Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Kirk faces defiance on gay ministers

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: 08 September 2009
DIVISIONS within the Church of Scotland over the appointment of openly gay ministers have resurfaced after it emerged that a presbytery has voted to nominate a man who is in a civil partnership for training to become a minister.
The decision was taken by the Presbytery of Hamilton – Scotland's third largest – in spite of a two-year moratorium placed on any "ordinations or inductions" of any openly gay ministers by the General Assembly in May.

The moratorium was impose
d after the controversial appointment of the openly gay Rev Scott Rennie to Queen's Cross Church in Aberdeen and was intended to give a special commission time to compile a report on the implications on the appointment of openly gay ministers.

Before making the decision, Hamilton Presbytery had taken advice from the Kirk's ministries council, which oversees admission and training.

The council replied in a letter that its assessment processes prior to the report's findings, "have not been affected by the assembly's decisions, and no-one should suffer any prejudice in any direction as a result".

It said this was on the grounds that nobody could predict what the implications of the report will be for candidates when it is received in 2011.

It added: "It is important to emphasise that acceptance into the training process of the church is never a guarantee of employment."

This sentiment was echoed by a Kirk source who said anyone taken in for training would "be subject to the decision of the General Assembly in 2011".

However, Kirk members claim that allowing openly gay people to take up training makes a nonsense of the moratorium.

Writing in his blog, the Rev Ian Wilson, former head of the evangelical Forward Together group, said: "They are, in effect, saying that being a practising homosexual is not a bar to training for the ministry. One must ask the question: what kind of decisions relating to human sexuality are prohibited if nominating is not?"

He added that allowing openly gay people to take up training rendered the consultation effectively redundant.

"If practising homosexuals are being accepted to train for the ministry, with all the investment of time and money that this entails for the Church as well as for the candidate, then it seems to me that those responsible for training are quite certain that the ordination of practising gays is just around the corner."



Though prevented from discussing the issue of openly gay ministers by instruction of May's General Assembly – which has effectively silenced any public statement or debate on the issue by members of Kirk committees and councils until the report is completed – a spokesman for the Church of Scotland said that human rights legislation meant openly gay people had a legal entitlement to undertake training for the ministry.

"For those who are otherwise qualified, the Church of Scotland's own discrimination legislation protects them as far as orientation is concerned," he said.

"This is a question about lifestyle going beyond orientation, and that is what the special commission will be looking at."





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Tracker,

08/09/2009 00:11:47
The Kirk is in disarray on this issue. Would it not be better if it spent its time and money helping the poor and needy rather than discriminating against gays?
2

indune1,

Canada 08/09/2009 02:05:56
1 - or perhaps shedding some of its religious dogma so it stops its constant display of hypocrisy.

Their two-faced and self-serving rhetoric only confirms a growing societal distrust of relgions and those who purport to eschew their respective, so-called values.

Religion? Opiate for the masses.
3

Barney Thomson,

Reading 08/09/2009 03:19:57
#2 Eh?
How can a church shed religious dogma? It's what it's all about.
Enjoyed your rhetoric - to a degree.
BUT
Be sure ye're sins will find ye oot!
4

Kenny A,

08/09/2009 07:20:29
I have posted on this issue before, and before anyone gets upset I will state clearly that homosexuals are not the correct choice for the ministery.

The reasoning behind this is simple in many ways and also very complex.

Firstly I and many others believe it is wrong. Whether I am right or wrong is another topic.

The ordination of these people splits churches and causes massive dispute.

I am not going to say these people are ungodly as many have said but I do think that they should have consideration for the majority, many of the older people are in horror about this development.

I do not want to sound like a hypocrit but if they are true believers they should channel their energies slightly differently, ie lay preachers, talking to others like themselves is one suggestion. we are all the childern of God at the end of the day.

I am not going to say in any way that gays have no part in the Church, it is just a personal thing, God created Man and Woman for a reason.

I am no Nostradamus or Brahan Seer but I can see the divisions this will create in the COS, many have already moved to the Wee Free.

If this issue is not decided very quickly I can see another split happening and that is not welcom.

I am a wee Free by the way.

I also seek to be tolerant but coming from my particular generation some things cannnot be accepted.

I also understand it is difficult for all concerned.

Not the post I wished to put out, but I hope it was a fair one.
5

Marchmont,

Edinburgh 08/09/2009 07:45:54
The fact of the matter is that in the UK it is just as illegal to discriminate against a person in terms of sexual orientation as it is to do so in terms of colour or gender. As the national church, the Kirk really cannot operate to a lower moral standard than secular Scotland. If the fundamentalist wing of the Church of Scotland refuses to accept that situation, they have no honest option left but to leave and set up some extremist sect of their own. Sitting on in Kirk manses and leading services in Kirk buildings while holding such unacceptable views on gay people is simply dishonest.
6

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2009 07:57:21
#4 Your "argument" is one I have heard many times, and never understood.

What, exactly, do you think is "wrong"?

The love and companionship of two people which enriches their lives and has no effect on you whatsoever?

Surely you cannot mean that.

I think what you think is "wrong" is the sexual act between people of the same sex. And that's fine as far as it goes. Your vocabulary is perhaps a little off, but your sentiment is reasonable - you personally do not like the idea of sex between men. Fine. You should avoid it then.

I personally do not like the idea of sex between a man and a woman. As a result, I avoid it - but I would never go on to condemn those who do it, because that is their choice and their normality, even though it isn't mine.

Similarly you have no right to condemn or restrict those who simply run foul of your own personal tastes.

Consider the situation of mixed race couples in the recent past. Plenty of people of a certain "generation" found mixed race marriages to be "wrong". Would you defend them now?
7

Pocket Dictionary,

08/09/2009 08:17:45

Churches seem to be obsessed with condemning and banning Gay people from membership and ministry. They conveniently turn a blind eye to the other sins the Bible condemns, which should bar individuals from membership and ministry. Excessive drinking; straight couples living together, but not married; malicious gossipers; liars; swindlers and so on. They're welcome but not Gay people.
8

,

08/09/2009 08:18:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Kenny A,

08/09/2009 08:18:46
Duncan

Knew I did not phrase things as I wished, I am no great orator.

My childeren are mixed race and I love them dearly, as I do my grandchildern.

The issue of gays as ministers is just a personal thing I feel is wrong and causes damage to the majority of church goers. I feel it is incorrect.

Now dont get me wrong, I understand all people are different and now and again I have a beer with someone I now know to be gay, he is a decent person. I will also state bluntly had I known this at first I would have politly exited stage left big style.

I am not against gays in the Church but feel that the Ministry is the wrong post.

Sorry about that but I am being honest, it is a very uncomfortable topic for all concerned.



10

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2009 08:39:36
#9 I'm very grateful for your honesty Kenny - it is your absolute right to hold and express your opinion and the worst thing we could do would be to make people feel they weren't allowed to express their deepest held feelings. You have every right to believe what you do.

I believe differently, but in fact I suspect we are not as far apart as we may seem. I do agree with you that the issue of gay ministers does damage to the church, and I understand the hurt caused.

But for me the damage is necessary, because the only way to change the church is to break down those walls of prejudice. This is always going to be painful. It was painful when the churches shifted from support of slavery (justified by Biblical extracts) to opposition, justified by principle. It was difficult when the churches shifted from subjugation of women (justified by Biblical extracts) to equal treatment, justified by principle. This will be no different.

I honestly hope the pain eases for you and others who are so challenged by this; but there is no escaping the inevitable outcome, whether in ten or a hundred years.
11

radge dug,

08/09/2009 08:50:34
More idiocy from religion. Why pick on gays? The bible demands obedience on all manner of issues - why does the church mostly care about sins of the flesh?

As to 'natural' - what's natural about blood transfusions (which was also opposed by various churches), hip replacement, heart transplants, condoms, oral sex and many other aspects of our modern lives? Let's leave religion in the dark ages and not worry too much about what others do in their bedrooms.
12

radge dug,

08/09/2009 08:52:51
#7 - true. Why are churches obsessed with other people's sex lives?

Why not oppose the real sins of poverty, war and violence? Or is it because there's a lot of that in the bible?
13

Kenny A,

08/09/2009 08:56:48
Duncan

Thanks for the response, well measured and fair I thought.

There is one issue that I will bring up however, the Scottish Churches generaly are fairly fundamantalist and traditional, certainly where I am originaly from.
The Islands.

We have a long history of both tolerance and also splitting churches apart for stupid reasons. A comma here, going to the funeral of a catholic, some lunicy does not and never will stop.

I can see another split happening over this issue.

Now I am convinced you see my point of view and I am attempting to better understand yours.

The world is a changing place that I accept but for many of us some things cannot and will not be allowed to change. It makes us what we are, often willfull, arrogent and at first appearence cold and fundamentalist. I can assure you we are not. Just old fashioned and traditional.

The concept of homosexuality scares me, although saying that lesbianisim does not.

I also think that woman have a place in the church but not as ministers. I am probably being unfair and biast but that is the way I was brought up.

Heading to the beach now, back in a few hours.

Regards

14

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 08/09/2009 09:20:32
Wouldn't it be better if the bible beating preachers in the Kirk got "friendly" with gay adults to offload their obvious repressed sexual tendencies - rather than picking on little kids as seems to happen too often these days?
15

,

08/09/2009 09:22:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

AIasdair,

08/09/2009 09:41:18
Despite being an atheist, and believing strongly in equal rights across all races, sexes, sexualities, I allso strongly believe that Kenny, and the stricter religions are dead right on this one.

From time to time you hear about "the church" (and depending on where you live, this has so far applied to a number of church systems) adapting to suit modern needs.

Seriously - what is that about?
Women priests, gay vicars, whatever, it's all hypocrisy.. people want to have their cake and eat it, cherry-picking the bits of religion that suit them, and forgetting about the bits that jar with the current societal outlook.

Why any woman would want to preach a religion that says that the man is the dominant side of the marriage is beyond me.

Why on earth does any gay person want to be a part of a religion that describes them and their expression of love as "an abomination"?

If someone wants to claim to be "of a religion" then I think they should have to follow that religion strictly. I accept that "we are flawed", and also that certain passages are open to interpretation, but the fact remains that most "modernising" of religion is about getting bums on pews, not about what is truly considered right.

How conceited the attitude that what was once fine to preach is no longer acceptable! Homosexuality has for centuries been a fast route to Hell as for as most Christian churches are concerned, yet now it's okay? So what does that mean? That if you're gay NOW, then you're not Hellbound, or does it retroactively apply to everyone that once "went" to Hell?
It's as bad as the Catholic Churches hypocrisy and pandering on the limbo situation.

Watering down of religions to suit modern day society.
Otherwise known as "cheating".
17

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2009 09:52:45
#13 Kenny again I have to thank you for your searing honesty. Difference is scary, very scary. The irony is that many gay people - myself included - have only reached self-acceptance after a period of quite strong anti-gay feelings ourselves. For some gay people this fear lasts for their whole lives, and they suppress their true selves because of it. It is truly sad, because when one does summon up the guts to say "this is who I am", one finds that the reality is much, much less scary than the fear itself.

So how much we expect from straight people, who grow up with the same prejudices as ourselves but don't have the internal drive for self-acceptance to break through those prejudices.

Successive generations will see these prejudices die out, and that can only be a good thing in my view. But I don't blame you for holding the views you were taught all your life.
18

Darien,

Panama 08/09/2009 10:17:45
#4 KennyA:
I agree that the action of homosexuals is splitting the CoS. A better option would be for them to form their own 'gay church'.

#6 Duncan: "I personally do not like the idea of sex between a man and a woman".

The main function of mankind is to reproduce, or have you missed that. This also suggests that homosexuality is not sustainable.

Many of our problems today stem from the fact that many of our politicians are aethiest and/or homosexual, hence the legislation we have giving people the kind of 'freedoms' they view important to do the kind of things many abhor.
19

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2009 10:45:34
#18 I'm afraid you have the wrong end of several sticks. I suspect you're going to be less genial a conversationalist than Kenny though. Nonetheless, let me try.

I fully accept that sex between a man and a woman is the main method of procreation in humans, and is necessary for our species survival. Reproduction is indeed one of the main functions of mankind. But we are far more complex than that - we are social animals with morals, societies and group ideals. Reproduction does not define us.

Our societies have room for many different types of people to co-exist and be co-dependent. The existence of a small percentage of same-sex couples does not threaten the species any more than the existence of childless mixed-sex couples does, or the existence of asexual people does.

Sometimes people reproduce but are incapable of effectively looking after their offspring - our societies are built in such a way that others are available to take that responsibility. It is in fact extremely healthy for a society to have an excess of available parenting figures. The same thing happens in other social animals, and it is perfectly natural and effective. Same-sex couplings occur in other animals too.

For you to suggest that "homosexuality is not sustainable" betrays a lack of understanding on your part. I, for example, am one of four children. If my sexuality is partially genetic, then that genetic code from my parents has already been passed down through my brothers to my nieces and nephews.

Finally, you are of course free to "abhor" the "kinds of things" you want to abhor; but as I have said many times before - if you don't like gay sex, don't do it. No-one is forcing you. But don't tell me I can't be who I am. No-one has the right to do that.
20

AIasdair,

08/09/2009 12:08:24
Homosexuality has been observed in many other animals. The notion that it's "not natural" or "not sustainable" is a farcial cul-de-sac of an argument.

If it happens; it's natural.

If a species survives; it's sustainable. If a species suddely turned exclusively gay and stopped procreating, that would also be natural. It won't happen, but if it did, it would be part of nature.

Nature is nature, there's no taking away from it, and only bigots seek to suggest otherwise.
21

Mark Insch,

08/09/2009 12:21:53
19 - Duncan

"But don't tell me I can't be who I am. No-one has the right to do that."

This is another serious delusion that runs throughout society today. This "I'll do what I want..." philosophy. "I'll take that drug if I want to..", "I'll drink and drive if I want to...", "I'll go straight to the front of that queue if I want to.." Everyday you come across examples of peoples selfish attitude, which may or may not impact on other's lives.
For society to co-exist in harmony, there has to be rules/guidelines, either written or unwritten, and the majority must abide by them. When that balance is tipped and the majority flout the rules, then society will disintegrate and anarchy prevail.

I have no personal issue with gay men or women, and I would welcome them into the congregation of my church, but, as I have said before, they have no place in the leadership of an organisation whose fundamental beliefs and doctine is that of heterosexual relationships within marriage. I do believe that homosexuality as an act is wrong and should never be accepted as 'normal' behaviour. Those who firmly believe they are of a homosexual nature should be encouraged to see how and why they are confused, rather than encouraged to continue in their misguided lifestyles.
22

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2009 12:29:35
#21 How offensive, to equate assertion of one's identity with drinking and driving. My sexuality has no impact on you whatsoever. Why do you feel the need to denigrate it?
23

Mark Insch,

08/09/2009 12:48:43
22 Duncan

If you read the post you would find that I am not equating assertion of one's 'identity' with drinking & driving, merely using that as an example of the "I'll do what I want regardless of what you think.." mentality that runs through as yet a minority (thankfully) of society today.

I have no personal issue with you, as you point out your lifestyle choice has no direct impact on me, but your encouragement of that lifestyle choice may indirectly impact on me, and that is what I am arguing against.

Further, I also do not equate your sexuality with your 'identity' - after all, I'm sure you would still be you, regardless of whether you thought of yourself as straight or gay.
24

Duncan in Edinburgh,

08/09/2009 12:56:08
#23 Of course you were equating the two things. When I pointed out how offensive it was you tried to backtrack, that's all.

My lifestyle choice includes where I live and what I do for a living, but my sexual identity is neither my "lifestyle" nor a choice. That, I think, is where we fundamentally differ.

You cling to the outdated and frankly ludicrous notion that people have a choice as to their sexual identity. You would argue that I could force myself into a joyless heterosexual marriage if I wanted, and deny my actual sexuality. You pretend that that is a "choice". It is nothing of the sort.

There is no threat to you if every gay person came out tomorrow. All you fear is fear itself.
25

Gordon Clifford,

Denia Spain 08/09/2009 13:46:37

I wonder if any of the good Christian people posting here have asked their God for comments on the subject of homosexuality. As God is the supposed author of the Bible, which includes the command to "Love Thy Brother as Thyself", I suspect He/She would be somewhat perplexed and disappointed at their reaction.

Before leaving UK some ten years ago, I was a member of Queens Cross Church, a devout, enlightened, and forward thinking congregation, not afraid to face criticism and controversy for what they thought was right. This congregation called an openly gay man as their Minister, and from what I understand an excellent one. The world has changed and gay people are now accepted by the majority of right thinking people regardless of what the Bible, written thousands of years ago, and translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek many times, has to say. What proof is there that what is now the accepted "Word of God" regarding homosexuality is actually what the Author wrote
26

AIasdair,

08/09/2009 13:49:22
Duncan's too polite to say it, but belief in anything without the burden of proof is the act of a moron.
27

Mark Insch,

08/09/2009 15:02:05
24 Duncan

Sorry, was away for lunch.

Not back tracking at all. I was just using examples of acts carried out by 'I can do as I please' people. Everyday I come across 'selfish' people who offend me, but I just have to put up with it.

It's funny how that although you promote and defend your sexual lifestyle as normal and 'your right', you immeadiately play the 'offended' and 'homophobic' card to everyone that doesn't share or agree with your behaviour pattern. Also, there are probably tens of thousands of people who are in a 'joyless heterosexual marriage' - my own parents would probably fall into that description - but I thank my very existence on the fact that they stuck with it, that my father didn't get bored or run of with another woman/man. Forty years on are still together, by the way.

Back to the issue under discussion, I still say that Church leadership is no place for anyone with homosexual tendencies - note I said 'Church leadership' and not 'Church'. That is where most of the posted arguments go astray - it is immeadiately associated to gays not being welcome in the church - which is not the case at all.
28

Gordon Clifford,

Denia Spain 08/09/2009 15:08:07
# 27


"they also have rights and are entitled to express their opinions without the pathetic cries of "homophobic" from the mincers."

So you are not homophobic then !!!!
29

David North,

Wick 08/09/2009 15:16:26
#25

"I will tolerate, accept and respect the life choices of others"

Not off to a good start then.
30

David North,

Wick 08/09/2009 15:17:06
#25

"I will tolerate, accept and respect the life choices of others"

Not off to a good start then.

OOPS meant #27
31

Garry Otton,

Glasgow 08/09/2009 18:40:03
http://www.scottishmediamonitor.com/features2.cfm?ID=37
32

radge dug,

08/09/2009 19:12:03
Alasair- the problem with people being 'honest' about living biblically is that it's impossible to do in our society. The Bible frowns on so many things and encourages others (like incest for example and stoning adulterers) that living 'by the word' would end up with you in prison and society in chaos.

I'd love to know why some people cherry-pick some bits from the bible - like the alleged anti-gay bits - but leave others - like Lot impregnating his daughters or the 'need' to slice of boys' foreskins? I've not heard of a church campaign to find out if all our sons are circumcised - so why is some of god's word easier to leave out than other bits?
33

radge dug,

08/09/2009 19:14:51
Why Can't I Own a Canadian?
October 2002

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesse
34

radge dug,

08/09/2009 19:15:52
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim
35

Kenny A,

09/09/2009 01:47:50
radge dug

Thanks for that it was well amusing and has its points.

Not sure what I would do if I actualy owned a Canadian, I suppose it would depend on which species of canadian it was, do I feed the beast cheesy pasta or blubber, do I dress it in check shirts or mucklugs and furs. Its a big responsibility owning a Canadian.

Anyway back to the topic in case, I am for a change glad to see some seriously thought out comments from a fairly wide range of views.

I will try to sum up my view as simply as possible. The Churches presbeterian in Scotland have set and have historic beliefs. I am old fashioned and do not wish to see them change. Some issues cause affront to the majority and cause discomfort. (sorry about that Duncan), I however would not deny the right of attending church to anyone, it is just the office held which is the problem.

Right or wrong it is the interests of the majority which should be looked after. This may appear unfair and in many ways it is to some.

The Scottish Churches are fundemantilists and this new Politicaly Correct thinking is going to cause even greater division. I am not against progress but feel it should be as per the tenneants of the church. A sea change of the magnitude presently happening is very uncomfortable for many.

I can see a lot of CoS joining the Wee Free my mob, and while this is in a way welcom it is also a touch worrying as there are differences and it may affect our own structure which presently I am fairly happy with.

A difficult issue all round.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


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.