illogical

I missed the webcast of the General Assembly, and woder if I am reading this right…

It seems that — having decided to uphold the appointment of Scott Rennie to Queen’s Cross Aberdeen on Saturday–  the Church of Scotland is now engaging in a two year process of consultation and study on homosexuality, during which time they are imposing  a moritorium on the ‘ordination and Induction to Ministry’ of any gay person living in a relationship.

Does that mean that gay people who are already in ministerial posts will not be able to take up a new post until at least 2011?  Or does ‘Induction to Ministry’ mean something else in the C of S (Freda?).

I cannot see how the same kirk that argued so persuasively on Saturday that the bibilical teachings on homosexuality did not address the issue of faithful committed relationships can then turn around and exclude people from ministry today.

As I was cooking dinner tonight, I explored how it would feel if the C of S stepped so clearly into bravery while the SEC failed to speak, but it seems I wondered in vain.

4 thoughts on “illogical”

  1. Of course it is disappointing but I do understand the mechanics.

    It is always harder to be prejudiced against one individual in particular – that is, faced with an obviously nice bloke who is an ideal minister called (with all the theology of that) to a particular church where everybody has been clearly informed of exactly what his situation is, then it is hard to be mean. You can see exactly what you are doing.

    But when you are talking about ‘homosexual clergy’ your worst nightmares can run riot. You don’t have the brave smiling hurt face to grapple with – you have a chimera instead.

    I remember the discussions over women priests, and one member of my then congregation circulating a leaflet dear knows where form which spoke of the likelihood that women priests would among other things strip to the waist in the pulpits – oh yes. Never mind the frostbite.

    The concrete is easier for people – abstractions are hard and play into long held fears … dear knows of what.

    IF you made a decision that for ten years each case would be reviewed on its own merits, my guess is that 99% of ministers would be passed as suitable. And then the injustice of it all would be seen and the thing quietly dropped. But a review? What IS there to be said or argued that everybody on both sides does not already know by heart?

    Wouldn’t half have made my own life easier though.

  2. Hi Kimberly, I watched the whole of the proceedings of the General Assembly today and feel reasonably secure in my understanding of what happened. A moratorium effectively exists in connection with the Ordination and Induction to ministerial appointments of anyone in an open same-sex relationship. Induction means the setting aside of someone to a position in Ministry. (No-one seemed to realise that in connection with posts where employment legislation is effective, that the motion is effectively against the law of the land. This would probably apply for example to a minister who took up the post of an associate minister employed by the Ministries Council. But don’t quote me, I am maybe a bit out of touch. I am wearing my Legal Liability Insurance hat in saying that.)

    As to what happened on Saturday night – it was not televised, but from what I managed to intuit and learn from today’s proceedings, in typical Presbyterian fashion, the arguments swayed the vote because they included the points of procedures of the Church of Scotland having been correctly followed. Weasly words indeed.

    In effect, it appears that I could be disciplined by my Presbytery for daring to speak out on these matters now that members subject to the discipline of the church have effectively been told to Shut Their Mouths on the subject of the Ordination and Induction of Gay clergy.

  3. I agree completely with the previous comment and would like to add that thanks to Scott’s Rennie confirmation the CofS has set the precedent for the employment of individuals who are gay and so over rule the whole “not doing anything for the next two years” if, of course, anyone is prepared to challenge it. Never mind the fact that the current policy flies in the face of UK employment legislation.

    After a lot of digging on the CofS website I have discovered that Lochcarron et al tried to get their overture heard before Scott’s case. CofS said no they had to be heard in the order they were submitted. I can’t decide if this was procedural it was just lucky or the CofS was boxing clever….

    With all things, time is wonderful thing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s