality of relationships, and I do try to get couples intending to marry to attend, and after that it is down to seeing what the church can do to help you affirm your love in a way that will help you support each afterwards through thick and thin.’ As far as I can see in the church, that is the task of mission in relation to couples. That is us empowering the path of loving commitment.
When the actuality is non-acceptance, I fail to see how one can speak as though it is not there.
Friend sent me this today, which seems – provocatively – relevant :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237.html
There is so much in the above comments that I wholeheartedly agree with, so much warmth and humanity. This is never an easy matter to get to grips with, but the C of S must. Next Monday the Kirk will have an opportunity to take a huge step towards creatign a genuinely more inclusive church – I hope it has the courage to do so.
As Roy says, blogging is currently difficult for those who are members. However, I’ve decided to speak out on this:
http://scottish-liberal.blogspot.com/2011/05/will-kirk-make-right-decision-on-gay.html
I would love to see a church free of prejudice and discrimination; the C of S can takle a giant step towards this if it only grasps the chance.