Let me begin this discussion paper with five assertions which it is important to make
Let me begin this discussion paper with five assertions which it is important to make.
-
The first is that such concerns as are being expressed now come from people who love the Church of Scotland. Like many I owe an enormous debt, under God, to the Church of Scotland. I wrote in our own church magazine about being taken along to church from my earliest days and receiving so much through the teaching of faithful Sunday School teachers, youth leaders, ministers of the Word and through the corporate fellowship of the church. My grandfather and father were elders of the Church, I have sought in turn to serve this Church over many years and I have two sons who are now in parish ministry. I have served the church at congregational, Presbytery and Assembly levels – and all-in-all the Church of Scotland has been a very important part of my life. Several colleagues have spoken similarly (one colleague wrote, “born and bred in it, (I) would have defended it to the death!); at one time many of us could never have imagined even the thought of leaving the Church of Scotland and I have suggested to an Assembly official that for the Church of Scotland to lose my support is quite an achievement! Many others could say the same things, and our love for the Church of Scotland makes us very reluctant critics.
-
The second assertion must be the obvious point (or it should be obvious) that homosexual people are to be loved and valued. It has been easy for people on the other side of the argument to paint a picture of so-called homophobes who have a personal animosity to homosexual people. This is wrong, and we need to be constantly making the point that there is no place whatsoever for gay-bashing. In an interview, I was asked whether we would welcome a homosexual minister if he came to our church and of course the answer is that our services are services of public worship and all are welcome. There is no justification ion Scripture or anywhere else for any animosity to particular people.
-
A third assertion is that the issue before us is not the issue of the right of call. Much has been made of this claim – that the members of the particular congregation in Aberdeen had a hard-won right to call the minister they chose. Reference has been made to the Disruption in this connection. Our assertion, however, is that this has not been the issue at stake. The issue is: who may legitimately and scripturally be a Church of Scotland minister. (And while referring to the Disruption, it might be pointed out that the situation facing us today is far worse than that which faced those in 1843 who felt compelled to forsake the church of their fathers.)
-
A fourth assertion is that so many of us have felt shock and shame over the decision of the General Assembly and the consequent action of Aberdeen Presbytery. There have been many controversial issues over the years, but none has caused the shock and dismay that affects so many now. During the period before the Assembly, many perhaps naively held to the fond notion that the Assembly would in the end stand by the teaching of Scripture. The actual decision has caused shock and horror. Sometimes in the past I have observed that there seem to be some people who are prepared to push the homosexual agenda, no matter what the cost should be for the church; they didn’t seem to care that it was likely to divide and disrupt the church. In one sense, it is not a surprise that we are where we are; the surprise perhaps is in the rapidity with which they have brought us to this point.
There is also a sense of anger at the attempt to silence us by attempting to place a gag on public discussion and proclamations on the subject. The journalist, Kenneth Roy, in Scottish Review (28.5.09) described an e-mail he had received from a Church of Scotland minister who wrote, ‘I would dearly love to respond to your atheistic commentator, but we are now being gagged by a moratorium’. Roy says that he contacted the Acting Principal Clerk of Assembly, who replied – “but I am unable to tell you what was in it since her e-mail was headed, ‘Not for Publication’. Is this really a sensible way for the Church of Scotland to conduct its business through the crisis it faces?” The ban is unenforceable, but in any case, we might well ask: what kind of discipline could a denomination that has approved an anti-scriptural action impose on someone who simply seeks to say what Scripture says? The truth is that we need to openly face the fact that we have a crisis; perhaps we need to challenge the Church of Scotland in this matter - after all, this has all been eventuated by the radical challenge of one particular minister.
-
Another assertion that should be made is a response to the charge that we evangelicals are schismatics who want to divide the Church. This is simply untrue; our greatest desire is for the unity of the Church of Scotland, around its own confessional standards and its own base in Scripture, and the best thing would be the true revival of the church. Sadly the church, with this induction, has effectively passed a point of no return. But our assertion is that it is the liberals who are the real schismatics, in that they depart from the faith once for all delivered to God’s people (Jude 3). They are the ones who have been busy in the basement removing brick after brick, and they are the ones who are truly divisive. Evangelicals, far from being trigger-happy schismatics, have been loyal to an increasingly liberal church for a long time. Evangelicals are also sometimes accused of being obsessed with matters relating to sexuality; the truth is that this issue has been forced upon us all by the liberals, aided and abetted by a liberalised establishment, and by people who, frankly, seem to have little regard for the peace and unity of the church.