Options
Finally, and more practically, what about OPTIONS.
-
An option advocated by some is that of waiting for the 2011 report of the special commission which has been set up. No doubt it is going to be important to engage with the commission in its enquiry when it approaches Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions, but it is unrealistic to have high hopes of the eventual report of this commission. The truth is that, with the decision of this last Assembly, the horse has already bolted from the stable and the commission has been given a ridiculous remit – to consider whether stable doors are best left open or kept shut. Obviously we should not in any way seek to hinder or undermine the work of the commission, but the horse has already bolted; the church has already crossed the line. Many ‘outsiders’ have commented on the strange logic of approving a gay induction and at the same time saying, ‘maybe that isn’t right, so let’s look at it’. The commission must do its work, but it simply gives time to consider the options for the future. If the commission should eventually uphold biblical truth, and if practising homosexual ministers are then asked to either comply with biblical teaching or demit, then it will be a joy to tear up documents such as this, but if such an outcome is regarded as somewhat unlikely, now is the time to be making plans. (Is it true, as has been suggested, that there are several ‘gay’ candidates presently in training, who are themselves making preparations for the time when the commission reports?)
-
Another option is that of continuing the Lord’s work in our own parishes. Some believe that so long as ‘they’ leave me alone to minister in my parish, I should simply keep my head down and seek to do the Lord’s work as preacher and pastor. This is a congregationalist rather than presbyterian approach, and the fact is that we have all promised to take our due part in the courts of the church and we are, whether we like it or not, part of a denomination that has rejected its own title-deeds. It is hoped that many congregations will join the Fellowship of Confessing Churches which stands by and stands for the historic faith of the church and for ‘unity between gospel congregations’. The Covenant includes the statement, “We believe it is necessary at this time to publicly mark the boundary between orthodox Christianity and spurious forms that claim the same name, and make clear and public our rejection of new teachings and practices which depart from the historic Christian faith, turn away from the orthodox gospel of repentance and faith, and publicly sanctify what the Bible proclaims as sin”. It is indeed to be hoped that scores of congregations will align themselves with the FCC, but it is not enough to think of operating as some kind of grouping within the Church of Scotland. There has been talk of forming an evangelical presbytery, but, apart from the sheer logistical difficulties of operating any such thing, that wouldn’t actually ‘fit’ in to the structures of a presbyterian church.
-
Another option is that of taking punitive financial action, and it is understandable that some people – whether individuals within congregations or congregations themselves – have felt that they no longer wish to ‘keep on the road’ a denomination that has taken the decision that has been taken. The General Assembly heard that financial clouds are on the horizon of the Church of Scotland, even part from any such withdrawal of funding, and it is probably true that the denomination depends to a large extent on the financial support of evangelical congregations. As against this proposal, however, there are several things that should be said.
-
One is that if we were to withdraw money, then we would be accused of seeking to destroy the Church of Scotland, which is not what we want to do. It is, we believe, the liberals who are destroying the church.
-
Secondly, there is the issue of shortfalls when a vacancy arises; Presbyteries would not give the right to call until all shortfalls had been made up.
-
And thirdly, there is the question of the rightness of taking such action; we are still at present part of the Church of Scotland and the nature of the work that is being undertaken has not been altered by the assembly decision. Some may feel they do not want a penny of their money to pay the stipends of actively homosexual ministers, but it is probably true that the congregations concerned are in fact among those (relatively few) who pay enough to be classed as self-supporting.
-
Clearly the other option is some kind of secession (or disruption). Congregations could elect to become independent (? FIEC), but that does not fit with our presbyterian ethos and, at the pragmatic level, history shows that many such independent fellowships are short-lived. [Appendix 1 contains reflections on schism from Ivor Macdonald.]
Much has been said about alliance with the Free Church of Scotland, especially as the Free Church is already considering moving away from its tradition of exclusive psalmody. There would remain the issue of women’s ministry, but there would also be issues about ownership of buildings etc. The only hope of anything effective being done must lie in numerical strength and it is hoped that many ministers will be willing to pursue this option – whether in simply ‘joining’ the Free Church, or in moving with the Free Church into a new grouping. Would there be others who would be willing to come into such a new Uniting denomination?
It may be that this is the opportunity presented by the present crisis. Could this be for the greater good of Scotland? And do we need to plan now some kind of national assembly of Church of Scotland evangelicals – not in secret but openly and without any restricted group of invitees. It should be openly advertised (circular to all ministers and congregations) with the invitation to all who are seriously concerned to do something (perhaps inviting each minister who attends to bring one elder - in good presbyterian fashion). Who should initiate such a gathering? At present it seems we have several groupings: FCC, CORE, Forward Together and the informal Inverness gathering (are there other groups out there?). Perhaps two representatives of each could meet together to plan such an Assembly, which would include time for corporate worship and fellowship, but which would also consider action on the kind of options mentioned above (and there may be others which will be suggested). It has been important to have time to talk, but it is time now for action – for the good of our congregations (with many members who are waiting to see whether anything is going to happen), for the good of the church in Scotland and for the good of our many compatriots who as yet have no knowledge of Christ and His gospel.
David J Randall
July 2009