Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gay minister debate must not 'muddy the waters'

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 May 2009
OPPONENTS of the appointment of a gay minister were told they could prejudice his court hearing as the General Assembly got under way yesterday.
They said a debate on openly gay ministers should take place before the hearing into the appointment of the Rev Scott Rennie to a church in Aberdeen.

Rev Peter Park, of the Presbytery of Fraserburgh, who wanted the running order to be changed, s
aid:

"It would seem to me that what the Assembly is being asked to do is simply to affirm what most of us thought was the status quo."

Quoting the motion, from the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye, he added: "'Not ordaining anyone engaged in sexual activity outwith the sanctity of marriage' is perhaps stating the obvious and shouldn't be necessary, but it is necessary because in recent years some people in our Kirk have questioned the validity of our sexual morality."

Mr Park's motion was supported by Edinburgh minister, the Rev Jeremy Middleton, who said the order in which the motion and case were heard was vital to the church's integrity: "As I understand, the overture of Lochcarron-Skye is to simply affirm and clarify what has always been understood and agreed to be the principle underlying Christian sexual morality, nothing more than that."

Conservative evangelical Kirk members, who set up a petition against the minister's appointment, have warned that the issue could split the Kirk.

However, yesterday a group of liberal evangelical bodies issued an open letter to the Assembly supporting Mr Rennie and stating that the church had been wrong in its interpretations of Bible on sexuality.

Rev Ruairidh MacRae of CourageScotland, one of ten evangelical bodies supporting Mr Rennie, said: "We uphold the historic orthodox teaching on Scripture as the infallible Word of God. In the question of homosexuality, it is not that the Bible is wrong, it is our interpretation that has been wrong.

"The Church has erred through the ages – questions like slavery, racial tension and the treatment of women are all examples of this. It is time for the Church to recognise the breadth of opinion and embrace faithful homosexual relationships as a picture of Christ and the Church as much as heterosexual marriage."

The attempt to change the running order ran into stiff opposition from Assembly members. The Rev Dr Derek Browning, of Edinburgh Presbytery, said that the Kirk had to resist departing from "what is just".

"The eyes of the church, the eyes of the country and the wider world are upon us at this time," he said. "It seems to me that if we were to approve this motion, we would have departed from justice."

The Rev Dr Donald MacEwan insisted that Mr Rennie's case had to be judged on the legislation that stood at the time of the case's initial presbytery hearing in January this year.

In the only speech of the day to receive a round of applause, he said that to allow a debate on the motion to be heard before the hearing would "muddy the waters" of the principles and issues. The motion to change the running order was defeated on a show of hands.

'People need spiritual hope in time of financial crisis'

THE General Assembly was told yesterday that the Kirk has to do more than simply challenge consumer culture during times of economic turmoil.

The Lord High Commissioner George Reid, the Queen's representative at the Assembly, said that the Church had to help give people hope and spiritual support.

Addressing the Assembly on its first day yesterday, he said the country had experienced a "tempestuous year" that had left people "deeply concerned by the financial crisis and by the apparent breakdown in standards of public life".

Mr Reid said: "The trillion dollar economic crisis has spawned constant headlines about storms and shipwrecks. In Scotland, the sinking of flagship financial institutions has been particularly painful.

"People ask: 'Is my job safe? Can I pay the mortgage? What about my pension?' How do we reach out to the 800,000 Scots living on the poverty line?"

He said that while the Kirk had campaigned against poverty and for a fairer society, it and other churches had to give people the spiritual strength to build a better society.

"If the economic storms are to produce a wind of change they must do more than challenge conspicuous consumption," he said. "They must engender hope.

"I recently met a man made bankrupt. He said: 'I've lost all hope. I might as well be in my grave'. This Assembly knows, to the contrary, that hope was born in a grave. The biggest of all issues is how the Kirk takes that message of resurrection and salvation to the people of Scotland and the world."

Mr Reid praised the Kirk for its efforts to move away from traditional structures, stating that "as society changes, so must the Church".

He appealed to the Assembly not to ignore the world outside, saying it was "the duty of the Christian to keep his Bible in one hand, and his newspaper in the other".

He added: "They recognise, as do so many papers to this Assembly, the challenge behind The Scotsman headline the day the Bank of Scotland went under. It read: 'How the Masters of the Universe Ran Amok and Cost Us the Earth'."







The full article contains 896 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

22/05/2009 07:42:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

radge dug,

22/05/2009 09:31:25
People need reason and reality. Not a bunch of nutters fighting over interpretations of an eastern fairy-tale.
3

BK,

Cyberspace 22/05/2009 09:49:45
"However, yesterday a group of liberal evangelical bodies issued an open letter to the Assembly supporting Mr Rennie and stating that the church had been wrong in its interpretations of Bible on sexuality."

I thought an evangelical was someone who accepted the authority of the Bible. Few things in the Bible are made more absolutely crystal clear than the condemnation if sodomy and sodomites. Perhaps their god and their holy book were wrong, but if so that denies the whole reason for the existence of their church and their evangelical beliefs.
4

Utar Refson,

Embra 22/05/2009 09:50:46
I'm afraid the only dishonesty present here is those Kirk members who think that playing the "misinterpretation" card will suddenly make Homosexuality "all right". It doesn't take a scholar to tell that the Judeo-Christian heritage is one where exclusive monogamous hetrosexual marriage is constantly affirmed and any deviation from that, even heterosexual deviations, are harshly condemned.

I have more respect for pro-Homosexualists who leave Christianity than those who claim the Christian label and wave around weasel words to say black is white.
5

James (1),

22/05/2009 10:33:20
Can we not just change the rules and get the majority to change their beliefs?
I mean who are they to think that being homosexual is not acceptable.
We live in minority rule times. The church has been going for thousands of years holding the belief that homosexuality is unacceptable and the other faiths such a muslims. The billion of them that there are surely the need to change as well?
6

James (1),

22/05/2009 10:35:28
There is an alternative of course? Instead of billions who find it unacceptable being forced to change their beliefs why do homosexuals not start their own religion?
7

Douglas,

Bathgate 22/05/2009 10:47:35
It could just be a misunderstanding of "I will make you fissures of men".
8

Calum Crubag,

22/05/2009 11:29:53
#3 - not really true. Sodom and Gomorrha were fire bombed by 'god' because of many 'sins'. The 'good' book doesn't make clear that 'gay sex' was one of them.

However, the bible rails against many other sins. Are we to live by these rules too? Stoning to death adulterers? Not sowing more than one crop in a field?

Who's job is it to 'cherry pick' the bits we're meant to live by?
9

Calum Crubag,

22/05/2009 11:32:08
#5 and 6 - the bible also permits incest. See Lot and his daughters. Should that be kept? Or should we maybe er... change and reject it? Why not reject all of it?

And can you confirm if the church still holds menstruation and childbirth to be 'unclean'? And, are men now allowed to have contact with those women deemed to be 'unclean'?
10

BOTOB,

22/05/2009 11:52:49
Always bemuses me why some folk cant understand why a Church might object to a serial fornicator being appointed as a Minister. Seems rather obvious to me!

Christianity is not best preached by a man who openly admits to being a fornicator!!!!
11

Iain Mac,

22/05/2009 12:41:25
#10 Some folk just can't understand churces full stop. So, should we stone him to death like the Bible says we should?
12

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 22/05/2009 12:48:39
#11 Some folk can't understand the Bible or churches or gays. They should get stoned or maybe they're posting when they're stoned.
13

GONNYNODEATHAT,

22/05/2009 12:57:33
# 8 Not really true either. God never mentioned Gay sex. He always called it P-e-r-v-e-r-s-i-o-n. Clearly in the story the people wanted to have sex with the men. It was a very p-e-r-v-e-r-t-e-d place. Christians are called to Love the sinner but to Hate the Sin.
14

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 22/05/2009 13:09:00
#10 Keep your breeks on. I can see why you had your first post removed. I personally don't like the image you conjured up earlier, but as he's in a relationship, he's not a serial fornicator, he's just a chancer and he probably won't get his way that easily. You need to get your facts right or mak' a feel of yourself.
15

BK,

Cyberspace 22/05/2009 13:50:29
#14 Yes, he's in relationship, which is not Christian marriage, so any sexual act within it is fornication. If it occurs regularly he is a serial fornicator. Let him found the Gomorrrhites or the Pink Church of Sodom, but he cannot demand that an existing church changes one of its most fundamental teachings for his benefit.
16

korndog,

edinburgh 22/05/2009 13:54:13
I suppose we should just all be happy he's not molesting children, like so many other of his so called "holy" colleagues have, had and still are.
17

Kenny A,

22/05/2009 14:27:05
15

He is fornicating with another man, so that is a sin, I totaly agree he cannot change the beliefs and traditions of the church just for his own benefit at the expense of others, thats just pure selfishness and totaly wrong.

16 Not in the non catholic churches as far as I am aware because ministers are allowed sexual relations.

Just think he is not the man who will unite and deliver his congregation.

Waiting for this to be deleted by the PC brigade.
18

James (1),

22/05/2009 15:02:12
#9 The majority in the church don't want incest to be considered acceptable in any way nor do they want homosexuality to be acceptable either.
Only gay minorities think it is acceptable. The masses don't.
Those that practice these would be classed as deviants.
So that is why homosexuals are not accepted and those that practice incest don't seem to shout about their deviant practice as much as homosexuals.
19

Gordon Clifford,

Denai Spain 22/05/2009 15:38:17
From what I understand Scott Rennie is an excellent Minister who has been Called as Minister of Queens Cross Church by a Congregation who have accepted him regardless of his sexuality. If the Congregation do not have a problem, why does anyone else

Surely if God had any objection to his Ordination and Ministry, He being all powerful, would have taken steps to ensure that it did not happen.

Let those of you who are without Sin i.e. perfect in the eyes of God stand up and say so. As, according to The Bible only God is perfect and without Sin, I can't see many of the posters here, who talk so freely about the Sin of homosexuality, actually being able to stand up.
20

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 22/05/2009 16:29:50
#19

Christian ethics and morality do not depend ultimately depend on the opinions of individuals or a congregation (or of posters here), but is influenced by Christian theology which can be sourced from Scripture, reason, the church and tradition. (If you're a Catholic, then also from 'the magisterium').

If God has objections to certain ordinations and ministries, he normally delegates that responsibility to church leadership, the biblical model being elected representatives.

It doesn't make much difference if people cast the first stone or not, although obviously being judgemental is unhelpful. Unfortunately as we live in a liberal democracy with freedom of speech (with qualifications), we are allowed to stand up, even if we're Abu Hamsa or Bernard Manning.
21

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 22/05/2009 16:46:38
Hmm, maybe. Without meaning to split hairs, it's not clear whether fornication refers to the act or to the relationship. Maybe you're right, either way, the image isn't very pleasant, but the image of most blokes involved in sexual activities isn't pleasant either. Serial, though, usually refers to adultery or promiscuity.
22

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 22/05/2009 16:48:09
Above should have said #15
23

danbob,

22/05/2009 17:55:12
5# You totaly miss the point. It matters not if you are a atheist or a theoist. The fact is that sex has a purpose and that is to breed and keep the species alive. This purpose is universal throughout the natural world. Now I have not heard of two men being able to breed. Therefore it would be perfectly acceptable to conclude that homosexuality is an unnatural thing in the world. No other species practice this. The pink brigade like to belive other animals do, and are quick to claim this. However no evidence of this exists. There is evidence of same sex affection, but not full blown homosexual acts.
24

Pilrig,

Livingston 22/05/2009 21:47:25
"When ye walk down Sauchiehall Street,
Aw Jesus Christ ! yer gonna knock 'em dead !"

- Billy Connelly "Govan Dunnie Blues"
25

Pilrig,

Livingston 22/05/2009 21:50:18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGASvVqzOa0&feature=related
26

grumpy200,

edinburgh 25/05/2009 19:58:46
Well done the Assembly!!

It is no longer reasonable to base argument on words in "the Bible". Which one?

Our present Bible was greatly modified by the Congress of Nicea in order to get Christianity accepted as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Mnay concessions were made to please the existing Pagans, hence the Christmas celebrations and the Tree.

But there are two comments which have stood the test of time:-
Vengeance is Mine saith the Lord. It is no man's right to seek retribution against one who is thought to transgress the Lord's word. He too will be damned

How can ye hope to gain forgiveness for your transgressions if you do not forgive any who have sinned against you. Matthew

Let the objectors look to their own salvation and leave such as our newly-welcomed brother to attend to theirs

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Should an inquiry take place into the gay adoption against the grandparents’ wishes?
Yes, the family’s views are the most important thing
No, social services will have been thorough
No, it will only cause more problems for the children

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.