The Pope's remarks re Gays - Time Magazine reflects.

Time Magazine's article (Gene Robinson) sees the Pope's remarks as "Baby Steps". Robinson says in his article, "..Francis' softening in tone is being reflected elsewhere in the Christian church. Mainline denominations are taking an ever more tolerant approach to homosexuality. Conservative evangelicals, especially younger ones, are looking for a way to affirm gay Christians and the love they come to know with other people. Fuller Theological Seminary, the U.S.'s largest evangelical seminary, has a new OneTable group exploring a biblical way forward in how its members can more deeply accept their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters in Christ. Even evangelicals understand that changing their stance on this issue may be key to attracting young people, whether gay or straight, to the church and keeping them."

On behalf of the evangelicals I would take exception to the last sentence. I do not think most thinking evangelicals change their thinking for pragmatic reasons. Getting people into the church has never been either a necessary or a sufficient reason for a seismic shift in Biblical theology. No doubt Time Magazine will get a post bag reflecting a certain amount of outrage at this suggestion.
However, I think that there are times when society at large outpaces the Church in understanding right and wrong. The Church is a flawed arbiter of the ethically high way. We might prefer it if God kept us in the loop or even gave us first dibs on new revelations concerning what is good, but, let's face it, He sometimes uses non church people to freshen up our thinking and understanding. We really don't like this, but occasionally it is necessary, both for our pride's sake and for the sake of people who need to be reached by God's love.

So, Fuller is opening up dialogue and debate around the topic as are many evangelical groups. Good on them. I hope that we may see more good debate around the topic, rather than the rather boring repetition of position statements, which is what happened at the Church of Scotland's General Assembly, albeit in a gracious, polite and well groomed way, and may be what reformist groups within the church are hoping they can do too: win the argument against by repetition and strength of numbers. 

Post Gay Debate Happenings in the Church of Scotland

A press statement has been issued to the Kirk's magazine, "Life and Work", on a recent gathering of evangelical people within the Church: "New Evangelical Network", Life and Work, August 2013.  This brings the number of large evangelical groupings to a total of 3: The Crieff Fellowship (not strictly Church of Scotland but largely composed of C of S ministers and elders), Forward Together, a group formed to try and mobilise specifically Church of Scotland evangelical ministers for political action within the Kirk, and now, "The Church of Scotland Evangelical Network". The first group has no public profile, does not make press statements, does not see itself as being a locus for power games within the Kirk, and concentrates on being a "fellowship" which promulgates orthodox conservative Biblical teaching. The second however has more in common with the latest group, and leaves me wondering why we need a new group. Perhaps Forward Together had run out of steam, or did not see itself as a group who could unilaterally commit to "remain in the Church of Scotland". The new group does commit to that and to work for the Kirk's reformation and renewal, according to its press release. One of the authors of the release was the Rev Prof Andrew McGowan who was on the Theological Commission whose report on Gay Ministers came before the General Assembly in May.

It is warming to read that a network of 350 and presumably more, are committed to the Kirk's reformation and renewal. Their work will not be hard. At least two things make this sure.

The first is that the decision of the General Assembly to allow congregations so minded to call ministers who are in active gay relationships or are openly gay and not celibate, may well fall anyway as it proceeds down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act of the Church of Scotland. There are many Presbyteries just waiting for the chance to gun this thing down. A little encouragement from the new network will be well received. Some of the ditherers in the bigger more liberal Presbyteries may likewise be affected by the new lobbyists. If the new Act makes it back to a subsequent General Assembly unscathed, it will be surprising. I think it will be a close run thing, but my money is on the Traditionalist point of view. This influence can therefore be said to favour the traditionalist wing.

The second factor is the decline in the numbers, wealth and influence of the Church of Scotland. Our time as a credible national church of Scotland is running out. We might see the century out if the numbers start to level off from the current decline. Increasingly the church will be reformed and renewed by external circumstances, or to put a more spiritual spin on it, by God using these circumstances. What this reformation will look like in terms of life and worship remains to be seen. Smaller, more flexible, more responsive to people's life patterns and commitments seem to be the key points of influence which most commentators agree on. These things will produce smaller levels of staff, more collegiate and team working over larger areas, more active involvement of voluntary lay people in taking services in homes, halls, and other alternative spaces. They will also change the way services happen and how they are conducted. There will be less control over the theological preferences of each small group. This influence will be neutral with regard to the traditionalist point of view. But it will be a massive influence for reformation and renewal, make no mistake.

New Frontier Crossing

The frontier is the one between the ground and the air. Or perhaps it's the one between my comfort zone and what's outside it. Moving into this new landscape ranks among the scariest things I've ever done, or which have happened to me. Nevertheless, the rewards are very high, if you've ever watched eagles or buzzards or other similar birds soar on thermals with barely a beat of their wings, far above the ground. I've watched as para gliders moved across mountain precipices and hung over valleys thousands of feet in the air, and thought, "I'd love to do that too."  Well, I have now. And it was every bit as thrilling as I thought it would be. But of course it came with fears and doubts too. You worry that it won't work, you worry when you make a turn   that you will upset the fragile stability of your flight by introducing something new, or when you hit turbulence that something terrible will happen and you'll be pitched into free fall. It's as these things do happen and you become accustomed to them, that you begin to relax and enjoy. It does take a while though.
It made me appreciate anew the daunting effect of surveying an unknown frontier with a view to crossing it. I remembered my first visit to a prayer meeting! (Yes!)  It made me wonder about people who want to come to church, never having done so before, or those who are considering making the faith journey into Christianity. I also thought about the church moving from the safe areas of ancient points of view, into those new and risky places such as those to which the recent General Assembly of the Church of Scotland took a step closer. There are many who are unsure about this movement. But ultimately, it's a movement deeper into the landscape of grace, which actually always feels risky, because in the land of grace, we always relinquish control. Because I believe in the beauty and centrality of grace, I believe we will not founder as we go forward, hard though it might seem. A bit like flying really. 

The Church of Scotland and ministers in same-sex relationships - Post General Assembly 2013

The General Assembly debated the issue surrounding ministers in same sex relationships last week. It did so in a way which reflected well on the church, thankfully. The press coverage as a result has been positive. It emerged, during the debate, that the polarities of a blanket "yes" or an all consuming "no", were not really where the Assembly wanted to be. In the end, a third way was found. A motion declaring the traditional view of the church to be what it has always been, (not pro gay, but really by default), but allowing congregations so minded, to be able to call a minister in a same sex relationship. Such legislation is said to be "permissive", and it reflects the way the C of S has often handled contentious issues in the past. This position has the distinct advantage of giving the traditionalist ground prime place, so that traditionalists do not have to make a special case to exempt themselves from ordaining or inducting non celibate gay clergy. Rather, it's the new radicals who will be the "special" case. Which given the current state of development of the thinking about these issues, reflects the position well.
The outcome rather begs the question why the Theological Commission didn't come up with a third way. The fact that it was evenly composed of passionate supporters of both sides of the argument does not mean they couldn't have hammered out a compromise. The voting for the three motions was interesting. The "yes" vote gained more votes than the other two, though not a majority of the votes cast. The "no" vote gained the least, so it dropped. I'm tempted to think that had there only been the 2 original motions then those who voted for the compromise may well have, albeit reluctantly, voted "no". I'm tempted to think this because in the second round of voting, the "no" vote basically switched to the compromise motion, giving it the clear majority. I may of course be mistaken, and indeed, there were many traditionalists who thought they would lose the vote had it been between only the 2 originals. They knew however that had that been the case, they would have won the argument under the Barrier Act, which is a procedure which sends down new innovative legislation from the General Assembly to the Presbyteries, for a second round of voting. The Presbyteries are very conservative, especially the smaller ones in the north and west. Their vote, even if they only have under 10 ministers, is equal to that of enormous Presbyteries like Glasgow and Edinburgh. The last time legislation concerning the gay issue came down to Presbyteries, the vote went against it.
So what now? The current proposals still have to go down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act, but I believe they will pass it, as a viable and judicious compromise. If that is the case, and if subsequent General Assemblies don't overturn the proposals, then we will end up in a church which accepts that some congregations may ordain gay clergy in civil partnerships to the ministry. There remain those in the church who are totally opposed to this and would fight it tooth and nail, for to be part of a church which tolerates such Biblically anathematised conduct would be a contamination by association one step too far. However this group will not amount to entire congregations in my view. We may still see a small erosion of membership and clergy in the next year or two, but I doubt if it will be a schism or even a massive hemorrhage.
A final comment on the General Assembly itself. During the debate on clergy in same sex relationships, some voices expressed exasperation that we were spending so much time on this when we had far more important things to debate and do, and this received considerable endorsement from around the hall. In the days following, these more important debates took place, but never to as full a house as the less important one. Importance is no guarantee of a subject's winning our attention obviously. 

Church of Scotland General Assembly:Theological Commission on Same-Sex Relationships and the Ministry

The book of reports to the Church of Scotland's General Assembly has now been in the hands of Commissioners (participants) for a few weeks. The report which will attract the lion's share of interest is the one on same-sex relationships and the ministry, (section 20 of the book, "The Blue Book" to the cognoscenti).

I made the mistake of starting to read the report from the end, (well I always like to see how it's going to turn out...) and so came across the case against same-sex relationships in the penultimate section, and made the mistake of thinking that it was the report's conclusion, and was therefore incensed at what I took to be such a one sided view. However, after a pause for thought, (of a day or 2), I decided to go back for another peek, and found to my relief that the case for people in same-sex relationships in the ministry was being made in the section previous. Sections 20/6 and 20/7 of the report, which in total takes up almost 100 pages.

Obviously the Commission was so representative of both sides of the debate, that they could not agree on a   settled position for the whole church, which is a disappointment, but perhaps inevitable, given the issue at stake here. So instead, those for, (styled Revisionists), wrote section 6 and those against, (Traditionalists) wrote section 7. The Deliverances, (motions), reflect this division, and are presented in an either or fashion, i.e. either the Assembly votes for 2 (a) OR 2 (b) etc. It will be interesting to see how the Assembly deals with this. 

The 2 sections represent the arguments on both sides of the debate extremely well. They are clear, simply put, and therefore easy to understand. They also look at the issues in a way which seems to encompass all the positive points either side would want to bring, without criticising the approach of the other. There was a small nod of the head towards scaremongering in the traditionalist argument, in section 7.7.3, which gives us the following: "The Church is thus faced with a Disruption, something which has not occurred since 1843." This I was distinctly unimpressed by, and wondered if at that point they had been feeling the weakness of their own argument, that they had to resort to this. They based that conclusion on the exit so far of two congregations with ministers, and the resignations of sundry other individuals, some few ministers and members of congregations.

Having had a good opportunity to read the arguments, I find the Traditionalist case extremely weak. It rests in the main, on the Biblical textual evidence, particularly that of the New Testament. The textual evidence in itself is strong. Every passage which refers to same-sex relationships is condemnatory. But that is not how we do theology, nor have we ever done theology entirely on proof texts. And this is a matter of theology, which is why the case for is so strong, because it comes at the argument from a theological point of view. Moreover, New Testament proof texts would have us keeping women in submission in church, not speaking or having leadership over men, and covering their heads. Admittedly there are not as many texts in support of these arguments, but I would not expect the Traditionalists to be playing a numbers game with the texts.

There is another interesting argument, which neither side of the debate has really explored, but which I think needs airing and debating, perhaps as an issue in its own right. It's the question, what is it that makes something wrong, or sinful? Is a thing wrong simply and solely because the Bible says it is, or does there have to be an independent moral argument which shows us how or why something is wrong, if there isn't a prima facie case in the prohibition itself, as with, "Don't steal."  If the Bible itself buys into this argument, i.e. that its prohibitions are there for good reasons, even if those reasons have now disappeared, been lost, or have changed with the change of cultures and times, then this would not only commend the Bible as having a moral integrity which could appeal even to people who didn't believe in God, but it would be a way of understanding why what was once condemned, now need not be.

Needless to say, I look forward to the debate with great interest. I hope that the way the issue is debated will be gracious and kindly, and reflect well on the Kirk as a church which is struggling to air and handle deep and important and contentious things.

Gilcomston Church and Aberdeen Presbytery

An article in the Press & Journal about the relationship between Gilcomston Church (Gilcomston South congregation's new church name) has warmed the cockles of my heart. Aberdeen Presbytery, it was reported, is going to allow the congregation the ongoing use of the buildings for an "interim" period. I like to think that maybe some who took part in the debate at Presbytery read my blog, "St George's Tron Part 2", but in any case, three cheers for applied Christian Theology at last. If I have to eat my closing words there, I shall be delirious with delight. But it's early days yet.

Gilcomston, in leaving the Kirk, is in effect rejecting the Kirk, one might even say, shaking its dust from off her shoes, on account of the Kirk's current position on allowing practising gay people to be ministers of the Gospel. (The position is that there is a moratorium on any new appointments pending a report to this year's General Assembly, and allowing one minister who since ordination has "come out" to continue.) But here's the thing: the Kirk has not rejected Gilcomston, nor is it behaving in a punitive way towards her, using property issues as a means to express displeasure. I hope this may become a precedent for our treatment of those who disagree with the Kirk to the extent that they leave, even when they leave for reasons which are deeply hurtful to many. All our theological statements, our arguing, our positioning over the New Testament texts, it all pales into, well not exactly insignificance, but it certainly pales in comparison with the application of grace. And this is the sorrow and shame of Christians: when we wrangle over Biblical interpretation, insist on our own view, grace usually gets sidelined. The grace of God, expressed supremely through Jesus Christ, is what the church is called to display and live by. And by grace, we are forgiven for not doing it. 

Conservative Evangelical Christianity, Gilcomston South et al and the Homosexual Debate

So far, two of the large conservative evangelical churches in the Church of Scotland have pulled out of the denomination over the controversy about allowing practising gay people to be ministers.

I received through the post the other day, a DVD from a group within the C of S who are against allowing gay people in active homosexual relationships to become ministers. It's called "Facing the Reality". It's well presented, careful and gentle, and has some heavyweight intellectuals and academics as contributors, as well as a celibate gay Christian Church Development Worker. I do not think this group are interested in splitting the church but want to have a reasonable and informed debate about this issue. Good for them. Running time is 37 minutes but you can cut out the credits and fast forward some bits. It has been sent out I think to ministers and others in advance of this year's General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in May, when a report on this issue will come before the Assembly.

The DVD served to emphasise for me, the essence of the debate, which is on the one hand people saying, "The Bible says..." and on the other, "The teaching of Christ leads us to...". The DVD is quite clear and simple about this and gives us "The Bible says", point of view and puts the point across as well as it can be put. It does not give the other side of the argument, but that for me is no criticism of it.

The problem for me personally is that I can no longer accept "The Bible says" as a substantial argument to support a moral or even theological point of view. This I think began to cross my horizon at quite an early stage in my own spiritual development when I discovered that our Trinitarian position as Christians was based on the weight of Biblical evidence rather than proof texts, although then I didn't give it much head space and simply went along with what I felt to be spiritual common sense. Over the years, other dilemmas broke over the shore of my conservative evangelical faith, like the reluctance of many of my conservative evangelical peer group to embrace Charismatic Christianity in its fulness. This reluctance had to be supported  by spiritual pragmatism and theological manoeuvering across Biblical texts.  The Bible said that the charisma (spiritual gifts) were part of church life, but it could be explained why for some of those gifts, that was not a mandate for today. Some very notable figures in Gilcomston South during the arrival of the Charismatic movement in Scotland (the 70's) had to become closet charismatics. Then came the rise of women from positions of Sunday School teachers and missionaries, to Ministers and church leaders (not Bishops, yet!). The Bible said "No", but we could explain why it was ok. Again, the weight of evidence argument was used, this time by those more liberally minded. The argument ran thus: some women around Paul had influential positions in the church, and there were some formidable Old Testament women leaders too, so let's resign the proof texts to the bin. On this particular issue, some conservative evangelical churches would not give way. My own church then, Gilcomston South, did not ordain women to the eldership, despite the Church of Scotland saying that it was right to do so, and despite the fact the Presbyteries were tasked to ask individual congregations if they were doing this, when the 5 yearly visit was being made. Gilc held out, because "the Bible said". Of course no position statement was ever made, it was simply the case that no suitable women could be found. (I suspect that very few women if any at all who were totally bought in to Gilc would have wanted to be elders anyway.) Whilst feeling this to be wrong, I was far too bought in to Gilc to ever raise this as an issue at any level. I felt this to be wrong because I was more and more buying in to a weight of evidence argument myself by then and I felt that the weight of evidence suggested that the Holy Spirit was gifting women to preach, teach and lead, and that God was calling them into every kind of church leadership. Many conservative evangelicals contra churches like Gilc, accepted this argument and it became another one of the minor running sources of difference of opinion in the Crieff Fellowship.

So, over the years, I began to see a certain hypocrisy in myself when I used "The Bible says" argument. I realised that the boundaries were not static and that everyone could find reasons for disagreeing with "The Bible says" when it suited them. It was this struggle that led me personally to look for a way of interpreting Scripture which felt more integrated, more consistent, and gave to Scripture the honour, respect and place it deserved. I know this is seen to be a desperately dangerous journey by some. When you start to resign certain texts to the bin of cultural conditioning and cultural relativity, where do you stop? Personally, I feel that the high principles of love and forgiveness, of grace and acceptance, have to be our interpretive principles. But  I understand the depths of passion felt on both sides of the debate. I understand that many Christians don't like saying "No" to allowing practising gay people into ministry, but feel they must. In the DVD in question there is strong attempt to make the point that there is a welcome for practising gay people in conservative churches. But ultimately, that part of the DVD feels to me to be deeply patronising, and I think the presenters know that and feel that at some level too, because I felt embarrassed as I watched that part. There is a welcome, but there is no real place for them. Worse, there is condemnation for something that many of us can see no reason for condemning, other than, "The Bible says".