The Glasgow Herald has published the following article. I do wish that the writer would not call orthodox members of the Kirk ‘hardline opponents’ when we are simply trying to urge the Kirk to adhere to the worldwide, mainstream sexual ethic of the Church. The article also says that no gay minister will be appointed until 2011, when in fact the Kirk’s moratorium is not about those who are gay in orientation, but only in lifestyle. For accuracy’s sake, is also worth pointing out that ministers are allowed to speak publicly about almost all aspects of sexuality, but they are asked not to speak publicly about ministers and homosexuality. Having said that, there is no ban on ministers speaking even on that matter, or from blogging about it. I do not know if evangelicals speak for the ‘main body of the Kirk’ when it comes to ministers and homosexuality, or if their view will prevail in the end. Time will tell. I do believe, though, that when it comes to the Christian understanding of sexual behaviour, marriage and relationships, evangelicals in the Kirk are expressing the view which the worldwide Church has always held and which it holds to this day.
Soli De Gloria
Win for Kirk’s hardliners as gay ordination row continues
Exclusive: Brian Donnelly
Published on 18 Nov 2009
Hardline opponents have won a key victory to stop the ordination of gay ministers in the Church of Scotland.
A special Kirk court upheld a complaint that one of the largest presbyteries broke the moratorium appointing gay clergy when it agreed to allow a man in a civil partnership to begin training for ministry.
The Kirk Commission of Assembly voted 43 to 38 that Hamilton Presbytery was wrong when it agreed that Dimitri Ross should begin training.
Mr Ross was appointed on the proviso that meets any student – that they are not guaranteed employment at the end of training – and so was at first thought not to have broken the moratorium.
The decision means that no gay ministers will be appointed until 2011 when the issue will be re-examined at the highest level after anger at the appointment of the Rev Scott Rennie, who is openly gay, to a post in Aberdeen.
The Kirk commissioners now have agreed that the moratorium includes training for the ministry, “which, by its very nature looks towards ordination and induction”.
Some Kirk members reacted bitterly when Mr Ross was appointed and he withdrew from training. It is unclear whether his traineeship would have been terminated, but the Kirk confirmed yesterday no more gay candidates will be allowed until 2011.
The Church spokesman would not provide details of the complaint by the Rev Iain Murdoch of Wishaw that led to the decision over trainees and declined to comment further.
Hamilton Presbytery declined to comment. The decision also means those unhappy with the principle and length of the moratorium will not force a debate at next year’s General Assembly.
Under the moratorium, ministers are also barred from speaking in public about any aspect of human sexuality while the high-level Special Commission gathers its evidence ahead of the 2011 debate, except in Kirk courts or for social care such as discussing helping Aids victims.
One of a group of defiant ministers to have spoken out over the ban in online blogs is the Rev Ian Watson, of Kirkmuirhill, Lanarkshire, who was also a commissioner at the court hearing.
He said: “He (Mr Ross) had already received advice from the central Church that the moratorium did not cover training for the ministry and that being in a same-sex relationship was no bar to his becoming a candidate.
“Those who argued for the Presbytery insisted that what the deliverance said was precisely what they had meant, no more no less.”
Evangelicals against gay ordination were said to be growing in confidence after the vote. Some feel the momentum is such that agreement cannot be reached in 2011, and rather than leaving the Kirk the movement will make a stand when the clash comes. Privately one said: “We are the main body of the Kirk.”
Others have pointed towards the fact that 56 congregations against gay ordination have signed covenants saying so under the auspices of the Fellowship of Confessing Churches.
Affirmation Scotland, which supports gay ordination, has nine congregations signed up. But it is only a small representation of the 1400 congregations.
A few days ago I made the suggestion on this blog that the Church of Scotland might usefully give thought to implementing a scheme by which the theological views and opinions of its preachers might be regularly screened for orthodoxy. Some other Presbyterian churches do this and it has a positive effect on their unity, as far as I am aware. I was saying this because some of the views and beliefs of ministers and others who preach is so very far from Christian orthodoxy that only the phrase ‘another gospel’ would do them justice.
It seems very strange and even remiss to me that it is only when ministers are ordained or inducted, or in some other way move from one ministry to another that they are asked if they still believe in the fundamental doctrines of the faith, although the Church of Scotland does not like to say what the fundamental doctrines of the faith actually are. A minister’s personal beliefs, for example, are not at all examined, nor is his or her preaching listened to or observed in the course of a Presbytery’s Quinquennial (5-yearly) visitation to a congregation. It is merely assumed that all will be theologically well.
I would like to go further now and say that I think the personal circumstances of ministers ought to be a matter of close and continuing interest to the Kirk. For instance, if a minister is separated or divorced from his or her spouse, there is no requirement whatsoever to inform the appropriate Presbytery or the central offices of the Church, to my knowledge.
I remember a minister who left his wife and subsequently divorced her. Privately, she maintained that he had been adulterous and abusive. Privately too, he confirmed the former but not the latter. He never informed the Presbytery formally of his separation and divorce, although he did tell his Kirk Session. The Presbytery therefore did not know of the minister’s changed circumstances. It was not consequentially able to offer pastoral support to his wife at the time of their marital troubles, and it made no enquiries into the reasons for the separation and eventual divorce. He continued in the ministry.
Clergy marriages are not immune to strain and breakdown, and I am not calling for a form of voyeurism. But where the cause appears to be marital infidelity or abuse on the part of a minister of the Church of Scotland, that must surely be a cause of concern to the Kirk for a range of reasons, all of which are self-evident.
When I make the suggestion that the Church of Scotland takes a closer and more regular interest in the theological beliefs and opinions of its preachers, as well as their changing personal circumstances, I am not longing for the Inquisition, though some might think that I am. I am really calling for greater care and attention to be given in some pastoral way to the holiness of a minister’s life and relationships.
Preachers and ministers are called to pass on that which they have received. In preaching and teaching, they are stewards of an unchanging and eternal Gospel, recorded in scripture, to be faithfully proclaimed and declared to congregations of God’s people. Their personal lives and circumstances, whilst not perfect, should not be deliberately or indifferently at odds with the content of their preaching and teaching ministry. A minister cannot advocate marital kindness and faithfulness whilst clandestinely acing abusively or engaging in an affair.
The Church of Scotland asks no questions of its ministers, of their doctrine or of their personal lives. It ought to. I can’t think why it would not. Everything is not always as it seems, neither in pulpits nor in manses. Sometimes, the warning signs are there, if Presbyteries are careful enough to read them.
I think that ministers and others ought to be required, by church legislation, to inform Presbyteries of major changes in personal circumstances, and that a Presbytery should not lack the courage or the thoughtfulness to be sure that it is satisfied no wrongdoing is at the heart of matters.
Soli Deo Gloria
Ian Watson has blogged about the appeal against the decision of the Presbytery of Hamilton and about the recent decision of the Commission of Assembly. I won’t bother to add anything to Ian’s commentary. It’s a fascinating read.
Click here to go to Ian’s blog
Soli Deo Gloria
Here’s the Presbytery of Edinburgh manse business and the decision of the Commission of Assembly as reported in tonight’s Edinburgh Evening News. The comments at the tail end of the piece make for an interesting read. See them here
Soli Deo Gloria
Published Date: 14 November 2009 by Ian Swanson
THE battle between the church authorities and an Edinburgh minister who refuses to live in his manse is set to continue despite a two-hour Kirk “trial”. The Rev John Munro, minister at Fairmilehead Parish Church, lost the vote when his case went before the Church of Scotland’s Commission of Assembly yesterday.
But the row will now move to the Kirk’s Edinburgh presbytery, which is expected to issue an ultimatum to Mr Munro that he must stop living in his own house and move into the manse in Braid Crescent, Morningside, or face disciplinary action, including the possibility of the sack.
Mr Munro and his wife lived in the eight-roomed manse for five years, but she never liked the house and two years ago they bought their own property in the Braids.
Mr Munro still uses the manse every day as an office and an American assistant minister is living there as a guest. But the presbytery claims the arrangement breaches Church of Scotland rules.
When the case came before the Commission of Assembly, held at St Cuthbert’s Parish Church yesterday, the ministers and elders voted 64 to five for the presbytery and against Mr Munro.
Mr Munro said he was not surprised by the result. “It’s very difficult to persuade the church to overturn the status quo,” he said.
“A lot of people came up to me afterwards and said I’d won the argument even though I lost the vote.”
A key part of the case was a disagreement over the definition of the Kirk regulations which say a minister is required to “occupy” the manse.
Mr Munro argued he did occupy the manse because he has possession of the property and uses it as an office.
He said: “I mentioned the Alice in Wonderland motto that we should say what we mean and mean what we say, particularly in church regulations, and for them to use the word ‘occupy’ if they meant ‘live’ was wrong.
“I also produced some case law from the United States where a woman was held to be ‘living’ in her principal residence because she kept it furnished and occasionally allowed guests to stay there. I will carry on occupying the manse.”
He said he had received numerous supportive e-mails after the row was revealed in the Evening News on Thursday.
Presbytery clerk, the Rev George Whyte, said: “We are pleased the commission upheld our stance and we look forward to taking the matter forward in a way that is caring to all parties.”
Commission of Assembly agrees with Presbytery of Edinburgh about Ministers and Manses
MINISTER FACES THE SACK FOR REFUSING TO LIVE IN MANSE
Saturday November 14,2009
By Dean Herbert
A KIRK minister who refuses to live in his manse because his wife does not like it could now lose his job over the row.
The Reverend John Munro,60, moved out of the manse and has repeatedly defied orders to spend his nights there because he felt “duty bound” to sleep under the same roof as his wife.
Yesterday, he faced a panel of senior Kirk members who ruled that he must obey presbytery orders to live full-time in the property.
Mr Munro, from Edinburgh, a minister for 33 years, moved just 500 yards into a smaller house with his wife.
He said he uses the manse to carry out all his business as minister of the parish of Fairmilehead.
But the Kirk’s Commission Assembly yesterday voted in favour of Edinburgh presbytery’s order and could begin disciplinary proceedings early next year.
During the heated hearing at St Cuthbert’s Parish Church in Edinburgh, the minister denied he had contravened Kirk rules about occupying the manse, because he did everything but sleep in it.
Read the rest of this article in today’s Daily Express here
The Commission of Assembly has done its work. It was asked to consider a case and make a judgement, and it has done so. Ministers must obey the laws of the Church. Life in the manse is an expectation laid on parish ministers. Although I believe that ministers and their families should be free to live where they wish, if the Kirk says that ministers must live in the manse, then we must live in the manse, for that is what the word ‘occupy’ is intended to mean. If we disagree, then we must continue to live in our manses but use the processes of Presbytery to try to effect a change in the way things are done. We are not free to simply do what we like independently of the rest of the Kirk, which is what the appellants argued in their appeal to the May 2009 General Assembly against the decision of Aberdeen Presbytery in the case of Queen’s Cross Church.
I am not saying that ministers who disregard the instruction of a Presbytery should not have to face the Commission of Assembly. I am simply arguing that the Kirk needs to be fair and consistent. For example, I would have thought that a minister who teaches and preaches ‘another gospel’ other than that which the Kirk discerns in scripture, to which it assents in the historic creeds, which it adheres to in its subordinate standard, and which it rallies round in the First Article Declaratory should surely be required to give account to a Presbytery or to a Commission of Assembly. I have heard a former Moderator of the General Assembly deny the bodily resurrection of our Lord. I have also listened to another former Moderator of the General Assembly clearly unable to say what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is in terms that reflect the reformed faith of the Kirk. I have also read the views of a number of ministers on theological matters that ought to have raised questions about the nature of the gospel they preach. Yet I have never heard of a minister being asked to explain to a Presbytery or to give an account of his or her unorthodox view on any central theological or biblical question.
My question is this: why is it that Presbyteries are clearly ready to pursue the line of discipline in order to ensure that the contents of a manse include a minister, yet the theological content of a minister’s preaching and teaching goes unchecked for the whole of a minister’s working life and ministry, as far as I can tell?
I believe that some Presbyterian denominations in the USA annually ‘check’ that the theological views of ministers who preach and teach have not departed from Christian orthodoxy. Those who have spiritual oversight and pastoral responsibility for congregations are given what amounts to a theological MOT to ensure that they are still up to the task. I don’t know how this might happen in practice here in Scotland, but it seems to me that the issue which ought to concern Presbyteries most is the biblical faithfulness of our teaching elders. Here is precisely where we are either powerful or powerless.
We look silly when we discipline ministers over the occupancy of their manses yet do nothing about the content of their preaching.
Soli Deo Gloria
Here is the opening paragraph of a new post on John Ross’ blog Recycled Missionaries that is worth reading in full. His post concerns a recent book by Alastair McGrath about heresy and the defence of Christian truth, and then goes on to make a few comments about the Presbytery of Hamilton and the recent decision of the Commission of Assembly.
Two recent events have given me slender encouragement that creedal and confessional Christianity has not been totally overwhelmed by Post-modern relativism. The first is the publishing of Alister McGrath’s Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth (New York: Harper One, 2009). I have not yet had an opportunity to get a copy in my hand and evaluate the book myself, but the publisher’s blurb is very heartening.
The rest of this article by John Ross, in which he reports about the decision of last week’s meeting of the Church of Scotland’s Commission of Assembly concerning the recent, and to many provocative, decision of Hamilton Presbytery, can be read here
I knew that the decision of Hamilton Presbytery concerning a ministry candidate was originally thought to be destined for the Commission of Assembly but had thought that it would not, in the end, proceed. However, it seems to have gone ahead and John Ross describes the narrowness of the eventual vote.
Soli Deo Gloria
The City of Dundee
Dundee lights move angers city’s churches
COUNCIL ACCUSED OF BANNING CHRISTMAS AS FESTIVE EVENT DROPS RELIGIOUS REFERENCES
BY APRIL MITCHINSON
Published: 13/11/2009
Local church leaders have accused Dundee City Council of banning Christmas after it emerged all religious references have been removed from the city’s annual festive lights switch-on.
As well as changing the name to the Dundee Winter Light Night, the council has decided to drop the telling of the Christmas story from the official programme.
Instead of the traditional Nativity tale, the festival will feature a disco, a contemporary circus, a continental market and a giant stilt-walking fairy.
The changes were revealed when the programme of events was unveiled at Discovery Point.
Disgruntled members of the Presbytery of Dundee claim the council is “eroding a religious festival” and have now voted to make an official complaint.
Read the rest here
I am not as irate about this story as some of my Dundee brethren seem to be. I understand their feeling and I join them in regretting the eviction of the Lord Jesus from the annual celebration of His birth. But isn’t it the case that the Council is only being true to its colours? After all, a city council cannot be expected to make the Christmas story of the birth of the infant Son of God a high priority when our Lord Jesus Christ is not a high priority at any other time of the year. In short, the Church cannot reasonably expect the secular power to cough up the cash needed to proclaim the birth of a Saviour for whom the secular power has no love or time. Such a proclamation is rightly the calling and the work of the Church, and councils are just throwing off the last vestiges of Christendom when they decide to re-name Christmas, as Dundee Council seems keen to do.
We have been through this in Aberdeen, and every November or December there is a some new story about a Council somewhere that has decided to drop as many references as it possibly can to the ‘Christ’ part of Christmas, including the very word ‘Christmas’ itself. Instead, we are informed annually of some new name for that which the rest of us are still calling ‘Christmas’. In this case, Dundee Council seems to be desirous of re-branding Christmas as the Dundee Winter Light Night.
I can’t get angry about this. Sad, yes. But not angry. Better to be honest, in my opinion. If Dundee and its Councillors are not interested in celebrating Christ’s birth but still want to have a December holiday and a celebration – though quite what they want to celebrate in the absence of a celebration of the very incarnation of the Living God, I simply can’t guess – then let them go ahead and call the whole thing something that more accurately describes their real intention. That is, if Dundee Council really does think that it is only voicing the clear will of the people of the city. Has it asked the question?
Anyway, I am all for a bit of clear water between church and society. It helps the church to see what its real position is and where its real mission, power and authority lies.
However, instead of anger and protest to the Council, I wonder if a better way of responding to Dundee Council’s secularisation of Christmas might be for the brothers and sisters there to take matters entirely into their own hands, as the church of Christ in that city, and pull out all stops possible to let the City of Dundee know that Christians are celebrating Christmas and that the citizens of Dundee are most welcome to join them in rejoicing at the coming of the Holy One. Rather that than to expect the Council to take to itself the responsibility of telling its citizens the Christmas story.
So, the churches of Dundee could get together to leaflet every home and residence with a clear explanation of the Saviour’s birth. Open air services and carol services could be held. Congregations could build Nativity scenes in their church gardens and in front of their church buildings. Manses could be…… Advertising hoardings could be rented for super-sized Christmas posters declaring Messiah’s birth, a tactic at which churches in Perth have excelled.
Perhaps this is not a disaster after all, but a really marvellous, God-given opportunity.
Hang on! I’m starting to get excited. We ought to do this in Aberdeen, never mind Dundee!!
Soli Deo Gloria
A number of folk in our congregation are showing a growing interest in the work of Street Pastors and are getting involved with Street Pastors here in Aberdeen. We are grateful to Dan and Stef Robertson for introducing us to this important Christian ministry. The first Street Pastors conference has just started in London and if you follow the link below you can read the encouraging remarks of the Lord Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, in his keynote address to the conference:
Read about it here
Soli Deo Gloria
Minister faces the sack for refusal to live in his manse
Published Date: 12 November 2009 By Ian Swanson
A CHURCH minister is facing the threat of the sack for refusing to live in his Edinburgh manse.
The Rev John Munro, minister at Fairmilehead Parish Church, is accused of breaking Church of Scotland regulations by opting to live in his own house instead and will face a “trial” in front of Kirk officials tomorrow.If the case goes against him, he could face censure, suspension or even end up being fired.
Read the rest in the Edinburgh Evening News here
I came across this tonight in the Edinburgh Evening News. Whilst I do understand that there would be tax issues and related matters for the Kirk to have to untangle with the Inland Revenue were it to ‘allow’ ministers to live outwith their manses, I have to say that on the face of it, to place a minister before the Commission of Assembly over the occupancy of a manse, or not, seems plain daft and inconsistent to me, especially when I cannot remember a single occasion in recent memory when Kirk ministers with theological views at wide variance from catholic, credal Christianity were ever asked to appear and give account before a Presbytery or to the Commission.
We all know that some ministers, perhaps many, have long wanted to live in their own homes, and the Kirk’s efforts to prevent it from eventually happening look increasingly like the boy with his finger in the dyke. On human rights grounds alone, it surely cannot be reasonable or fair that the Kirk ‘employs’ its ministers only on condition that the said ministers give up all rights whatsoever to live in a home of their own choosing and live, instead, in a property of the Church’s choice. What other employer in the modern world would ever ask or be allowed to ask such a thing of its employees? I can think of none.
There are tax implications for ministers who wish to live in their own house and who choose not to ‘occupy’ the manse. Agreed. But can these financial rather than theological reasons be allowed to override the wishes of a minister and his/her family to live in a home that suits and which is liked by all of the family members? Doubtless there are theological issues about the importance of living in the parish in which one ministers, and there is also the matter of the congregation owning and financially managing a property in the parish in which a minister can live if he or she wishes to, but these are not in anyone’s reckoning issues that are ‘of the substance of the faith.’ To what extent then should they be the basis of disciplinary proceedings in this day and age?
Furthermore, a minister may live in a manse from which he or she writes, preaches and teaches anything and everything but historic, orthodox and credal Christianity, all without censure or investigation by a Presbytery or by the Commission whatsoever, whilst a refusal to live in the manse seems to be an issue thought deserving of the considerable expense of gathering together the members of the Commission of Assembly in order to put a minister and his family members thoroughly and completely through the emotional wringer, and I can tell you, being at the Commission of Assembly is an emotional wringer.
It is a strange and sad place for the Church to be in when some ministers are openly and unashamedly theologically heretical, with impunity, sometimes with admiration and a measure of popular notoriety, whilst a minister who will not live in a manse is to face the Commission of Assembly.
I predict that the Kirk’s insistence that ministers always and almost without exception live in manses will come to an end. It may not open a floodgate of ministers taking advantage of the new situation, but the shortage of ministers, and lengthy vacancies, as well as changes in the future shape of congregations and churches, not to mention the continuing question of the viability of the parish system itself – all of these things mean that the Kirk cannot stand like Canute, holding back the tide of ministers and their loved ones wishing to live where they will.
It will be fascinating to see what the Commission decides, but spare a thought and prayer for the minister and his wife and family, for whom a day at the Commission will not likely be a day with friends, interspersed with a light and congenial lunch.
Soli Deo Gloria
Scottish churches worried about assisted suicide ‘guidelines’TREVOR GRUNDY
ECUMENICAL NEWS INTERNATIONALNov 11, 2009Edinburgh
Leaders from Protestant and Roman Catholic churches have met Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond to discuss concerns about regulations on assisted suicide in neighbouring England and Wales.Meeting with Salmond at the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh on Nov.4 were members of the country’s two biggest churches, the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church as well as the (Anglican) Scottish Episcopal Church.
In September, the Kirk, as the Church of Scotland is known, had expressed concerns about regulations on assisted suicide in England and Wales as it was being debated in Scotland. The Catholic Church has long been strongly opposed to any form of suicide.
The Rev. Alexander Horsburgh, vice-convenor of the Kirk’s Church and Society Council, said in an interview with Ecumenical News International, “As a church we are against assisted suicide. But we believe there should be constructive debate on the subject in the Scottish Parliament.”
You can read the rest of this article here
Issues to do with the right or otherwise to decide the time of the end of one’s life are obviously of concern to churches and church leaders, as well as to all segments of Scottish society. The role of doctors and medical practitioners has traditionally been one of preserving life and doing all possible to protect the well-being of patients, even if that means protecting them from themselves. Palliative care has of course made very great strides forward, and whilst end of life pain has not been eradicated, palliative medicine brings immense comfort and relief.
It is not because of a lack of compassion or because of an innate conservatism that Christians view assisted suicide with concern. Christians face illness and death as do all. The Church of Scotland, as well as the other Scottish churches, view life as sacred and God-given, and is concerned that those approaching the end of life are not made victims by others, or by their own perception of what might be in the best interest of others, principally family members.
Having said that, and whilst both applauding and wishing well the efforts of the Church of Scotland in this regard, I do feel that the Church of Scotland and other Scottish churches should now turn their attention to matters at the other end of life’s spectrum and invest the same effort into protecting and defending the unborn, and the families of the unborn, as does the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.
8-week unborn baby
The Scottish Government has expressed its own disappointment at the increasing number of abortions in Scotland. 3500 abortions were carried out on teenagers in 2008 out of a total number of 13 817 abortions. This is an increased figure at a time when higher levels of sex education in schools ought to have been having exactly the opposite effect. The statistics show also that areas gripped by greater levels of social deprivation have higher percentages of abortions, but what must be of significant concern to all of us is that 3770 abortions were carried out on women who had already had a previous termination, a statistic that must cause us to ask to what extent abortion is now just a means of contraception.
If the Church of Scotland is genuinely concerned about the sanctity of life, and I do believe that it is, then we ought not to focus our efforts and attention on one end of the spectrum only. Nearly 14 000 abortions in Scotland each year is a figure that we cannot turn a blind eye to and I hope that the Scottish Churches will turn now to this issue as a matter of even far more pressing concern than assisted suicide. The right of the unborn to life is every bit as worthy of the Church’s concern as is the defence of life’s sanctity in matters of assisted suicide. Some would say even more so.
Soli Deo Gloria
