Over the last couple of months there have been some issues hitting the news that are tied to the action of the Church of Scotland deciding at their General Assembly last May to start down a trajectory that in about three or four years could lead to the training and ordination of active homosexuals as church officers.

The first item is pretty recent hitting the media earlier this week. While it has been picked up by several media outlets, all reports seem to be based on a November 14 article in The Guardian with the headline “Gay clergy row threatens mass resignations from Church of Scotland: Breakaway church possible with up to 150 ministers ready to quit over ordination of gay clergy.”

Let me first compliment the article as a whole for being balanced reporting concerning this issue but criticize the headline and the lede for being a bit sensationalistic.  When you read the story you find that the figure of 150 mass resignations comes from one source, Kirk Session Clerk Mike Strudwick of Gilcomston South Church, a church that is looking to leave the Church of Scotland. He may well be right about the mass resignations.  The article tells it like this:

[Strudwick] predicted other churches opposed to gay ordination could follow, and
perhaps form a new breakaway church. He said he could “well believe”
there were 150 ministers considering resignation.

It also attributes to him the idea that “Maybe five or six years down the line there will be a grouping of like-minded evangelical Presbyterian churches.”

But no one else quoted in the article will go nearly so far in predicting the future of the Kirk.  The article says this about the statement from the official spokesman

However, a spokesman for the Church of Scotland denied that so many
ministers were threatening to leave and urged critics of gay ordination
to wait until a theological commission reported in 2013.

The Rev. Ian Watson, a leader in the evangelical group Forward Together, is described as holding the opinion that “only a few ministers would leave in the near future.” He is quoted as saying

“If there will be an exit, it will be two, three years down the line at least.”

As a side note, Forward Together has their annual meeting tomorrow so we will see if additional insights come out of that.

On the other side of the question the article says this:

The Rev Peter Johnston, of the liberal One Kirk [sic] group which supports
gay ordination, said he believed some rebels were threatening to leave
simply to put pressure on the church, but hoped most critics wanted to
keep talking about a harmonious solution.

The general assembly’s
decision “does leave them in an awkward position”, he said. “I can grasp
that but the majority of folk in the Church of Scotland want to see
what the theological commission comes back with. From our perspective,
we’re still trying to keep dialogue open with all people.”

And the article accurately captures one major barrier to departure, the same barrier faced in many Presbyterian denominations including the PC(USA).

One obstacle to mass departures is that ministers who resign loses their
home, income and future pension payments. Congregations would lose
their church and its buildings.

So thanks to the Guardian for letting each voice be heard.  As a transition to the next issue let me include two more lines from the article.  The first looks ahead to the next GA:

Critics of this strict ruling [referring to the loss of home, pension and buildings] are thought to be planning to contest it
in May, in a bid to give rebellious ministers greater protection.

The next is a quote from the Kirk’s official spokesman that points out that this issue is far from resolved:

The Church of Scotland spokesman added: “It is disappointing that any
ministers or members feel the need to leave the church before the
commission reports.

“We stress that no final decisions have been taken, and the church is currently holding more dialogue on this issue.”

The fact that no final decisions have been taken is the key polity point in the second item rattling around the Scottish media right now.

The Scottish Government is in the midst of a 14-week Consultation on Marriage that will conclude on 9 December. The consultation asks for input on introducing same-sex marriages and religious ceremonies for civil unions.  Because the Church of Scotland is in the midst of its own discussion and study of these topics, in very Presbyterian fashion it has declined to contribute to the government discussion.  Until a future General Assembly, and possibly the presbyteries under the Barrier Act, make an explicit decision on the topic, the Kirk is remaining silent. The silence is also required under the moratorium on commenting on the issue the GA has put in place while the issue is being studied. Well, sort of…

While most of the Kirk has remained quiet, the silence is not exclusive and the Lewis Presbytery has, as a body, let the government know of their opposition.

On the other side, the Rev. Scott Rennie, the partnered gay minister whose call to an Aberdeen church precipitated the current controversy, has been talking to the media and has expressed his support for the government changing the definition of marriage.

And the group Forward Together has submitted a response to the Scottish Government and made a copy of the official form available on their web site.

Finally, a statement by the Kirk, published by Defend Marriage in Scotland, leaves the door open for a “properly considered response” coming through the Legal Questions Committee which usually responds with more of an eye to the civil legalities than the theological and doctrinal angle.

Other churches, including other Presbyterian branches, have not been silent on the issue.  The Free Church of Scotland has issued an official statement through their Commission of Assembly. The statement begins

The Commission of Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, (5th
October 2011), wishes to express its deep dismay over the Scottish
Government’s current proposals to introduce same sex marriage in
Scotland. Its opposition does not arise out of any kind of homophobia,
but a concern that 1) the timeless definition of marriage as the
voluntary union of one man and one woman would be changed irreversibly
and 2) the timeless institution of marriage would be permanently
undermined if the government effectively changes its meaning to include
same sex couples.

Many churches, both congregations and denominations, have given input to the consultation on both sides of the issue. In particular, there were articles today (e.g. Christian Concern) about 70 church leaders representing 20,000 members, sending a letter to the First Minister urging the government to keep the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. These signatories include at least a few from the Church of Scotland, including the Rev. Dominic Smart of – wait for it – Gilcomston South Church, the church of the Kirk Session Clerk I began with at the beginning of this post.

As was pointed out earlier, this is an issue that has a long way to go. Maybe an organized group will develop that will pull out of the Church of Scotland en masse. Maybe it will be in one’s and two’s over the next few years as the discussion progresses. We will have to wait and see. The journey continues…

Update (1 Dec 2011): The Church of Scotland has weighed in on the consultation regarding same-sex marriage with a “no, not at this time.”  There is a brief press release with a summary of the main points as well as the full 19 page response form.  In addition to outlining where the Church of Scotland is at this time, including the process that was put in motion by the 2011 General Assembly, they weigh in with this concerning the issue at hand:

The Church of Scotland cannot agree that the law in Scotland should be
changed to allow same-sex marriage. The Government’s proposal
fundamentally changes marriage as it is understood in our country and
our culture – that it is a relationship between one man and one woman.
In common with the historic position of the Christian Church, the Church
of Scotland has always viewed marriage as being between one man and one
woman. Scriptural references to marriage, whether literal or
metaphorical, all operate under this understanding. To redefine marriage
to include same-sex marriage may have significant and, as yet,
inadequately considered repercussions for our country, for the
well-being of families, communities and individuals.

They go on to say

The Church of Scotland is concerned about the speed with which the
Scottish Government is proceeding on this issue, and believes that the
debate has so far been patchy, undeveloped and exclusive of both
ordinary people and the religious community. The Government states that
the purpose of this proposal to re-define marriage is to accommodate the
wishes of some same-sex couples. The Church believes that much more
measured consideration is required before the understanding of marriage
which is entrenched and valued within the culture of Scotland, both
secular and religious, is surrendered to accommodate this wish.