Rev N M Ross
“In the opinion of some,” says a report in The Scotsman, “this year’s General Assembly . . . was duller than previous years, but succeeded in avoiding needless confrontation.” Yet one can avoid confrontation by delaying a decision about important but potentially-divisive issues – which is what the Assembly did on the issue of homosexual relationships. It is deplorable that it did not decisively apply the teaching of the Word of God to the subject. Little wonder that The Scotsman headline was: “Kirk once spoke in a voice of thunder. Does it no longer know what to say?”
Last year’s Assembly agreed to the Legal Questions Committee’s proposal to allow ministers to conduct church services for same-sex civil-partnership ceremonies, but its decision had to be approved by a majority of the Church’s presbyteries before it could be ratified by this year’s Assembly. Presbyteries have now spoken – 36 of the Church’s 45 presbyteries voted for disciplining any minister who conducts such a service of “blessing”. That ought to have been an end of the matter, but the Assembly has now agreed to allow ministers to bless such partnerships but without exempting them from possible discipline for doing so.
The whole issue was dealt with in the report, A Challenge to Unity, by the Mission and Discipleship Council, whose convener is Rev Angus Morrison. The report was presented by Rev Peter Donald, the convener of the Council’s working group on sexuality. Although meant to guide the Church in the theological examination of the issue of homosexual relationships, it avoided a definitive conclusion; instead it proposed further discussion.
The Church’s press release on the report said that, “as a part of its remit, the working group listened to gay and lesbian Christians, including two Church of Scotland ministers who have entered into civil partnership with their same-sex partners”. It is hard to believe that such a statement could be issued by the Church. The report does cite Scripture but there appears to be a greater readiness on the part of the Church to heed other voices. The same press release poses this incredible question: “When is it legitimate to read certain scriptural texts as teaching one thing but to believe that the Holy Spirit is leading the Church to set aside that reading?” If such theological perplexity lies behind the report, the result must be confusion at least.
In what was described as a “confused” debate in the Assembly, Rev Peter Donald claimed that the report was not side-stepping the issue but rather
moving it forward. He told the press that the decision showed “a willingness to move more towards an acceptance of homosexuality”. On that point there was certainly agreement from Rev Peter Johnston, spokesman for OneKirk, which is in favour of blessing civil partnerships. He said, “We are so aware that the Church is divided on this issue and so we can understand why the Church is wanting to wait. There are steps in the report which are a step further than what has been said before, which is encouraging from our point of view.” The liberal wing of the Church has once again been successful in ratcheting up support for its objectives, albeit by just a few notches.
Others besides the press see the report as a case of sitting on the fence and intended to forestall contention. Rev Ian Watson, secretary of the Evangelical group, Forward Together, told the press after the Assembly decision, “They haven’t grasped the nettle. . . . I think people are quite angry at how quite anodyne the report is. People were looking for guidance during the civil partnership [debate] in presbyteries, and a lot of people voted our way [in presbyteries] because they said the Legal Questions [Committee] hadn’t given them the theological guidance they needed.”
Another indication of the Church’s declension was the shocking statement of Rev Kathy Galloway, leader of the Iona Community, when she presented the report of the Community’s Board to the Assembly. “One of the great joys for us this year . . . has been”, she said, “the opportunity to share in the celebrations of those of our members who have entered civil partnerships. . . . About 10% of our membership and staff are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. They are fully and openly part of our common life . . . and we pray equally for their chosen partners and respect their choices.” It is truly appalling that in the supreme assembly of a Church which was once renowned for glorying in the cross of Christ there should be such glorying in what is shameful.
Another disturbing aspect of the Assembly is its enthusiasm for ecumenism. The appointment of Rev Sheilagh Kesting as Moderator of the Assembly does not auger well for the Church in this respect. She is the first woman minister to be appointed to the moderator’s chair but she is also a dedicated ecumenist who has been secretary of the Church’s Ecumenical Relations Committee. She has stated that her ecumenical experience will feature in almost everything she will do as Moderator and that she will continue to work with Cardinal O’Brien, the leader of Scotland’s Roman Catholics, in tackling sectarianism.
The report of the Committee for Ecumenical Relations, presented by convener Rev Bill Brown, stated that the Church of Scotland has signed a covenant with the United Free Church. Also, as the Church of Scotland and
the Free Church of Scotland move closer, they have issued a joint statement making mutual commitment to co-operation in such important areas as church planting, theological education, pulpit exchanges, and shared sacramental celebrations. It is difficult to comprehend how the Free Church, which stoutly professes to be Reformed, can commit itself to such co-operation with a Church that has drifted so very far from its Reformed moorings.
It was gratifying to see that the report of the Church and Society Council has highlighted the evil of gambling. It noted that the total amount gambled in the UK in 2005 was £53 billion; it described a culture of gambling which distorts hope and suggests people’s problems will all be solved if they could only win the jackpot, but which leads to people running into debt, experiencing difficulty holding down a job, putting their homes and relationships at risk, and leading to health breakdowns and even to suicide.
However, the Church of Scotland’s attitude to homosexual partnerships overshadows all other aspects of the General Assembly. While it made pronouncements on such issues as the Iraq war, renewable energy sources and human trafficking, it once again failed to address this issue properly, and its decisions on the matter are symptomatic of deep spiritual malaise. An editorial in The Scotsman says of the Church, “As with many organisations, it finds it relatively easy to pronounce on political matters not within its direct control, but grows more hesitant and uncomfortably tongue-tied on matters closer to home”.
The refusal of our national Church to follow Scripture and to “think God’s thoughts after Him” (to use Augustine’s phrase) results in a perilous groping in the dark. The Church is in grave danger. May God grant that it will yet turn again “to the law and to the testimony” (Is 8:20). When the Church of Christ has to contend for the faith in the face of hostile forces steadily closing in on it, its battle cry must be, “Thus saith the Lord”. “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Cor 14:8).