With about two days since the Assembly made its decision in the case of the Dissent and Complaint Against a Decision by the Presbytery of Aberdeen more information and reaction is now available on the web.

First, for the details of the Assembly session I have found no better source than the official audio summary from the Church of Scotland found on the Daily News Updates page.  For those interested in the polity details there is no other source that goes into the details of how the case proceeded and what was actually being decided.  This case was not about the particular individual or ordination standards in general, but whether the Presbytery of Aberdeen had specifically followed the procedures for reviewing the call to the charge as stated in Acts VIII 2003 (DOC Format).  (That is a church law reference, not a scriptural one.)

Specifically, the two points of complaint were:

Aberdeen Presbytery was therefore wrong to take a decision that was contrary to the stated position and practice of the Church in sustaining the call to a minister in a self professed active homosexual relationship.

The Presbytery of Aberdeen, in sustaining the call to a minister in an avowedly active homosexual relationship, has also acted contrary to the commitment to ‘prayerful dialogue’ urged on us all by the General Assembly of 2007.

The problem that the complainers had was that there is no specific section in the Church of Scotland polity that sets standards for these situations in the manner of the PC(USA) G-6.0106b.  (Hence today’s overture.)  The complaint argues from “the historic and orthodox position of the church,” and a 2007 GA report that says the Kirk does not see orientation as a barrier to service but that there is disagreement over homosexual activity.  The complaint also says “The ordination and induction of active homosexuals has never been the accepted practice of the Church of Scotland or the Church catholic, except where there has first been a clear debate and decision to ordain active homosexuals.”

A few other interesting details about the process from the audio update:  The commissioners from the presbytery against which the complaint is filed (Aberdeen) may not participate as commissioners or vote.  Being a judicial case the commissioners are to come to the case without “preconceived notions.”  This is a bit different than my previous comments.  In the discussion about the wider effects of this cases outcome the commissioners were informed that a decision in a judicial case does not set standards for the wider church and that whether a particular case sets a precedent can not be know at the time of the case but only when it is used as precedent in a future case.  Finally, the vote was not a yes/no vote but rather a vote on two different motions, one supporting and one denying the dissent.

There was plenty of comment about the decision, as you can imagine, but the two Scottish bloggers that seem to have the best read of the situation are Stewart Cutler and Chris Hoskins.  Neither disappointed in their analysis and comments on the day.  In addition to a brief post Saturday night with the results of the case Stewart posted on Sunday about being between the two votes and the fact the situation was unsettled.  (He also has a reaction to the motion passed today about the standards, but I’ll get to that another time.)

Chris Hoskins has an extensive post about Saturday and closes with a paragraph worth reading about the evening session to hear the case.  Here is what he wrote:

Saturday evening was interesting. At the start of the evening I wasn’t
that as bothered about the outcome as I was about how the debate was
conducted. I don’t want to talk here about the outcome, plenty of
people are doing that, I want to talk about attitudes (again). I was
worried that people would be hostile and disrespectful to one another
during the debate. I think the way that the moderator handled the night
was fantastic. He made it clear from the start that he would not
tolerate ungracious behaviour and that he would not tolerate people
cheering or jeering. Overall I thought everyone did a great job of
upholding this. I thought that both parties did a great job of keeping
focused on the actual issue, and not allowing themselves to be derailed
from that. I was so grateful and proud for the respect, grace and
dignity that was displayed for all those who were involved and by all
those who spoke during the debate. The attitudes displayed gave me hope
for the future debates that will be had on this issue.

A couple of other blog reactions worth noting.  John Ross at Recycled Missionaries has a long post on the theological decline in the Kirk titled A New Church For Scotland?  There is another long post at Clerical Whispers which looks at the Church of Scotland decision in the context of other churches, particularly the Church of England which is a bit closer to Clerical Whispers’ regular territory of the Irish Roman Catholic church.  Two other bloggers close to the controversy, Rev. Louis Kinsey at Coffee With Louis and Rev. Ian Watson at Kirkmuirhillrev have not posted any extensive or personal comments about the vote yet.  I am sure they will when the time is right and I look forward to their thoughts.

(UPDATE: Much of this post was written before the motion at the Monday session that now asks members of the church not to comment to the press or on-line about these issues.  In light of that new request we will have to see how individuals respond to the proceedings of the Assembly.  As I mention above, I am working on a post about the request for not commenting.)

At this time I have not seen any official statements yet from two of the groups that are part of the discussion, The Fellowship of Confessing Churches and Forward Together. OneKirk did issue a press release expressing their approval of the decision.  I am sure that more will be forthcoming now that the near-term situation is better known with today’s decision to study the issue.

Finally, I need not tell any GA Junkie that for the media the vote on Saturday night was simply about ordination standards and not process.  At least Ekklesia acknowledges the nature of the vote.  While the middle part of the article says “Although those campaigning against Mr Rennie purely because he is gay and in a faithful relationship…” they do have at the very end “The decision the Assembly took this evening was not specifically on the
question of sexuality, but about the rightness of the decision taken by
the local Presbytery in Aberdeen.”

I wish I could say much good about this Associated Press article published on the KXMC web site.  The AP headline is “Church of Scotland votes to appoint gay minister.”  The article begins with this line:  “LONDON (AP) There’s a new Anglican church conflict over
sexuality this time, in Scotland.”  I’m sorry, the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, not Anglican.  (A similar mix-up is apparent in the news story headlined “Another gay appointment rocks Anglican Church” from On Top Magazine who claims to have gotten the story from The Guardian.  I could not find that error in the Guardian Story so at some point they will probably catch the mistake and correct the text.)

And the Herald had an interesting and extensive article about the debate titled “Landmark Victory or Ecclesiastical Fudge?”  This question of a “fudge” gets back to the polity issue that the case, in and of itself, does not set a precedent but must wait for future cases to evaluate it’s precedent-setting status, or lack there of.  The article is worth reading if for no other reason that it provides more quotes from the debate than I have seen in any other source.

There is certain to be more on this as everyone considers the two different actions taken as a package and snapshot of the Assembly.  In particular, the Herald has an article saying that conservatives think they may yet be able to stop the Rev. Rennie’s appointment.  We will wait for more developments.