The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland convenes in Edinburgh this Thursday. I’ll post once more before the Moderator calls the commissioners to order so that I can talk about something else.
But if you only read the mainstream media on this side of the world you would think that the Assembly is about one thing, and only one thing — The suitability of the lifestyle of a partnered gay man for service as the pastor at a church in Aberdeen.
I would like to think that the Assembly will deal with this in its usual decently and in order fashion. In fact, I expect that it will having followed these debates for a while. What I don’t know about will be what will happen after that.
The other problem that I have is that I am following this from 8261.97 km away. (That would be 5133.75 mi for those of us who only know the metric system as 2-liter bottles.) I have been struck in the last week by the prolific, and frankly hyperbolic, coverage by the media. They seem to be almost exclusively focusing on the conflict and “impending doom” that this controversy in the Church of Scotland will cause. Yes, there is coverage of other issues, but usually in an “oh, by the way” manner.
The hot topic of the week was the sermon preached on the last Lord’s Day by the Rev. Ian Watson. The title was “Jude: Fighting Truth Decay #3” and it is available on the Rev. Watson’s blog. (And I must trust that what is posted on the blog is what was preached.) From that the media got the following headlines
Anti-gay ‘Nazi’ slur causes Church of Scotland outrage – Ekklesia
Anti-gay Minister the Rev Ian Watson in ‘Nazi battle’ outrage – Times Online
Minister compares fight against homosexual clergy to resistance of Nazis – The Telegraph
Having read these articles and the sermon they are based on there is clearly a reference and implicit analogy to the run-up to the Second World War that would strike a nerve in many people. Related to that, here is exactly what the Rev. Watson posted on his blog. The Introduction:
There are very few people who enjoy conflict. The vast majority of
decent people will do almost anything to avoid situations of
confrontation. So, the soup may be cold, the meat tough and the
pudding inedible, but when the waiter asks us if we are enjoying our
meal we’ll smile and nod. We don’t want to complain, we don’t want to
make a fuss. We’ll even pay for the privilege.
This is how bullies succeed. They realize that no matter how
unhappy we are with their behaviour we’re not going to stand up to
them, because the last thing we want is a shouting match.
That was the gamble Hitler took when he marched German troops into
the Rhineland in March 1936 in breach of a condition forced on Germany
after World War 1. It was a huge gamble. If the French army,
stationed on the other side of the border, had marched against him, the
Germans would have had to retreat and there’s no doubt Hitler’s regime
would have collapsed. But he guessed correctly that the French had no
stomach for a fight. If only they had, then the tragedy of a second
World War might have been avoided.
And from the Conclusion
Let me assure you, neither I nor like-minded minsters enjoy
conflict. We long to be getting on with the work of the gospel in our
parishes. It’s a distraction we could do without.
But have we learned nothing from history? Remember Hitler and the
re-taking of the Rhineland. He got away with it. No one stopped him.
So next it was Austria, then Czechoslovakia, and then Poland and only
then world war.
I can’t help asking myself: if we say nothing, do nothing at this
time, what next? What scriptural truth is next for shaving? The
uniqueness of Christ as our only Saviour? The nature of God as Holy
Trinity?
What moral standards will we depart from? Can we expected unmarried
couples in our manses? A line has to be drawn in the sand, or the
whole edifice will come tumbling down (now there’s a mixed metaphor for
you!)
In between he makes no further reference to these events but talks about various conflicts in church history and his scripture passage, Jude 3-4, particularly v. 3 where it says
Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we
share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for
the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
While many people found Mr. Watson’s sermon illustration disturbing, the press reports that I have read focused on the Germany analogy and did not properly convey, in my opinion, the full sense of the sermon. In addition the media states that many religious and political leaders have expressed disapproval, but are weak backing that up with quotes. The Telegraph article does give two reactions:
Rev Peter Macdonald, the leader elect of the Iona Community and
minister of St George’s West, Edinburgh, told The Times he found the
sermon disturbing while Rev Lindsay Biddle, chaplain of Affirmation
Scotland, a pro-homosexual group, said: “If you don’t like homosexuals,
then get on with it – but don’t use the Bible to justify opinions.”
And a defense from Rev. Watson
Rev Watson defended his sermon: “There is no doubt that there is a
conflict,” he said. “I was trying to explain why I am engaged in this.
People say to me, ‘This is not a hill to die on’, but I think it is a
fight worth fighting. “Evangelicals seek to defend the historic and
orthodox Christian faith. If we don’t what are we? I am a man of
convictions.”
So while I can see Rev. Watson’s perspective and why some are offended and concerned by the comments, I still find the media reports as superficial and too focused on the most controversial aspects. (And I would note that I have searched Rev. Watson’s posted text a couple of times and he does not actually use the term “Nazi” himself, instead referring to “Hitler” and “Germany.” I don’t know if the media uses the term for brevity or impact?)
The other thread that is going around related to this story, and again promoted more by the media than in direct statements that I am reading, is the prospect of schism. In the Telegraph article I have already quoted from the second paragraph opens with
His [The Rev. Watson’s] comments will widen divisions within the Kirk over the appointment of an openly gay minister to a parish church last year.
As far as I can tell this article is firmly in the News section, not the opinion, so I would fault the writer, Alastair Jamieson, for the inclusion of the “will widen” without a direct attribution. Yes, in the next paragraph he writes
Rev Kenneth MacKenzie, the minister at Crathie Kirk, near Balmoral,
which is attended by the Queen, has warned a schism would occur if his
appointment was confirmed.
But the way the article is constructed it appears Mr. Jamieson is using the Rev. MacKenzie’s statement to support his own thesis rather than report on other people’s concerns about divisions. And in many of these articles quotes from those who do not think there will be division are missing.
I should point out some good coverage of the issue. Two good examples come from the BBC. There is one story that tones down the headline a bit with “Church Split Warning Over Gay Row.” It also contains a 15 minute video that has a very good conversation between two CofS ministers, the Rev. Randall and the Rev. Gilchrist, discussing the issue and theological viewpoints. And they make the very important point that this controversy is about standards for ordained office, something that you could not tell from two of the three headlines I listed above. (Style points to the Telegraph for bringing that out in the headline.) The second article is on William Crawley’s religion blog Will & Testament. I enjoy William’s writing because it is usually balanced, well informed and relevant. This article is no exception.
At a news conference earlier this week the Moderator Designate, the Rev. Bill Hewitt, refused to answer questions about the issue, just saying it was his job to oversee the Assembly debate.
Finally, in another post William Crawley notes that religious leaders in Northern Ireland have added their names to the petition from The Fellowship of Confessing Churches that urges the restriction on those called to the pastorate. He points out that the list of signatories includes several former moderators of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.
I expect not to address this issue again before it comes to the floor of Assembly at the end of this week. Debate on the filed protest of Aberdeen Presbytery’s actions is docketed for Saturday evening. I expect to be live blogging it. I do want to finish one more post before the Assembly begins, especially since there is another important matter that won’t come to the floor until next year, but will have an influence on several other items of business. (Update: Thanks to Iain I have been informed that there are not plans to webcast the Saturday evening debate. I guess I’ll have to depend on the reports after the debate.)
