Kirk ‘may soften stance’ against gay marriage
A SENIOR figure in the Church of Scotland yesterday said that the Kirk may eventually change its hard-line view against gay marriage when a report into human sexuality is finally published in 2013.
The possibility of the Church coming round to a more liberal stance on the issue was raised at the end of a week that saw it produce a hard-hitting document that condemned same-sex marriage. The Kirk’s response to the SNP Government’s consultation on gay marriage said it believed that same-sex unions could harm the well-being of families, communities and individuals.
Read the Rev Ian Galloway’s reported comments in the online Scotsman here
This year the Church of Scotland is utterly convinced about heterosexual marriage. In 2013/14 it might not be. Words fail.
Soli Deo Gloria
I have enjoyed following your blog and generally agree with you on many things. However, I must ask why you seem to be implying the Church of Scotland can’t – or shouldn’t – change its mind. Surely the Church has changed its mind on many things over the years – ordination of women, remarriage of divorcees to name but two. And taking a longer perspective, we no longer burn supposed heretics, or beat disobedient children. If the Church is really concerned about discerning the Word of God don’t you think it is mature enough to have the freedom to respond to this as the Spirit moves us?
For what it’s worth I think the Church has given a very sensible response – this is what we think just now, but as we debate it and reflect on it and listen for the Word of God, then it’s possible we just might revise that opinion. Just as my understanding of the Word of God and my faith have evolved over the years, I think the Church should also have the ability to evolve into what God wants it to be.
Mind you, having said that, I’ll be arguing strongly against the Church changing its current stance on marriage. But if the Will of God is otherwise, I still think the Church of Scotland is broad enough to contain me.
Yours in Christ,
Dan
Dear Dan, I don’t think that the Church of Scotland should change its mind because I don’t think that God has changed his mind on the subject. I am of the opinion that God’s ‘mind’ is expressed across the breadth of scripture, and that he wishes gender complementarity. Heterosexual marriage is his plan. To be honest, the biggest part of the world Church has not changed its mind about the ordination of women and the remarriage of divorcees. Both are not thought to be part of God’s intention. You are right to say that the Church must listen to the word of God, it’s just that I don’t think we can change that word to suit our circumstances. Whilst it is true to an extent that our understanding of the word of God can change over the years, the question of gender complementarity and heterosexual marriage is so integral to the whole of the Bible that I can never envisage the Church accepting same sex marriage, if it wishes to remain a true and faithful Church. Bless you.
That the Church of Scotland has changed its mind on the ordination of women to the pastoral office and authority does not make it right nor Apostolic! It merely facilitates the slide in other areas of doctrine and practice.
The remarriage of divorcees has never been unbiblical, if the remarrying partner is the wronged party.
E Wilson – do you mean, in your final sentence, that the ‘remarriage of divorcees’ has never been considered unbiblical by most evangelicals?
The RC and Anglican communions would believe it to be unbiblical, as a generic position, at least – and some theologians on the conservative side would find it hard to see that Jesus advocated, before the death of the married partner, any ‘remarriage’.
But that’s a huge subject!
I raise it simply so that in the general context under consideration here, we are very careful to do what Louis said earlier “the Church must listen to the word of God,” in everything.
This has made me think a lot about how we hear the Word of God and how, as a Church, we respond to it. We hear it through the scriptures, certainly, but surely also through prayer and reflection, experiences we have, and the words and deeds of others. In my case it was particular experiences and the deeds of others that demonstrated the truth of Jesus in my life.
On an issue like this, scripture seems unambiguous, but I must admit to wondering about how the Church – after all a group of people – does evolve in its understanding of, and response to, scripture. We must listen for the Word of God. We must not change it to suit our circumstances as you say. But neither should we ignore or adapt it to suit our prejudices.
I believe in marriage between a man and a women. But I also admit to hearing the Word of God telling me that it should be right to celebrate true, faithful, committed love in whatever form it is manifest. Maybe that is what others in the Church are hearing as well, but their respopnse to it is different.
Now I draw a line at celebrating same sex love as Christian marriage, and my reading of scripture and all my experience tells me that it right.. (Maybe we do need some other form of liturgy to celebrate same sex partnerships?) But the real point I admit to struggling with is this. Others may be honestly hearing the Word of God differently from me though their interpretation of scripture and the actions of the Holy Spirit in their lives (not just on this issue, but on others as well) . At what point do we (should we?) recognise this as the Will of God working through the people of God (in this case the Church of Scotland) to change hearts and minds? To return to my original question, how do we acknowledge that it may be right for the Church to change its mind if the Will of God prompts a majority of its membership to change theirs?
Yours in Christ,
Dan
The Word of God is of course supreme – Sola Scriptura is simply not negotiable, so far as I am concerned- and I believe that close attention to the Written Word and understanding of God’s COVENANTAL way of relating and dealing with us indicates that the old Presbyterians were correct that remarriage of a wronged party is perfectly permissable and proper.
I know that the Anglicans and some stricter Non conformists wouldn’t allow this but I think they were/are wrong in that and the teaching enshrined in the Westminster Confession has the right of it.
Roman Catholicism is of course apostate and their autonomous laws can be disregarded. They misunderstand marriage, in any case, as a sacrament, rather than as a creation ordinance for all, not just professed Christians.
I see the CoS today has published some FAQ’s on the matter.
Q: What has changed?
A: At this point in time nothing has changed. The Church’s position remains as it was at the May 2011 General Assembly. It is clear that Church has not departed from the traditional Christian position on same sex-relationships. But it is thinking about doing so.
Or if you tweak the paragraph: For now, nothing has changed. But the Church is thinking about departing from the traditional Christian position on same-sex relationships.
It seems that the centre of 121 is intent on liberalisation.
Interesting Q&As, I admit. Found them on the Church website. As I read them it seems clear it was the General Assembly that indicated it wanted to consider departing from the current position, so not sure I understand the point about 121 (I assume you’re referring to the offices at 121 George St..? They’re not a decision making body, are they?). Anyway there’s still the opportunity to engage in debate, pray, reflect and listen for the Word of God before the Assembly makes any decisions, and even then it seems it will have to go to Presbyteries for endorsement. I’m looking forward to hearing what the Special Commission has to say on the matter, and I’ll be taking every opportunity to express my views.
However, despite my own particular views, I still think we should acknowledge the Church the freedom to respond as the Spirit moves us. The Word of God acting through the people of God. Or is the Church not mature enough to assume this responsibility?
Yours in Christ,
Dan
Dan,
Do I understand you to imply the Word of God is in a state of flux on this matter? To generations of believers it has always seemed to speak without ambiguity. Is the Spirit now to contradict all those Christians who were steeped in Scripture?
As for 121 not being a decision making body I think you are being extremely naive. It is evident the Kirk teeters on the brink of of the final stages of apostasy. Should it decide willfully to topple over the edge in a bungy jump into execrable humanistic ethics I foresee a pitiful end to her remaining meanigful witness and even existence. As for any ‘evangelicals’ who are willing to tolerate this in her midst I fear they will spiritually pay a terrible price long term for further obdurate deformation of the Kirk. I see not the slightest public leadership of the remaining Reformed to oppose this with every ounce of Protest.
Let me say that
Let me say that it would also have the effect of even further distancing the Kirk evangelicals from other evangelical Presbyterian and Bible believing Christians who would have to bear in mind the words of the Apostle: ”And other save with fear…hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.”
The grief that witnessing the Kirk in her apparent death throes affords us is incalculable, as we see congregation after congregation ruthlessly closed down and merged and whole swathes of the land left unchurched and without any Protestant witness; along with the horrible endgame of rejecting insistence on Sola Scriptura and the authority of an Infallible Scripture. May the Lord arise and scatter His foes who cannot stand His Word.
E Wilson,
I don’t believe the Word of God is in any state of flux. But maybe our understanding of it is still developing. Just as we Christians have grown in our undertsanding of the Word in the past, surely we can still do so in the future. I do believe that God is constantly challenging us in our understanding of His Word, otherwise we’re just stuck in the past. So I do believe the Church should be able to change its mind. But on this particular issue I admit I’m totally with you in that I hope and pray it doesn’t!
I don’t consider myself naive, so you’ll need to explain to me what you mean about 121. Are you sure you’re not just seeing it as a convenient scapegoat for the General Assembly (still the voice of the people in our Presbyterainism) not acting the way we’d like it to?
Yours in Christ,
Dan
First of all, the Lord’s blessing to all in this new year.
Dan,
With respect to 121, I think anyone with any sense of the supreme power of the church courts in classic presbyterianism can see that the centralised bureaucracy in 121 is an anomaly that has been allowed to mushroom out of all proper proportion to its ancilary position. It is hardly a phenomenon peculiar to the Church of Scotland, however. Most of the bigger presbyterian denominations have similar set-ups where the administrative remit begins to impinge upon the power of the Church Courts which should be unambiguously supreme but often aren’t. The church is far too complacent about top-down structures. The Word of God possesses what the Reformers and Westminister Puritans termed ‘perspicuity’ which means that although we might on occassion need to delve deeply to get the real meaning of passages yet it is never so obscure that the text is innately ambiguous or ambivalent. The teaching on sexual mores is both clear and unambiguous. However in recent decades some have lent their best efforts to turn the meaning of Scripture on its head on this subject. However Scripture nowhere recognises homosexuality as a distinct gender but only as a that it condemns as moral ‘abomination’. The attempt to overthrow this , as a recent Scotsman article essayed simply is a doomed evasive exercise of what the Scriptures themselves term ‘wresting’ the Scriptures. And whilst it is bad enough to stray off into sin, it is even worse to twist the Scriptures to condone such behaviours.
@ Dan Harrison
Hi Dan. I appreciate its been a while since you posted, but nevertheless:
—
“I must ask why you seem to be implying the Church of Scotland can’t – or shouldn’t – change its mind. Surely the Church has changed its mind on many things over the years – ordination of women, remarriage of divorcees to name but two.”
—
Indeed, for the last 60 or so years, (essentially post-WW2), the Church of Scotland has been on a path of continuous change – you give two good, prominent examples of this, and I would happily bet money that “gay marriage” will eventually become another.
From my perspective, these changes have come as the Church of Scotland follows/copies social change. Christian principle has been continually revised by misguided people who feel that the approval of secular society is a more pressing concern than Christian orthodoxy. Christianity should inform society, not vice-versa. It very much seems to me that Presbyterians have got the cart before the horse.
The Catholic Church receives a lot of criticism over it’s stances. No remariage of divorcees. No gay marriage. No female clergy. No married clergy (at least, in the Latin Rite Church, not every group in communion with Rome forbids marriage). etc etc. It chooses not to change its principles in the face of secular criticism.
Logically, the road the Church of Scotland has been going down makes some form of sense. One would think that, the less “barriers” (if you will) a Church has,which might dissuade someone from attending Church, then the more succesfuly and relevant that Church would become. For example, women can not claim to have a gripe, if they can fulfill all the same church roles as can men. Homosexuals cannot claim to have a gripe, if a Church is happy to pretend that there is no fundamental difference between homo- and heterosexuality. Given the Church of Scotland has been dropping “barriers” and trying to be fully “inclusive”, we would expect the Church of Scotland to be a popular, attractive and vibrant Church.
However, in reality, we see the polar opposite result from what we logically expect above. The Church of Scotland is not generally popular, attractive to many, nor at all vibrant. Despite it being the National Church, it is not even the best attended Church – rather, a mere “also ran”. It is not an influential or socially relevant Church – in the recent gay marriage consultation, the CoS finally managed to mumble some kind of contribution barely one week before the consulation closed, having being ultimately shamed into doing so by its conspicuous silence. (Compare to the Catholic Bishops who had prominently led opposition throughout). It’s membership has collapsed in recent decades, and it may well cease to exist in 20 – 30 years. It barely has two pennies to rub together. There is no unified belief in the denomination, nor anything remotely resembling it – one congregation will say homosexuality cannot be sanctioned, but just up the road another group have a gay man as minister, happily living in the presbytrey with his boyfriend. Credibility is notably absent.
Anyway, I find this reality quite compelling, expecially in contrast with tthe results we would reasonably expect when a Church will happily abandon Christian Orthodoxy, to curry secular favour. We see a similar marked decline among many other protestant denominatons which have gone down the same revisionist path.
How do you find it?
I think the lesson here is that the CoS has been drifting further and further from Christ for many years now, as the decline shows. On many issues, the CoS think they know better than Jesus Christ (especially in cases where Christ’s example may draw criticism in the modern age). But, as the current predicament of the CoS – terminal decline – shows, they do not.
Of course, Mr Wright, the Kirk has lost much of its prophetic power and authority- reduced as you say to virtually coerced ‘mumbling’ on controversial moral issues, and the reason is perfectly simple. Since at least 1910 ( the year it set itself officially adrift from the authentic Kirk’s Doctrinal Platform ) it has been departing ever further from the true Christian stance of being Reformed according to Holy Scripture Alone.
The Church of Rome of course, departed from that centuries ago- even ensuring an official ‘curse/anathema’ on such an outrageously anti-clerical doctrine. We must not mistake Rome’s apparent current moral rectitude at face value. For instance, forbidding the wronged party in divorce is not Biblical but sanctimoniously cruel self righteousness. Similarly enforced priestly celibacy.
And of course history fully indicates just how corruoted and defective the ‘indefectible’ church has been down the centuries, clearly indicating the need to be semper reformanda!
Quick corrections to latter part of last post!
We must not TAKE Rome’s apparent…forbidding the wronged party in divorce TO REMARRY….