Rev Neil M Ross
At the opening Assembly worship in Edinburgh, the retiring Moderator, Rev Albert Bogle, reminded the gathering that, whatever differences of opinion there were among them, they had oneness in Christ. He was evidently concerned, naturally, about the possibility of a rupture in the Church over the issue of homosexuals in the ministry which was facing the Assembly. In handing over to Rev Lorna Hood, his successor, he gave her a small wooden cross which he said he had carried during his year of office to hold whenever things got difficult – a gesture that is sadly symptomatic of giving a place to ritualistic and superstitious symbolism that ought to be given to prayer and the Word of God.
The Scripture requirement to sanctify the Lord’s Day is no longer sincerely held by the Church of Scotland; this was shown by its “Heart and Soul” event in Princes Street Gardens attended by thousands. It included “brass bands and singers, a couple of ministerial comics, activities for children and young people,” says the Church website. “This was in every sense of the word a family event, and it ended with family worship.” We are reminded of the impossibility of serving both God and mammon.
On the Monday, the Assembly faced the matter of greatest concern to those interested in the welfare of the Church – how the General Assembly was to dispose of the issue of homosexuals holding office in the Church. In the event, many were shocked and disappointed that the Assembly approved a proposal which, although it purported to hold to the traditional view based on Scripture, in fact continues to allow homosexuals, male and female, to hold office in the Church.
The issue came before the Assembly under the Report of the Theological Commission on Same-Sex Relations and the Ministry. It states that two separate theological positions (that of the “revisionists” on the one hand and of the “traditionalists” on the other) made it impossible for the Commission to bring a unified report to the Assembly.
The revisionist party argued that “the Church was right in 2011 to move towards the acceptance of gay and lesbian people in committed relationships into all forms of ministry” and concluded with what last year’s Assembly required: “a suggested form of service for the blessing of same-sex relationships and civil partnerships”. The Convener of the Commission, Rev J L McPake, stated that the Church’s position is formally the traditional one and that it would require legislation under the Barrier Act to change it – that is, that the whole Church, at Presbytery level, would have to vote on any change.
The traditionalists declared that the Church should “depart from the direction taken by the Assembly of 2011, and that the Assembly should not allow the ordination and induction of ministers and deacons who are in a civil partnership”. This choice would have required the Church to address the matter of disciplining ministers in a civil partnership who were ordained before 31 May 2009 (when the matter was first raised). The traditional party also warned the Assembly that, should it accept the revisionist position, many ministers would wish to leave the Church and ecumenical relations would be harmed.
A compromise amendment was moved by Professor David Fergusson, in an attempt to prevent a split. It offered a “third way” – that of accepting what he called a “mixed economy”, which would steer a middle way between the two opposing options put forward in the Commission’s report.
Another middle way was proposed by Rev Albert Bogle. “His motion,” says the Church website, “affirmed the Church’s historic and current doctrine and practice in relation to human sexuality but nevertheless would permit Kirk Sessions who wish to depart from that doctrine and practice to do so . . . without fear of discipline”.
In concluding the lengthy debate, the Convener of the Theological Commission said, “Whatever we do, we have heard the Word of God for our Church. Listen to the Word of God.” In the event, they did not listen to the Word of God. It was Mr Bogle’s compromise motion which carried the day. Sodomites and lesbians are thus allowed to continue in office in the Church, while the Church continues the discussion process.
No doubt, Mr Bogle, his supporters and sympathisers are relieved that unity prevails in the Church, but at what price? While one would agree with Samuel Rutherford that “it is a fearful sin to make a rent and a hole in Christ’s mystical body because there is a spot in it”, it is also true, as Hugh Latimer, the Reformer, said, “Unity must be ordered according to God’s holy Word, or else it were better war than peace”. And of course, to allow sodomites to enter the holy ministry is more than a spot.
We believe that the main reason for the spiritual malaise of our national Church is its departure from its foundational standard, the Word of God. A majority of its office-bearers do not really believe the confessional statement they formally profess to believe: “The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture”.2
2 Westminster Confession of Faith 1:10.
In the main debate in the Assembly, says the Church’s website, a former Moderator declared “that Jesus did not hold Scripture as absolute and that the Church has changed in its understanding of Scripture”. In proof, the speaker pointed to the fact that women are now admitted to the ministry. “His point was greeted with warm applause,” we are told. To which we must say, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Is 8:20).
May the day soon come when the Church as a whole will espouse the simple but profound and comprehensive truth that “the Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him”.