Church of Scotland agrees moratorium on gay debate
The Church of Scotland's supreme court has agreed to end public debate about homosexuality for a period of two years, while a special commission investigates the theological and legal issues surrounding the appointment of gay ministers within the church. The General Assembly has instructed all authoritative bodies within Scotland's national church to avoid any public comment on the matter -- including press releases, briefings to the media, and blogging -- and to avoid taking any decisions in relation to 'contentious matters of human sexuality, with respect to Ordination and Induction to the Ministry of the Church of Scotland, until 31 May 2011'. The Assembly also made it clear that the moratorium is not retrospective, and emphasized that its earlier decision to uphold the installation of a gay minister in Aberdeen stands.
Some conservatives on the floor of the house pointed out that the Assembly's decision, on Saturday evening, to sustain a call from a parish in Aberdeen to a gay minister, the Reverend Scott Rennie, left open two possible legal challenges before any installation could take place. First, the minister's current Presbytery would have to take a decision to permit the Rev Scott Rennie to leave his parish, and, second, a service of Installation or Induction might also be construed as an action of a court inconsistent with the moratorium. The Moderator, Dr Bill Hewitt, emphasized, with the support of the Assembly's Acting Principal Clerk, that the spirit of the decision on Saturday evening was clear: the Reverend Scott Rennie was permitted to accept the call to a parish in Aberdeen and, there being no other legal impediments to his installation, that he could be installed. The Acting Principal Clerk, Dr Marjorie MacLean, advised Mr Rennie not to rob any banks before his installation, since this could constitute a legal impediment; but his sexuality, and the fact that he lives openly with his partner, is not.
We wait to see whether today's decision will have any ramifications for the Irish Presbyterian Church, whose General Assembly meets in the first week of June. Will any Presbyterian ministers seek to introduce a resolution responding to the historic events of this week in their mother church? I suspect not; but time will tell.
Comment number 1.
At 25th May 2009, U11831742 wrote:Congratulations to the Church of Scotland for taking a decision to support a gay man with a calling from God to serve the church. The moratorium gives the church time to take a deep breath and it protects other gay clergy, because they can't now be challenged in the courts of the church during the period of moratorium. This also put a halt to an attempt to bring in a new law banning gay clergy. Conservatives within the Church of Scotland must be feeling very annoyed today. They lost. Simple as that.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 25th May 2009, The Christian Hippy wrote:After the Church of Scotland rejected the authority and teaching of Holy Writ, and the WCF, I doubt any minister within the PCI will raise their head above the parapet to put their head on the guillotine for the sake of supporting the COS in denying Sola Scriptura.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 25th May 2009, barney1 wrote:The COS will regret this incedibly weak stance - the word of God has been cast aside to appease the culture we live in.
This is a great insult to the Lord Jesus Christ, may God forgive what COS assembly has done and may He upheld the true Gospel that His true Church proclaims.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 25th May 2009, romejellybean wrote:Any children who are on this blog site please take note of what The Hippy is saying. If you take drugs in your younger years, you may very well end up damaging your brain and, in later life, start believing all sorts of nonsensical stories which were written thousands of years ago.
Dont take drugs!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 25th May 2009, The Christian Hippy wrote:Mad folk are not to be argued with. Any more than mad bulls. They are not in a condition of mind to appreciate argument, and should be let alone. To stand reasoning with a wild bull would be very absurd, and it is equally so to debate with a hot-headed Romanjumpingbean.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 25th May 2009, portwyne wrote:I have just been thinking that The Christian Hippy doesn't sound that hippyish to me. Maybe he's just chilled right through mellow and come out the other side... (Not sure he sounds all that Christian either though).
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 26th May 2009, romejellybean wrote:Hippy
You are complaining about the lack of democracy and freedom in China on one thread, then complaining again on this thread when the COS General Assembly exercise it.
Which is it to be? Democracy for everyone, or just everyone who agrees with you?
If you are going to continue debate or argument, you might find that a certain amount of consistency will help you no end if you wish to be taken seriously.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 26th May 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:This can only mean one thing, they opened a can of worms they wish they'd left alone. Now the question is can they put the genie back in the bottle. In many cases like this it can't be done. Once the genie is out it's too late.
You have to wonder if there are any civil ramifications. In the US I think discrimination on a job based on sexual orientation may be illegal. Don't know if such laws exist in the EU. Before someone has a job, you can make up all kinds of excuses why he isn't fit or the most fit candidate to get it. But once hired, it's much harder to make a case that it wasn't discrimination if it in fact was. Is there legal recourse in the EU?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 26th May 2009, John Wright wrote:Christian Hippy has been around quite a few years on this blog and mine, and his own (which may not exist anymore). I agree that he isn't a hippy! He's a fundamentalist Calvinist in the Presbyterian tradition.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 26th May 2009, John Wright wrote:(Otherwise known as The Puritan, btw.)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 26th May 2009, PeterKlaver wrote:"Otherwise known as The Puritan, btw."
And if memory serves correctly, a.k.a. 'Billy' and 'Billy the christian hippy'.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 26th May 2009, romejellybean wrote:Guys, that is very enlightening. I remember being the target of a group of fundies who used to write to a newspaper to complain about me. Upon investgation the newspaper found out that all the letters were written by the same guy. Seems to be a trait with fundamentalists who believe so ardently in the "truth" of letters that were written 2000 years ago.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 26th May 2009, gveale wrote:I'm trying to see the connection between Puritans and Hippies. I've ruled out free-love and marajuana.
Maybe it's the long hair?
Or the funky clothes?
GV
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 29th May 2009, Spuriousmind wrote:I'm not allowed to comment on this. :(
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)