The censoring Kirk

The Church of Scotland is attempting to
head off the crisis it faces with a remarkable attack on freedom of expression

Kenneth Roy

An hour after yesterday's Scottish Review went online, I received an extraordinary email from a Church of Scotland minister. 'I would dearly love to respond to your atheist commentator,' he wrote, 'but we are now being gagged by a moratorium'.
     The commentator in question is Alex Wood, whose piece 'Towards a more tolerant Scotland?' welcomes the Church of Scotland's decision last weekend to allow an openly gay minister to take up his new charge in Aberdeen, but expresses near-incredulity that 'as we approach the second decade of the 21st century, sexual orientation should be the centre of national debate'.
     I replied to the minister expressing my own near-incredulity that he felt so censored by his own church that he could not safely contribute a view of Alex Wood's article. In a further exchange of emails, he said that 'the parameters of the ban' needed to be explored, not only for the benefit of the Church of Scotland but in the interests of democracy; that many people in the Kirk were confused about exactly what it entailed; and that he was 'assuming 121 [a reference to the Church of Scotland's headquarters] will not interfere with my clear right to speak the truth, as I believe it, from the pulpit'.
     So – what is the position?
     I attempted with limited success a search of the Church of Scotland's own website for clarification. Last Saturday, the Kirk's General Assembly sat as a court, without the media present, to consider the case of the Rev Scott Rennie and agreed by a narrow majority to support him. At the same time, however, it set up a special commission to consider the question of sexuality in relation to ordination and induction of ministers. The commission will report in May 2011. Until then, no more gay ministers will be ordained. These decisions have caused deep divisions within the church and have raised the possibility of defections, perhaps to the Free Church of Scotland. But they are clear enough in their meaning – at least to this point.
     After the weekend, when the assembly re-convened, the scope of the two-year breathing space seems to have been extended. It is my reading of Douglas Aitken's account of the proceedings on the C of S website that on the final day, Wednesday, it was agreed that all courts, councils and committees should observe a moratorium on passing public comment until after the commission reports and that, more significantly, the assembly also passed a resolution preventing 'anyone in the church' from speaking to the media about the issue. The first part of the prohibition – restricting the freedom of the Kirk's bureaucracy – is unsurprising and relatively uncontentious. The second part appears to be a remarkable attack on individual freedom of expression, although the phrase 'speaking to the media' is capable of a variety of interpretations. Does it include responding to an article in the Scottish Review, for example?
     Yesterday afternoon, I emailed the acting principal clerk of the Assembly, Rev Dr Marjory MacLean, to seek her opinion:

This morning the Scottish Review carried a couple of pieces about the General Assembly's decision in the matter of homosexual ministers, in particular the injunction that there should be no further debate on this subject for two years pending the deliberations of the commission.
     I've received this morning a rather disturbing response from a minister who says he would wish to reply to the article by Alex Wood but is prevented from doing so by what he calls 'the moratorium' on further comment. I replied challenging his interpretation of the General Assembly's decision, but he has written back to say that he feels unable to write freely on the question. He goes on to suggest that ministers are confused by the ruling.
     I am writing to you to seek clarification of this point. It appears to raise an important issue of intellectual freedom and I'd want to deal with it in the Scottish Review. Specifically I would like to know whether ministers are precluded from expressing opinions on this matter in the media or indeed from the pulpit.

Dr MacLean replied 45 minutes later. It was a considered reply, helpfully frank in its terms, but I am unable to tell you what was in it since her email was headed 'Not for Publication'. Journalistically, this convention has the same effect as an off-the-record conversation. The minister who wrote to me considers himself gagged in one way. I am now gagged in another.
     Officially, then, we are none the wiser. Is this really a sensible way for the Church of Scotland to conduct its business through the crisis it faces? I am, however, entitled to conclude from my exchange of emails with Dr MacLean that the minister in question is correct in his view that he should not write for the Scottish Review, or indeed any other publication, on the issue of sexuality in relation to the ministry. In the absence of any on-the-record clarification, I am unable to say whether the prohibition also applies, much more seriously, to what he sees as his 'clear right' to speak out from the pulpit. If it does, a line has been crossed in the history of Scotland's national church.
     The ban is unenforcable. Some have already broken it. Responsible ministers have so far chosen to observe it, interpreting it for themselves in the absence of clear guidelines, but two years is an oppressively long time to live with a troubled conscience. The liberal establishment within the Church of Scotland – whose point of view on the sexuality of ministers is supported by Alex Wood and myself – is doing itself no favours by a policy of overt censorship. It will not save the Kirk by gagging its own ministers.
     The Church of Scotland at the highest level needs to make a public statement either removing the ban or justifying such a transparent assault on free speech. If it attempts to justify the ban, it needs to be specific about what it means so that all of us are aware of what is permissible and what, suddenly, is not. It needs also to issue unambiguous advice about what ministers may or may not say from their own pulpits. These are matters of urgency: for the Church of Scotland, for the media, and for democracy in Scotland.