Today the Commission of Assembly of the Church of Scotland deliberated another case regarding standards for ordained office, this one regarding the call of a partnered gay pastor to Queen’s Cross Church in the Presbytery of Aberdeen.
The Rev. Scott Rennie was called to serve as pastor of Queen’s Cross Church and this call was approved by the Presbytery of Aberdeen back in January by a vote of 60-24. (For more details and reaction you can check my first and second posts from that time.) This is not an ordination question. Mr. Rennie is ordained and was in a heterosexual marriage previous to his current life style. The Church of Scotland does not have the case law that the PC(USA) has in the GAPJC Sallade v. Genesee Valley decision that says “this commission holds that a self-affirmed practicing homosexual may
not be invited to serve in a Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) position that
presumes ordination.”
Following the vote twelve ministers and elders appealed the decision of Presbytery to the General Assembly and the appeal was debated by the Commission of Assembly today. One of those appellants was the Rev. Louis Kinsey who wrote about the appeal yesterday in his Coffee With Louis blog. The Commission of Assembly, not to be confused with the Council of Assembly, is a subgroup of the Assembly comprised of 10% of the commissioners to the last Assembly. It has interim authority to make decisions on many matters for the current Assembly.
Thanks to the Rev. Ian Watson for letting us know that today the Commission decided that this issue was significant enough that it should be decided by the full Assembly and not this subgroup. But it was by the slim margin of 42 to 41. The Rev. Watson’s take is that they decided not to decide. He is significantly closer to the situation both geographically and connectionally, so he may very well be right that the Commission decided not to wade into these waters but leave it for the next Assembly in May. But in light of the caution shown by 2007 General Assembly to invoke the Barrier Act and send the issue of blessing same-gender unions out to the Presbyteries, I interpret this decision similarly as the Commission deciding to involve the greater wisdom of the wider church and greater buy-in to the final decision. I would like to think that they are not ducking the issue but rather considering “discretion the greater part of valor.” And as always, I could be completely wrong. I have a lot less experience and no “boots on the ground” like Mr. Watson has.
So, this now goes on the docket for the 2009 General Assembly and we will have to see where it goes from there. Again, the journey continues.
From Ian Watson: I’m sorry if I gave the impression that the Commission were ducking the issue. You’re reading of the situation is accurate – the feeling is that it’s too important an issue to be left to such a small group. I believe this is the first time the Commission has excerised the right to remit a case to the General Assembly. Many thanks for your interest in the matter.
Rev. Watson,
Thank you so much for your update yesterday. While I was certain I would hear news on your blog, I must admit that was the only source I could find at 9 PM Los Angeles time last night. I’m sure there will be more today. In fact, I see that you have multiple entries in your blog to give me a starting point.
I apologize if I over-interpreted your double exclamation points. Not being familiar with the usual expectations of the Commission of Assembly I personally expected them to tread carefully. Thanks for the added note about this being the first time that they have remitted a case to the GA. I must admit that in following the Church of Scotland from this distance this was the first time I had really heard about the Commission of Assembly. But based on the past history you mention I can understand your surprise, if that is what the exclamation points indicate, that they passed this one on to the full Assembly.
Thanks for the insights you provide into the Church of Scotland, both in your comments here as well as your faithfulness on your blog. A couple of days ago you mentioned how the case was being followed in other churches. While I can’t say it is a major topic here in the States, I will affirm that the parallels in issues in the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) do make this of interest to some of us in this corner of global Presbyterianism. We appreciate the news and local interpretation. Blessings.
I’m delighted that this has been taken so seriously, and will certainly pray for wisdom and God’s will to prevail at the GA. I fasted and prayed yesterday, but felt the most likely outcome would be that the Committee would feel it was sufficient that Queens Cross were happy to accept him. Seems like the prayers of God’s people can be more effective than we sometimes believe!