Comments on: GA09 and petitions

By: Nelu

Nelu — Thu, 07 May 2009 17:19:56 +0000

Well said John. While at one time in my faith journey I was on the side of those who claim the privilege to truth (and the only truth), I am now in the sentiment of Crabbit Beson!

Nelu

By: Crabbit Besom

Crabbit Besom — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:50:46 +0000

I am utterly horrified about the way this whole situation has been conducted – in particular having a petition. Two stalwart members of Forward Together have been blogging since Aberdeen Presbytery took the decision, and the tone of some of their epistles has left a bad taste. Yet again the Church and Christians have been made to look intolerant, bullying and homophobic. Putting pressure and the spotlight on one man who has had his life dragged through the press and exposed for all to see is not a Christ-like action as far as I can see. Whether Aberdeen was right in its decision or not is not for me the issue now. The issue is how this disagreement has been conducted. It has been dealt with abominably.

I am ashamed to be a member (and a candidate in training) of the Church of Scotland.

By: David

David — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:48:06 +0000

Just a quickie… Jesus does make reference to divorce in the Sermon on the Mount, but does so making it harder of the male to have relationships after marriage.

By: David

David — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:45:04 +0000

Thanks for clarifying the Lochcarron and Skye issue. I’m not at all surprised by their position, and it’s one that will chime with certain factions in the Kirk.
I can see from those already blogging with you that trenches are being dug pretty deep !
There will be those on both sides that will proof text their hearts away. Taking the bigger picture will be very hard to do. How do you resolve texts that are obviously contradictory ? People will want to favour New Testament over Old Testament, Jesus over Paul, and the ranting will go on.
The trouble with the pro partnership position is that itends to argue from a position of what the Bible doesn’t say, which isn’t really an argument. If the Bible says nothing about something, then you could equally argue the other way, and, indeed, there is an argument that the Bible speaks of marriage, singleness and tends to go against the society of the time which quite happily went along with same sex relationships.
I’m sure that there will be more inflammatory remarks nearer the time and I quite expect extremists from both sides to encamp on the Mound !

By: John

John — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:02:07 +0000

David,
Thank you for the insight into some of the background. I was unaware that the congregation may not have been fully aware of all circumstances (although I suspect that such news gets passed around pretty quickly when a sole nominee appears). And, as you say, it may not have mattered in the end.
The Lochcarron and Skye overture says, in a nutshell, that no-one can be considered for ministry (including training) if they are in a sexual relationship outwith heterosexual marriage. As you say, it’ll be difficult enough to have a debate based on the evidence presented without having the external pressures as well. Having the online petition being bandied around also doesn’t help.

By: Mrs Gerbil

Mrs Gerbil — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:38:27 +0000

I agree, petitions aren’t the way forward. Not only is this matter potentially underminding GA, it has already undermind the local congregation. The only positive (and I use that word exceptionally loosely) of this matter is it is forcing GA to really say something about this issue and stop sweeping it under the carpet by asking commissioners to “prayfully reflect”.

Where did Jesus teach about homosexuality? Where did he teach about divorce? What was his greatest commandment? That’s where I believe the church should be coming from.

By: David

David — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:15:29 +0000

Seems to be a topical subject right enough…
Another issue (and one I’ve blogged about) is the tension between the church being a prophetic body and the church being moulded by a world view. ‘In the world but not of it’ puts the church between a rock and a hard place.
I was on the Commission of Assembly that voted to bring the matter to the GA and there was a strong view that the situation that presented itself in Aberdeen was ‘novel’ in the sense of new. The issue in Aberdeen is as much with procedure as it is with civil partnerships. Information came to the congregation late in the day and quite a few of the congregation were unaware of the issue as they voted. This may not have meant a jot in the final outcome, but when something is as contentious as this, then all i’s have to be dotted and t’s crossed. And this doesn’t appear to be the case.
John, you write about a decision being required. The folks from Aberdeen have backed the GA into a corner and a decision must now be taken (one long overdue – either way).
I’ll be there at the GA and what is difficult now for the commissioners is for clear debate to happen. Various papers have fanned the flames of caricature and those attending have to base decisions of what they hear in the hall, not through the press.
It’s likely to be passionate and fiery and not having sight of the Lochcarron and Skye overture I can’t respond to that, but I can probably guess what they are seeking.

By: John

John — Tue, 05 May 2009 13:00:55 +0000

Nikki,
I think you’ve highlighted an important issue (and one which Danny picks up on) – the ‘discussions’ are about stereotypes, not real people. The number of times I have heard, “Well, they’re all…” and yet the same people will also say, “But, so-and-so’s not like that of course.”

Iain,
I think you’re right about many ministers being in the ‘black and white zone’. I had in mind, as I was writing, the phone calls on Morning Extra which were far more moderate.

I would hope that my somewhat pessimistic outlook is unjustified and that GA will indeed, as they have in the past, handle the issue with grace and understanding. Either way, the media will have a field day – either about rifts in the church or its lack of positive leadership. And, as Danny suggests, in the meanwhile, Christ is not being glorified and the Gospel is trodden under in the stampede to vilify the liberal church or the intransigent conservatives.

By: Danny

Danny — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:37:13 +0000

Thanks for this post and speaking for the silent majority who are getting on with life at the coal face… particularly I agree that petitions are the wrong way to debate this issue – they are divisive and worse they discourage people from thinking for themselves. Its easy to sign your name to something - so much harder to deal with the human consequencies.

Also the issue is being clouded by the ill conceived and unworkable overture from Lochcarron and Skye. It is certainly time for more moderate voices to be heard! I am deeply saddened at the media coverage … usually the GA barely merits a mention in passing. But hey start talking about sex and sexuality and suddenly emails from the Sunday Times/headline coverage/interviews/and Jackie Bird! Perhaps we could channel all the passion that is going into this debate into preaching Christ crucified and resurrected … now that really would be something worth covering!

By: Iain

Iain — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:21:46 +0000

Thanks for your thoughts John. This view is in danger of catching, particularly on the blogosphere. It ties in with what I’ve been saying and also a few others (such as Stewart Cutler who I see you link to). I’m not sure I agree that ministers are staying out of the black and white parts of the debate given how many have signed the petition though. The problem is, if people have a problem with petitions how do you effectively counter the argument in a way which is heard, if only to say you think those voices are too loud and too angry. It seems to be one case where those who shout loudest drown out the other voices. It’s very hard to know what those attending the Assembly are going to hear.