What is in Kelvin's Head?

Church of Scotland Debate

20/05/2013

I’ve spent much of today listening to the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly debating their Special Theological Commission that had been set up a couple of years ago to report on the way forward for that church with regard to the possibility of gay people to be ordained and inducted and to have their partnerships blessed by that church.

Three proposals emerged. The first two were in the report itself and labelled rather unsatisfactorily as the Revisionist (option A) and the Traditionalist (option B) position. Option A allows what tends to be called a mixed economy by which that church could eventually allow ministers in civil partnerships to be appointed to churches and gay couples in civil partnerships to be allowed to have their partnerships blessed. Option B would not though anyone who happened to be in a Civil Partnership already would probably not be hounded out of their ministry but no new minister in a civil partnership could be inducted or ordained. The third position emerged during the day and was moved in the name of Albert Bogle. (Confusingly it was option D – another motion C had been proposed and then was withdrawn during the process). This option D was a proposal to reaffirm the traditionalist view on these matters whilst allowing individual Kirk Sessions to opt to do as they like and choose such a minister anyway.

In each case, these were not final votes. The procedures of the Church of Scotland mean that where there are significant changes accepted by a General Assembly they then have to be put to the presbyteries of the church. The final position only emerges if a majority of presbyteries concur during the subsequent year and also the next General Assembly confirms the vote. (If a majority of the presbyteries do not concur then the process fails).

Option B fell in the first round of voting.

The commissioners of the Assembly then opted for Option D.

My own feeling is that this was a very hastily patched together compromise that is an astonishing move for the church to make.

It effectively means that the Church of Scotland has chosen by 340 to 282 to go down a path which delays the decision for another year and which is theologically incoherent and unexamined by the Commission which had been set up to consider these matters.

It means that the Church of Scotland has affirmed that it believes something whilst also giving permission to kirk sessions in the church to ignore that doctrine and do something diametrically opposed to what the church says it believes. It is not merely an untidy compromise, it is ecclesiastically and theologically incoherent.

The Church of Scotland became more congregational in its polity today. Some may feel that there are frightening implications for those in that church who support the ordination of women as ministers and elders. What else is going to become a matter of congregational choice?

All this now goes to presbyteries under the Barrier Act. (After next year’s Assembly, if I’ve understood this right).

It may be that some will leave the Church of Scotland because they have affirmed a plan that would allow that church to have gay ministers in some congregations even though the church has affirmed that doctrinally it believes that this is wrong.

It seems to me quite likely that presbyteries may refuse to affirm the proposal.

This matter was not resolved in either direction in the Church of Scotland today.

5 responses to “The Primus’s Radio Interview about the Columba Declaration”

Benj

17/02/2016

I’m not sure Chillingworth gave a clear answer to Beattie’s question of what is wrong with the declaration beyond its discourtesy and rudeness. What does he mean when he says it is putting at risk the leadership of Christian faith communities at a critical moment in the ‘story of Scotland’?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  17/02/2016
  
  I can’t speak for Bishop David but my view is that this debacle (the discourtesy and rudeness and the rest) has had a serious knock on effect on the ecumenical life of Scotland. To put it bluntly, trusts and friendships that have been built up over years have been very sorely tested. I think that this risks poisoning ecumenical life in Scotland for a generation and I’d say that does seriously compromise the way in which church communities and leaders will be able to speak to Scotland.
  
  Reply
Richard

18/02/2016

It also speaks volumes for the contempt with which the Church of Englandshire holds for the Scottish Episcopal Church.

You struggle to see the shining truth through his words because his words lack honesty and integrity. Not that anyone in Englandshire really cares- most probably haven’t even heard of the Scottish Episcopal Church and if they have, it will be as an unknown backwater entity. To sweep aside the Scottish Episcopal Church must have taken breathtaking arrogance.

Reply
Iain McLarty

18/02/2016

I can totally understand the SEC concern about the CofE barging into territory that isn’t theirs. However, there are perhaps a few things to bear in mind about why a relationship between the CofS and CofE is important where that isn’t really relevant.

The first is that the CofS has a presence in England. Having spent a few years in a CofE congregation in Denmark I witnessed first hand how important the Porvoo agreement was in that context for enabling local worship and mission and similarly it could be hugely beneficial for the CofS congregations in England to be able to develop more formal relationships with their local Anglican partners.

Secondly, there are a number of areas where the CofS and CofE are already working together and developing closer relationship such as on training and fresh expressions. These are areas where the relationships have developed naturally due to the two churches dealing with similar areas of concern and where there should again be no encroaching on SEC ground.

Thirdly, the CofS and CofE work closely together in ecumenical circles through both CTBI and the WCC where both are significant players. It does seem strange that these two churches don’t recognise each other when their place in the wider ecumenical scene is so closely linked. That is not to deny the SEC’s ecumenical importance.

Obviously no one is denying that the way this became public has been badly handled but I struggle to see what more can be down than the very sincere apologies and frank criticisms of what happened which have been offered. In terms of what real issues there are, I have yet to see anyone pin down specific parts of the Columba agreement which are concerning to the SEC, with all the comments either much more vague or else being fears about issues (such as interchangeability of ministry) which are not actually part of the agreement. In my experience (through ACTS, WCC etc.) the relationship between the CofS and SEC is one of the strongest ecumenical relationships and it would be very sad if this was jeopardised because of miscommunication rather than substance.

Reply
Jeremy Bates

18/02/2016

It’s not just Scotland. A lot of people are struggling to see truth in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury these days.

Reply