Church of Scotland General Assembly:Theological Commission on Same-Sex Relationships and the Ministry

The book of reports to the Church of Scotland's General Assembly has now been in the hands of Commissioners (participants) for a few weeks. The report which will attract the lion's share of interest is the one on same-sex relationships and the ministry, (section 20 of the book, "The Blue Book" to the cognoscenti).

I made the mistake of starting to read the report from the end, (well I always like to see how it's going to turn out...) and so came across the case against same-sex relationships in the penultimate section, and made the mistake of thinking that it was the report's conclusion, and was therefore incensed at what I took to be such a one sided view. However, after a pause for thought, (of a day or 2), I decided to go back for another peek, and found to my relief that the case for people in same-sex relationships in the ministry was being made in the section previous. Sections 20/6 and 20/7 of the report, which in total takes up almost 100 pages.

Obviously the Commission was so representative of both sides of the debate, that they could not agree on a   settled position for the whole church, which is a disappointment, but perhaps inevitable, given the issue at stake here. So instead, those for, (styled Revisionists), wrote section 6 and those against, (Traditionalists) wrote section 7. The Deliverances, (motions), reflect this division, and are presented in an either or fashion, i.e. either the Assembly votes for 2 (a) OR 2 (b) etc. It will be interesting to see how the Assembly deals with this. 

The 2 sections represent the arguments on both sides of the debate extremely well. They are clear, simply put, and therefore easy to understand. They also look at the issues in a way which seems to encompass all the positive points either side would want to bring, without criticising the approach of the other. There was a small nod of the head towards scaremongering in the traditionalist argument, in section 7.7.3, which gives us the following: "The Church is thus faced with a Disruption, something which has not occurred since 1843." This I was distinctly unimpressed by, and wondered if at that point they had been feeling the weakness of their own argument, that they had to resort to this. They based that conclusion on the exit so far of two congregations with ministers, and the resignations of sundry other individuals, some few ministers and members of congregations.

Having had a good opportunity to read the arguments, I find the Traditionalist case extremely weak. It rests in the main, on the Biblical textual evidence, particularly that of the New Testament. The textual evidence in itself is strong. Every passage which refers to same-sex relationships is condemnatory. But that is not how we do theology, nor have we ever done theology entirely on proof texts. And this is a matter of theology, which is why the case for is so strong, because it comes at the argument from a theological point of view. Moreover, New Testament proof texts would have us keeping women in submission in church, not speaking or having leadership over men, and covering their heads. Admittedly there are not as many texts in support of these arguments, but I would not expect the Traditionalists to be playing a numbers game with the texts.

There is another interesting argument, which neither side of the debate has really explored, but which I think needs airing and debating, perhaps as an issue in its own right. It's the question, what is it that makes something wrong, or sinful? Is a thing wrong simply and solely because the Bible says it is, or does there have to be an independent moral argument which shows us how or why something is wrong, if there isn't a prima facie case in the prohibition itself, as with, "Don't steal."  If the Bible itself buys into this argument, i.e. that its prohibitions are there for good reasons, even if those reasons have now disappeared, been lost, or have changed with the change of cultures and times, then this would not only commend the Bible as having a moral integrity which could appeal even to people who didn't believe in God, but it would be a way of understanding why what was once condemned, now need not be.

Needless to say, I look forward to the debate with great interest. I hope that the way the issue is debated will be gracious and kindly, and reflect well on the Kirk as a church which is struggling to air and handle deep and important and contentious things.

Gilcomston Church and Aberdeen Presbytery

An article in the Press & Journal about the relationship between Gilcomston Church (Gilcomston South congregation's new church name) has warmed the cockles of my heart. Aberdeen Presbytery, it was reported, is going to allow the congregation the ongoing use of the buildings for an "interim" period. I like to think that maybe some who took part in the debate at Presbytery read my blog, "St George's Tron Part 2", but in any case, three cheers for applied Christian Theology at last. If I have to eat my closing words there, I shall be delirious with delight. But it's early days yet.

Gilcomston, in leaving the Kirk, is in effect rejecting the Kirk, one might even say, shaking its dust from off her shoes, on account of the Kirk's current position on allowing practising gay people to be ministers of the Gospel. (The position is that there is a moratorium on any new appointments pending a report to this year's General Assembly, and allowing one minister who since ordination has "come out" to continue.) But here's the thing: the Kirk has not rejected Gilcomston, nor is it behaving in a punitive way towards her, using property issues as a means to express displeasure. I hope this may become a precedent for our treatment of those who disagree with the Kirk to the extent that they leave, even when they leave for reasons which are deeply hurtful to many. All our theological statements, our arguing, our positioning over the New Testament texts, it all pales into, well not exactly insignificance, but it certainly pales in comparison with the application of grace. And this is the sorrow and shame of Christians: when we wrangle over Biblical interpretation, insist on our own view, grace usually gets sidelined. The grace of God, expressed supremely through Jesus Christ, is what the church is called to display and live by. And by grace, we are forgiven for not doing it. 

Conservative Evangelical Christianity, Gilcomston South et al and the Homosexual Debate

So far, two of the large conservative evangelical churches in the Church of Scotland have pulled out of the denomination over the controversy about allowing practising gay people to be ministers.

I received through the post the other day, a DVD from a group within the C of S who are against allowing gay people in active homosexual relationships to become ministers. It's called "Facing the Reality". It's well presented, careful and gentle, and has some heavyweight intellectuals and academics as contributors, as well as a celibate gay Christian Church Development Worker. I do not think this group are interested in splitting the church but want to have a reasonable and informed debate about this issue. Good for them. Running time is 37 minutes but you can cut out the credits and fast forward some bits. It has been sent out I think to ministers and others in advance of this year's General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in May, when a report on this issue will come before the Assembly.

The DVD served to emphasise for me, the essence of the debate, which is on the one hand people saying, "The Bible says..." and on the other, "The teaching of Christ leads us to...". The DVD is quite clear and simple about this and gives us "The Bible says", point of view and puts the point across as well as it can be put. It does not give the other side of the argument, but that for me is no criticism of it.

The problem for me personally is that I can no longer accept "The Bible says" as a substantial argument to support a moral or even theological point of view. This I think began to cross my horizon at quite an early stage in my own spiritual development when I discovered that our Trinitarian position as Christians was based on the weight of Biblical evidence rather than proof texts, although then I didn't give it much head space and simply went along with what I felt to be spiritual common sense. Over the years, other dilemmas broke over the shore of my conservative evangelical faith, like the reluctance of many of my conservative evangelical peer group to embrace Charismatic Christianity in its fulness. This reluctance had to be supported  by spiritual pragmatism and theological manoeuvering across Biblical texts.  The Bible said that the charisma (spiritual gifts) were part of church life, but it could be explained why for some of those gifts, that was not a mandate for today. Some very notable figures in Gilcomston South during the arrival of the Charismatic movement in Scotland (the 70's) had to become closet charismatics. Then came the rise of women from positions of Sunday School teachers and missionaries, to Ministers and church leaders (not Bishops, yet!). The Bible said "No", but we could explain why it was ok. Again, the weight of evidence argument was used, this time by those more liberally minded. The argument ran thus: some women around Paul had influential positions in the church, and there were some formidable Old Testament women leaders too, so let's resign the proof texts to the bin. On this particular issue, some conservative evangelical churches would not give way. My own church then, Gilcomston South, did not ordain women to the eldership, despite the Church of Scotland saying that it was right to do so, and despite the fact the Presbyteries were tasked to ask individual congregations if they were doing this, when the 5 yearly visit was being made. Gilc held out, because "the Bible said". Of course no position statement was ever made, it was simply the case that no suitable women could be found. (I suspect that very few women if any at all who were totally bought in to Gilc would have wanted to be elders anyway.) Whilst feeling this to be wrong, I was far too bought in to Gilc to ever raise this as an issue at any level. I felt this to be wrong because I was more and more buying in to a weight of evidence argument myself by then and I felt that the weight of evidence suggested that the Holy Spirit was gifting women to preach, teach and lead, and that God was calling them into every kind of church leadership. Many conservative evangelicals contra churches like Gilc, accepted this argument and it became another one of the minor running sources of difference of opinion in the Crieff Fellowship.

So, over the years, I began to see a certain hypocrisy in myself when I used "The Bible says" argument. I realised that the boundaries were not static and that everyone could find reasons for disagreeing with "The Bible says" when it suited them. It was this struggle that led me personally to look for a way of interpreting Scripture which felt more integrated, more consistent, and gave to Scripture the honour, respect and place it deserved. I know this is seen to be a desperately dangerous journey by some. When you start to resign certain texts to the bin of cultural conditioning and cultural relativity, where do you stop? Personally, I feel that the high principles of love and forgiveness, of grace and acceptance, have to be our interpretive principles. But  I understand the depths of passion felt on both sides of the debate. I understand that many Christians don't like saying "No" to allowing practising gay people into ministry, but feel they must. In the DVD in question there is strong attempt to make the point that there is a welcome for practising gay people in conservative churches. But ultimately, that part of the DVD feels to me to be deeply patronising, and I think the presenters know that and feel that at some level too, because I felt embarrassed as I watched that part. There is a welcome, but there is no real place for them. Worse, there is condemnation for something that many of us can see no reason for condemning, other than, "The Bible says".

Gilcomston South, St Georges Tron, and...?

Last night, the BBC Scottish News had an article on Gilcomston South Church, Aberdeen. They are about to leave the Church of Scotland over the issue about allowing practising homosexuals to be Ministers of the Gospel. At least Gilc will slip anchor in March a tad more quietly than the Tron, with no impassioned stuff about evictions and the like, and Gilc's minister, the Revd Dominic Smart even allowed an interview and explained why they were leaving and did so in measured and unexcited tones. Much credit both to Aberdeen Presbytery and the Kirk Session and minister of Gilc.

Who will be next? The big three very successful conservative evangelical churches in the Church of Scotland for the last 60 years or so have been Gilcomston South, St George's Tron and Holyrood Abbey Church in Edinburgh. Gilcomston's conservative evangelical era began with the ministry of William Still in the late 40's, and was followed fairly quickly by the Tron and Holyrood, who both called ministers who had been influenced by and were close friends and confidants of Willie Still - the Philip brothers, George and James (Jim). To say Gilc's ministry has been formative for generations of evangelicals within the Church of Scotland would rank almost as an understatement. Many ministers were inspired by his bold forthright unashamedly Biblical style, and by his determination to see the life of the congregation come under a simpler more Biblical regime: namely no organisations to speak of; a weekly congregational Bible study held midweek, and a congregational prayer meeting on a Saturday, yes Saturday, evening. 7pm-9.30pm (nearer 10pm in the early days of its life!). Willie Still began to gather a few like minded friends around him in the fifties, gathering in Sandy Tait's manse, in Crieff. This grew into a formidable number of evangelicals in the 70's, meeting thrice yearly in the Crieff Hydro, and was in no small measure a major influence on the evangelical population of ministers in the Kirk. It went largely unrecognised by Kirk officialdom, and Willie Still was never offered nor is has to be said, would he have sought, official recognition for his truly immense contribution to the life of the Church of Scotland. I know he was offered an honorary doctorate from Aberdeen University, but turned it down.

So, who will be next to leave? The problem with conservative evangelical ministries in the Church of Scotland is that while there were and are, many who are deeply sympathetic to the conservative cause, not many congregations were won over in quite the wholesale way in which the big three were. There were some notable ministries down the years and some sea changes in congregational life to match: David Searle at Newhills Aberdeen, (followed there by Norrie McIver),  then at Larbert Old, Tom Swanson in Inverness, and a few others. Now, in order for a minister to leave and be able to keep paying the bills, there has to be a congregation large enough to go with him, or, he leaves and goes on the dole. I believe that most conservatives will find a good spiritual reason to stay in the church and continue to fight the cause from within. Some very few ministers have already resigned (not taking congregations with them), and they have my utmost respect. Out of the big three, Holyrood is the last man standing. My feeling is that they will go, because the vast majority of the congregation would no doubt support such a move, (if they can tear themselves away from the building extension projects into which they have ploughed much money and effort in recent years). There are very few other congregations within the Church of Scotland which would give majority support to a move to leave the Kirk.

Some may have been holding their powder dry until the General Assembly reports on the whole affair, but for the reason above I doubt that a report in favour of allowing practising homosexual ministers to hold office will have an impact as big as that which we are already seeing, namely the exit of 2 of the big 3. Their financial and other contributions to the Kirk have been not inconsiderable.  But if Holyrood Abbey goes, I believe that that will be the last of the major repercussions in terms of large wholesale exits.

Crisis in Humanitarian Aid

There was a great duet of programmes on BBC 4 on Sunday - the first entitled, "The Trouble with Aid", was followed by a debate around the issues raised by the documentary. The debate was chaired by Ed Stourton of Radio 4's Today before he left it in 2009.
The double edged nature of crisis aid relief is an underlying sore in the work of the big aid agencies. The programme illustrated this well using a number of celebrated case histories. Aid can often be used by one side or another to bolster its own campaign, feed its fighters, and pay for its weapons. Malnutrition, carefully and intentionally nurtured can be used as a powerful tool to attract aid.
The Aid Agencies are faced with enormous difficulties. How much do they tell the public about the problem of getting the aid to the right people? If they tell the whole truth about the percentage of aid hitting the target, then giving will dip, and less good overall can be done. The counter argument goes like this: in some cases we need to do less good, perhaps withdraw altogether, as this will result in far less harm ultimately, and may save more lives in the long run. There was another thought which ran through the documentary and rippled the following debate a little too, which is that the Aid Agencies are now businesses which need to be self perpetuating. They have a big staff to support, ongoing costs to pay for, and so on. They need us to keep their coffers full, and not just for the purpose of supplying aid.
I was very impressed with Medecins sans Frontiers, both from the documentary's perspective and also in the debate which followed. They seem to stand head and shoulders above many, with a keen sense of the need to remain independent, and to act with integrity in each crisis.
Hopefully the insights won't stop those who give thoughtfully from giving, but there were some nice touches of realism from the Medicins sans Frontiers Director. He said that if we the donors thought we were trying to save the world and make it a better place, don't write the cheque. "All we are trying to do," he said, "is trying to stop someone from dying."

St George's Tron Part 2

Sunday - an article on the Scottish edition of BBC News, focussing on the eviction of a congregation from their building in Glasgow. Yes, St George's Tron had hit the news. The Church of Scotland really does not need this kind of publicity at the moment. But not only were we told that the congregation were being evicted, but that the Minister was being evicted from his manse, and bailiffs had served notice on him. For those of us who know our church history, this brought to mind scenes from the Disruption of the Kirk in 1843. The media did not mention the fact that the congregation were leaving because they opposed the move to open the ministry of the Church of Scotland to gay clergy, which might have cast the Church of Scotland in a slightly less malevolent mold in the mind of the general public. But that was in a way, neither here nor there. 

The Church of Scotland had this one coming. Churches in general are stuck in a place where they cannot make gracious and magnanimous gestures, because they are ruled by committees, assemblies and courts. This state of affairs which limits the exercise of grace, is a far more serious and damaging thing, and far more erosive of the Church's reputation, than any of the high profile issues which dog the churches at the moment. Women Bishops, gay clergy; these are not the issues which ultimately will bring us down and reduce us to a whimpering impotent stump of toothless Christianity. What will do for us, if we let it, is our dereliction of duty in the face of our theological imperative to show unremitting, unhesitating grace in every situation of conflict and disagreement. A move by the Church of Scotland to allow a congregation showing substantial dissatisfaction with the Church and severe discontinuity with her evolving liberal theology to remain in their building would have been a coup d'etat of grace. It was never going to happen. This is church after all. 

Church and the generation gaps

I was reacquainted with an old smouldering anger last night, as I listened to a talk being given about the generation gaps as they relate to Church. I belong to the Baby Boomer generation (people in this country roughly between 48 and 65. The generation below mine is referred to as Generation X and the one above, as the Builder Generation. Below Gen X we have Gen Y. These differences between the generations are being explored in order to give us some insights and understandings into church life. I'm angry because an analysis like this was needed 40 years ago, when the Boomer generation were entering the ministry of the Church of Scotland and the decline in church going was beginning to show. Then, the response of bodies like the General Assembly was one of apprehension that, wait for it, too many people were entering the ministry and we would have too many ministers in the future if the trend kept up. Of course the trend was never going to keep up simply because there was at that time a big pool of potential candidates due to the spurt in population growth: (the boomers are called the boomers because there was a baby boom back then!) This was unlikely to continue once the population began to decline again.

The reason that there should have been a considered look at the generation gap back then, is because many of the boomers could have been helped far more to ready the church for the future generations if the church had been forward looking. What happened was that the Boomers came in, and were held to ransom by the Builder Generation which was effectively in control of the church during the 70's, 80's and 90's. This was a critical time for the church. The Builder Generation is essentially a backward looking generation - not in terms of their desires and aspirations, but in terms of their attitudes and their style. They give respect to status, traditions, structures handed down from the past, and to the given order of things. Boomers were ready to challenge all that and move things on. But they deferred to the Builders who were largely the people attending, supporting, maintaining and controlling church life. Those who challenged the Builders too much found themselves stressed into illness or pressurised into conforming, or both. Small wonder that many of us capitulated and worked hard to make everything fit the Victorian model of church life with which the Builders had been very contented. The working model for the minister's job description which had served the Builders well, was expected to fit the new and changing circumstances of the Boomer Generation people. This conflict was never mentioned in those days where it needed to be mentioned most - the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and its committees. We are now reaping the results of these times. Many congregations are in what feels like terminal decline with few applicants for the ministry and churches closing or amalgamating.

My anger isn't an anger against the Builder Generation - it's against a church that just couldn't or wouldn't see. Of course the General Assembly and its committees were controlled by career ministers with Builder aspirations and mentality, so that was never going to help during those critical years. We are now in the hands of the Boomers - the generation who may feel guilty that it didn't do more to pass the baton on, and that guilt may in itself need addressing in the not too distant future, before we have all retired.

But, I am an optimist with regard to the church. She has survived for the best part of 2000 years. I think she can survive these generational upheavals too. Here in Scotland she may be leaner and smaller in the future, but hopefully fitter too. I think the roadmap of church life will need to be radically rewritten. Generations X and Y I think will have a relatively free hand to do that - the Church is too sick now to be able to stop it thank goodness, so here's to an interesting and eventful future.