Two contrasting

views of the debate

on gay ministers

1. Mark Elliott

 

I simply want to make six observations on Monday's business at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on same-sex relationships and the ministry:
     There seemed to be no awareness of the fact that careful polling over the previous year had indicated that a significant majority of kirk sessions and presbyteries seemed to be against any change. (This parish conservatism might have been not because of deep conviction that the traditionalist case was right, but from a sense that the revisionists had not shifted the burden of proof in order to establish that change was clearly the will of God.) In any case it was assumed that this was a matter for the kirk's 'parliament' and not for any such referendum in the parishes.
     There was too often a blurring of the issues: it does not clearly follow that because compassion is due to people who cannot help their sexuality, that when they want to be ministers this vocation is to be treated as a right. Quite often the logic (not consciously explicit) was to move from outlining the experience of some people's hurt and exclusion to a conclusion that being admitted to the ordained ministry would be the compensation they were owed. The traditionalists were also a bit too quick to emote how 'painful' the whole affair was, and did not help their case by suggesting the matter was a simple one.
     The report which founded the basis for discussion at several turns referred and even deferred to a future commission and report, which would in time (2013 or later) present a fuller account of things. However it was the present report which nevertheless became the mechanism for a decision, with more time spent on practicalities or on attempts to harden positions (never a sensible tactic) than on debating the substance. So rather than a fuller theoretical exploration serving as a basis for a vote, the later commission and report will serve as a clarification and justification of a vote. The demands of praxis and gut feeling seemed to win over any attempt to establish principle as a guide to policy.
     There was a format to the proceedings which allowed a chain of comments offered from willing contributors (of alarmingly varied quality), rather than an informed debate. The proceedings were of course less heated as a result, but what was missing was something like an hour given to four members of the commission debating the points of substance: the biology, psychology, sociology and even the theology of the issue. While the moderator did remarkably well at moderating, if anything the debate was too good-humoured, as if it really didn't matter.
     There seemed to be a presumption that a lawyer is the best person to be appointed as the spokesperson and not just convenor of any divided committee. There is a myth that because a judge is impartial in a civil court then he must know how to be so in other areas, and that because he is smarter than the average bear he will likely have the best grasp of theological principle. In fact he showed himself to be a decent human being, but with his own loyalties and a pragmatic cast of mind that made theological theory appear tiresome to himself.
     There was an air of inevitability about the whole thing. Progress willed it so. There was no common ground established for a debate to be possible. The church is not called to resist the new Scotland at every turn, but surely it can be expected to give some depth to any discussion of its identity.

 

Mark W Elliott is senior lecturer in church history and postgraduate director, school of divinity, University of St Andrews

 

2. John Cameron

 

When the three million-strong American Presbyterian Church agreed this month to ordain openly gay clergy, the Kirk was left out of step with the mainline reformed churches.
     The UPC decision had brought the Presbyterians into line with other American Protestant churches such as the Episcopalians, Lutherans and the Church of Christ. The European reformed churches such as those in Scandinavia, Germany and Holland have long had gay clergy in sexually active monogamous relationships.
     Discrimination against gays is absolutely illegal in the British job market and surveys show that this legislation is supported by well over 90% of the population. As a national church, the Kirk can hardly refuse to obey the law and this was the state of play when the issue, kicked into the long grass in 2009, bounced back into play.
     Fundamentalists believe the Bible is free of error as originally written even though it accepts slavery, genocide, mass murder, and the stoning adulterers to death. They hold that homosexual behaviour is always a serious sin and oppose same sex marriage and the inclusion of sexual orientation in hate-crime and anti-discrimination legislation. Mainline Protestants promote equal rights for all sexual orientations, same-sex marriage and civil union, equal protection under hate-crime and employment legislation.
     Whether by accident or design the Kirk's mainline theological heavyweights were absent from the General Assembly leaving an open goal for the evangelicals. The only challenges to the misleading fundamentalist claim that the Bible specifically outlaws consensual homosexual relations came from American and African clerics. In fact, in the original Greek, the scriptures are ambiguous about homosexuality and do not contain any clear references to gay activity within a committed relationship. Paul did condemn homosexual orgies, ritual gay sex in Pagan temples and the sexual rape of young boys by adult males but such a stance elicits total Christian support. The problem is that, after having been filtered through the belief systems of the many translators, some English versions of the Bible do condemn all homosexual behaviour.
     It was interesting to see a black minister stand up to oppose our  fundamentalists because it is generally assumed that all African Christianity is homophobic. This is not the case and many black leaders such as the legendary Bishop Desmond Tutu, hero of the long struggle against apartheid in South Africa, support gay rights. He has accused both the Churches of Scotland and England of 'allowing their obsession with homosexuality to come before Christ’s mission and action on poverty'. On his last visit he addressed both churches saying he believed we were going against the teaching of Jesus in our treatment of gay people and 'persecuting the persecuted'. He said it was simply outrageous to suggest that 'gay people choose homosexuality' and that we should 'keep a grip on reality and keep the dispute in proportion'.
     Before booting the issue back into the outfield, the General Assembly passed a codicil allowing gay ministers already ordained by the Kirk to apply for vacant charges. This takes pressure off the church for the moment and will prevent it appearing in court but the Edinburgh air was thick with homophobia and this is not over.
     The make-up of the committee chosen to look at the theological issues over the next two years is immaterial since no compromise on homosexual rights is possible. Conservatives will continue to hold that homosexual behaviour is always a serious sin and bitterly oppose gay ordination whatever the legal and ecclesiastical consequences.

 

John Cameron is a Church of Scotland minister