[Editorial note: Before I begin with the news I did want to let my readers know that life has gotten busy and my blog writing production has dropped off. The family events are good and exciting but time consuming. That last massive post took me five days. As my list of news items to blog about quickly increases I anticipate a few shorter posts to cover some of them and probably bumping some of the others off the list. Thanks for your understanding.]<\/p>\n
When we last looked<\/a> at a controversial pastoral call in the Church of Scotland<\/a> the Commission of Assembly had decided not to rule on the protest of the presbytery’s concurrence with the call but to let the upcoming full General Assembly<\/a> decide the matter. Well, in the last few days the issue has hit the press and has increased in visibility and verbiage, as well as published opinion. What was happening “decently and in order” as we Presbyterians like suddenly is having its trial in the press.<\/p>\n First the background: The Rev. Scott Rennie, a partnered gay man, was called by Queen’s Cross Church<\/a>, Aberdeen, to be their new pastor. The Presbytery of Aberdeen<\/a> concurred but 12 commissioners protested the decision because of Mr. Rennie’s lifestyle. As I said, the Commission of Assembly, a body with interim authority between Assembly meetings, heard the protest and decided this was of such significance that the full Assembly needed to deal with it. So we were waiting for the Assembly meeting in just about a month.<\/p>\n Over the last few days the issue has now flared up in the press. It appears to have begun with an editorial in the latest issue of the Church of Scotland’s monthly publication Life and Work<\/i><\/a>. The magazine is editorially independent and appears only in print so the editorial is not available on-line as best as I can tell. Accounts all seem to agree that the editorial in the latest issue takes the side of the Rev. Rennie. As the Rev. Louis Kinsey says about this<\/a> in his blog Coffee with Louis<\/a>:<\/p>\n In her editorial, Muriel Armstrong writes about the General Assembly The serious mistake that Life & Work<\/i> has made here is Mr. Kinsey goes on to fault the magazine not for being editorially independent but for being “so manifestly one-sided and unbalanced.” And his concern is with the timing so close to the beginning of GA it will influence the commissioners. And he has concerns about how she has formed her opinions:<\/p>\n How can she know the evidence? Has she seen all of it? If not, and I And Mr. Kinsey finishes with this:<\/p>\n The editorial ends with a swipe at the dissenters, reminding us of our You can also check out media coverage of the editorial by the BBC<\/a> and Christian Today<\/a>.<\/p>\n But this editorial and the Rev. Kinsey’s response was only the beginning. Yesterday Mr. Ron Ferguson authored an opinion piece in The Herald<\/a> that raised the possibility of a modern split in the Church of Scotland like the Disruption of 1843. Again Mr. Kinsey responds<\/a> to this article saying:<\/p>\n A divide may indeed eventually come over the issue of the affair of In addition, The Herald has posted some letters to the editor<\/a> on both sides of the issue.<\/p>\n With these two opinion pieces being widely reported the blogosphere has lit up as well, including this post. Others discussing it include Anglican Mainstream<\/a>, Euangelion<\/a>, and Gay Religion<\/a> among many others.<\/p>\n While I expected this to be a major focus at the Assembly, I am a bit surprised that it has become such a high-visibility story ahead of the Assembly. I expect that we can see statements from Forward Together<\/a> and Affirmation Scotland<\/a> leading up to the meeting. We will see how much more this issue develops in the next month.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" [Editorial note: Before I begin with the news I did want to let my readers know that life has gotten busy and my blog writing production has dropped off. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[37,3,40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-619","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-church-of-scotland","category-news","category-ordination-standards"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nof the Kirk, shortly to take place in Edinburgh, and focuses entirely
\non the case of the Rev Scott Rennie, whose call to the congregation of
\nQueen\u2019s Cross in Aberdeen is being resisted by dissenters from that
\nPresbytery, amongst whom I am one.<\/p>\n
\nthat the magazine attempts to argue this case and to bring it to a
\nliberal conclusion long before the General Assembly even convenes. How
\ncan it be considered fair or proper to discuss a case and to say what
\nthe outcome should be before the Kirk\u2019s highest court has convened and
\ndebated? This is simply prejudice, not journalism.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nmost sincerely hope she has not, for the evidence is confidential, how
\ncan she offer anything resembling a responsible point of view. Her
\neditorial is factually incomplete and numerically misleading. It is
\nnaive about the way scripture is to be read and used in the modern
\nworld. It also demonstrates remarkable ignorance of the biblical and
\ntheological issues that are involved, choosing to try and conclude the
\nargument with a few sweeping generalizations about homosexuality and
\nthe integrity of relationships. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nordination vows – which we are presumably forgetting – vows about the
\npreservation of the peace and unity of the church, the very peace and
\nunity that is being threatened by those who press this matter,
\nincluding Life & Work<\/i>, and not by the dissenters. It is no wonder at all that Life & Wor<\/i>k
\nis so disregarded in evangelical congregations and by evangelical
\nministers and elders… It presents itself as the magazine of a
\nbroad church, but it is clear that the broadness of the church works
\nonly in one direction. It is a broadness that suits those who are
\ntheologically liberal but which shows a growing intolerance towards
\nevangelicals and their theology. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nAberdeen Presbytery, but whatever form and shape it will take, it will
\nonly be the visible manifestation of a divide that has existed for some
\ntime.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n