The 2006 General Assembly will be remembered as the Assembly that debated two controversial issues. The first was raised in a petition entitled “A Voice for the Local Church.” The petition gave expression to a widely shared concern of congregations that recent administrative changes had fundamentally altered the nature of the Kirk, that too much power had of late been transferred from the local church and Presbytery to a few people within the Central Administration.
Dr Cairns the petitioner believed–
–that the ending of presbytery representation on the Assembly’s Boards and Councils had emasculated the local church’s ability to influence decisions and priorities;
–that the way in which stipend money is now in-gathered had fundamentally changed the minister-congregation relationship;
–that those who contribute the funds that are spent centrally are now effectively denied any say in where their giving goes;
–that General Assembly debates are so organised that it is very difficult for commissioners to challenge national policy and priorities.
Whereas the radical Church Without Walls report, which was accepted by the Assembly in 2000 A.D., recommended a devolution of power and responsibility to the grass roots, real power and control has in fact become more and more centralised. The petition was an understandable reaction to an executive that has recently tended to inform more than consult. The debate resulted in the Assembly appointing a Commission of seven people to examine and report on the effect of recent central administration changes on congregations and presbyteries, and church life in general.
The second controversial debate concerned the explosive issue of homosexuality. What triggered this contentious matter was a report from a church committee not normally associated with controversy–the Kirk’s legal questions committee, a committee never previously thought of as being a cell for theological terrorists. At present ministers have the freedom of pastoral conscience to marry or not to remarry those who have been divorced. The legal questions committee sought to extend this freedom to blessing or not blessing civil partnerships. The effect of such legislation would mean that if a minister was approached by a Christian gay couple who had entered into a civil partnership, he or she would be free to consider the case on its merits, without fear of later being disciplined by the Church. The committee was equally concerned to safeguard the rights of those ministers who in conscience could not affirm same sex relationships, even though legally recognised.
When this report was published several weeks before the Assembly, it ‘let loose the theological dogs of war’ as one columnist put it. The Kirk’s evangelical pressure group quickly produced a pamphlet ‘Forward Together’, in which they argued that the Kirk would be flying in the face of the Bible, and that such permissive legislation would have a major impact on the unity of the Church. Though evangelicals are right to argue that the church should not allow its agenda to be dictated by cultural trends, the weakness of their case lies in their talk about the ‘plain meaning of Scripture’. These same phrases were used for centuries not only in relation to women’s ordination, but in the historic argument about slavery. In 1790, Representative James Jackson from Georgia argued powerfully in the legislative assembly that slavery was clearly God’s will. His argument was based on certain carefully selected biblical passages that he quoted. Jackson spoke also of the impact the abolition of slavery would have–on the economy!
Shortly after the publication of ‘Forward Together’ two other groups were quickly formed. The first, calling itself ‘Affirmation Scotland’ argued for an inclusive and open church that welcomes gays. Its leading figure is Professor George Newlands of Glasgow University. In an article in the Scotsman he argued that how we treat gay people is the litmus test for the church. “If we believe what we say about the unconditional love of God, we must practise what we preach.” He quoted Desmond Tutu. “We are made to tell the world that there are no outsiders.”
The third group that came into being, called itself ‘One Kirk’. It consisted of moderates who simply backed the recommendation of the legal questions committee, the safe-guarding of the right of ministers to make their own pastoral decision whether or not to bless civil partnerships. Its big hitters included Professor David Fergusson of New College and several former moderators.
Historically the Church of Scotland has made up its mind on major issues both by studying the scriptures and by seeking the guidance of the spirit in the light of new knowledge. We know today things about the spectrum of human sexuality unknown to Biblical writers.
Ron Ferguson, the columnist I quoted, says, “My own mind was changed by the experience of meeting Christian gays. I know same-sex couples of tremendous faith and long-standing commitment to each other who would put many heterosexual couples to shame.”
My hope was that the differing groups within the Assembly would argue their case in love, for though opinions may be mistaken, love never is. I was not disappointed. At the close of the debate two newspaper journalists said to the moderator that they had never listened to a better debate.
At the end of what was a long afternoon session, brilliantly handled by Moderator Alan Macdonald from St Andrews, the Assembly voted for the recommendation of the Legal Questions Committee, with the proviso that it be sent down to Presbyteries for discussion prior to a final vote being taken at next year’s Assembly.
James A. Simpson is a retired minister and former moderator of the Church of Scotland.
