Channel: Times (UK)  Author: Lindsay McIntosh

In an eleventh-hour move intended to prevent an historic split in the Church of Scotland, Kirk leaders last night agreed a two-year ban on homosexual ministers - less than 48 hours after they approved the appointment of openly-gay Scott Rennie.

Desperate not to allow the schism that had been forecast, the General Assembly postponed making a final decision on the issue by setting up a working group to report back in 2011, effectively kicking the issue into the long grass.

Delegates also agreed not to talk to the media on sexuality issues for the two years, a move that was later condemned as “suppressing the debate”.

Membership of the special commission - which will examine the issues thrown up in recent weeks, since the appointment of Mr Rennie, and the wider issue of same-sex relationships - will be appointed at the end of the General Assembly, which is sitting in Edinburgh.

The Rev Angus Morrison told elders and fellow ministers that the commission would best serve the “peace and unity” of the Church. “It is comparatively easy to split a church but the challenge of healing the divisions, so-thought, is of an entirely different nature altogether,” he said. “The notion that these tensions within a church can best be solved by going separate ways is deeply flawed. It is a path rather to the multiplication of problems.”

The assembly had yesterday afternoon been due to debate a motion brought forward by the Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye which sought to assert the primacy of heterosexual marriage. However, moments before the discussion was to commence, the Rev Dr John L. McPake, from Mossneuk Church, in East Kilbride, moved a “deliverance” - a motion - calling for the commission and a ban on public comment on sexuality until May 31, 2011. It was seconded by Mr Morrison.

The Rev James Stewart then proposed an addition to the motion instructing presbyteries to observe a moratorium on ordination and inductions which might appear to prejudice the special commission before it reports.

The assembly voted to approve the appointment of Mr Rennie at Aberdeen’s Queen’s Cross Church after a debate of more than four hours on Saturday night. The decision on Mr Rennie, carried by 326 votes to 267, will not be affected by last night’s vote.

The Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye agreed to withdraw its overture after plans for the commission were agreed.

Earlier, anti-gay campaigner the Rev Ian Watson, an opponent of Mr Rennie’s appointment, had called for a decision to be reached on the day. “We’re really tired of this debate,” he said. “I really don’t know how much longer the church can sustain this debate”.

View the original post

As most here know, I am not in support of same-sex relationships. However, I am also not in support of language and/or action that does not make proper distinctions in discussing these matters, thus alienating the homosexual community rather than seeking to respond pastorally.

With that in mind, I wish this article would have made the following statement more explicit as to its decision not to permit clergy involved in same-sex relationships. As it stands, the phrase “two-year ban on homosexual ministers” is both an inaccurate description of what I believe the Church intends to articulate and offensive to those who believe they have an orientation (I will not engage in a discussion of the merits of the ‘orientation’ argument) toward homosexuality and yet who would refrain from engaging in a same sex relationship. Furthermore, I find this title troublesome: “two-year moratorium on gays.” The Church is having a moratorium on gay people in general? Such a title (the first thing someone sees when encountering a news article, followed by a similar statement in the first paragraph) only contributes to making the Church irrelevant to having a voice in the moral ordering of our societies. It is not until well into the article that it is made clear what the Church is actually banning. In these times we must be careful and charitable in choosing and using our words or any message we wish to communicate will likely meet with hardened hearts.

Katie,

I agree the language in the article, particularly the headline, is regrettable and is probably an example of just the sort of thing the folks over at GetReligion spend their time critiquing in the media.  At the same time it does reveal the way in which many people, both liberal and conservative on issues of human sexuality view the issue: with an inability or refusal to separate questions of identity from practice.

Agreed.