Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Disciplinary threat to Kirk minister after he defies ban on gay debate

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 May 2009
A KIRK minister could face disciplinary action after sending a letter to The Scotsman criticising the decision to allow the appointment of openly gay minister Rev Scott Rennie.
The Rev David Randall, of Loudoun Church, Newmilns, Irvine, condemned the Assembly's decision, saying it had shown "fundamentally unjust, illogical and lamentable inconsistency" in upholding Aberdeen Presbytery's move to appoint Mr Rennie to Queen's
Cross Church.

However, his letter may flout an instruction issued by the Kirk on Monday that members of its courts, councils and committees "not issue press statements, talk to the media or make decisions in relation to contentious matters of human sexuality" for a two-year period.

In that time, a commission will examine the issue of the ordination of openly homosexual ministers.

In his letter, Mr Randall writes: "This year's General Assembly, in taking the Kirk away from clear Biblical teaching, orthodox Christianity and the worldwide church, has made a huge mistake with far-reaching consequences. A ball has been started rolling now that, I fear, cannot be stopped."

He also claims ministers were on the verge of leaving and had ripped up certificates of membership, while many were considering refusing to make financial contributions.

Speaking yesterday, Mr Randall said he did not feel he was subject to the Assembly's instruction as he was speaking an individual minister, and therefore was only required to observe the part of Monday's motion which "urged" members who are subjects to the "discipline of the Courts of the Church" to act in accordance with the moratorium.

However, all serving ministers are technically members of a local presbytery court.

Mr Randall said: "The whole thing has been fudged. There's been desperation to avoid a big schismatic moment. I don't think things will cool down during the next two years."

Kirk lawyers said yesterday that a decision on whether Mr Randall had breached the Church's instructions was the responsibility of Irvine and Kilmarnock Presbytery.

Last night, the clerk of the presbytery, the Rev Colin Brockie, said he would be examining the letter before forming any opinion. Both traditionalists and liberals in the Kirk have voiced concern about what has been characterised as a "gagging clause" and the difficulty in enforcing it.

The issue of Mr Rennie's appointment was also raised obliquely in the Assembly's proceedings yesterday, when concern was voiced about an editorial article on the case of homosexual ministers which appeared in the church's in-house magazine, Life and Work, and took a liberal stance.

The article was branded a "serious mistake" by the evangelical Forward Together group, which has campaigned against the magazine, claiming that it was "prejudiced and unbalanced" in attempting to prejudge the outcome of a case before it had come before the Assembly.

The Assembly agreed to carry out an investigation into the "place of an editorially independent Life and Work in relation to the mission work of the Church" and to ensure there was enough support for the editor of the magazine. Speaking following the debate, the magazine's acting editor, Muriel Armstrong, said that she had been referencing past Assembly discussions on human sexuality in forming her editorial

She added: "I only recalled what had happened at the earlier commission and suggested that perhaps the different factions could agree to differ to remain a broad and inclusive church which was still true to the Gospel."

'We must welcome sex offenders into Church'

THE Kirk has a duty to help reduce reoffending among convicted sex offenders by finding them a role in congregations, the chief inspector of Scottish prisons told the General Assembly yesterday.

Former Moderator, the Very Rev Andrew McLellan, said that the Kirk's engagement with sex offenders had to go further than just the protection of children.

"I want the General Assembly to see any engagement with sex offenders not merely as a protection of the children of congregations but also as a contribution to public safety," he told Kirk leaders.

His comments came during the debate on the Kirk's new approach on how it integrates and monitors convicted sex offenders who wish to join congregations.

"Sex offenders get the worst preparation for release of any offenders in Scotland's prisons, despite the fact that they are those who the public would want to have the best preparation," he said.

The General Assembly approved a motion instructing congregations to identify the presence of a sex offender and ensure they agree to be supported and monitored.







Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 May 2009 11:42 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Church of Scotland
 
1

Bevin Boyce,

27/05/2009 00:19:48
I just wonder why anyone, gay or breeder, would want to be a front-person for organised religion.

Religion is gang-rule of the many by the few.

The World has had enough of that cr4p.

2

,

27/05/2009 00:34:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

EPS,

Edinburgh 27/05/2009 00:34:12
I have been a church-goer all my life, and in my experience, Mr Boyce, your characterisation of religion is unrecognisable. The members and friends of the Methodist church that I attend are almost all happy, tolerant and loving. They love God, they love their neighbour (including neighbours of other faiths and none) and they love one another. They do all in their power to make the world a better place by siding with the poor and the oppressed. The world needs more of that f4ith.
4

EPS,

Edinburgh 27/05/2009 00:43:02
#2 Yes, sadly, there are sex offenders working within the Church. This is inevitable if the Church is to be a true cross-section of the public. All are welcome, all are sinners. Churches must do their utmost to protect the vulnerable in their care. Just don't forget that that includes offenders as well as those offended against.

Lord God, forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us.
5

cynicalm,

Edinburgh 27/05/2009 01:54:27
I agree with #3. Most Christians that I know are thoroughly nice people.
Which just goes to show the truth of the saying that nobody ever lost by under-estimating the intellegence of the general public.
6

Forestman,

27/05/2009 02:45:58
well, it is sad how churches treat homosexuals. we live in a society where discrimination against individuals on grounds of their sexual orientation is rightfully illegal. and yet the church has this as one of their high moral values. in every other situation homophobia is not acceptable, but the church expects us to respect this because we "are to respect" religious views. in general, if anybody holds views that are unlawful they are up for scrutiny. the church however tries to put itself above the law with its scripture-based open homophobia.
how does their god treat homosexual animals? are they also sinners and banned from the eternal hunting grounds?
sexual orientation is something one can chose as much as their ethnicity and place of birth. discrimination against the latter two is completely unacceptable and so should be discrimination against the former.
7

Bibamus,

27/05/2009 05:39:53
Does the Churh of Scotland no allow 'Free Speech' should look more deeply into the roots of their faith. and the Romans.
8

Pocket Dictionary,

27/05/2009 06:06:51
Not allowing comment on the subject feeds into the paranoia of extreme political parties and organisations, who will attempt to use it to frighten ordinary voters into voting for them.
9

W Smith,

Middle East 27/05/2009 06:17:14
While the Titanic was sinking I don't think a new pro-gay agenda would have saved the passengers and crew.

The Church of Scotland is in decline and has been for over 50 years - the sale of much its property has proved that.

The Cof S is about as relevant as that other sappy dreep south of the border Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

BTW
Why don't the gays push their agenda on to the local muslims?

Or do they treat Islam more respectfully effectively dicrminating against christianity?
10

Bobh,

st augustine 27/05/2009 06:37:13
To the contrary, Bevin, the trend at this time is toward world socialism, a "religion" if you please, and the many seem quite eager to be ruled by the few. Not all of them, mind you, some of us don't like what's coming!
11

,

27/05/2009 06:50:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 27/05/2009 07:29:58
#7 Forestman
The church was there long before the present law which was only brought in because a bunch of loud mouthed liberals created a fuss.
Those of us who are normal certainly do not agree with this law.
13

John Cameron,

St Andrews 27/05/2009 07:33:04
Clearly, if they are to be consistent, members of the Presbyterian Taliban such as David Randall should cease using the Psalms since David's relationship with Jonathan was decidedly dodgy: "Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." If they want to use Leviticus to attack Rennie they will also have to advocate the death penalty for both partners in a sexual relationship where one is married. Since even to the fundamentalist wing of the Kirk this might be a lunacy too far, are they then allowed to cherry pick passages from the Scriptures? As regards Scottish Church law, Rennie's case was pretty much cast iron. The right of a congregation to choose its own minister is simply fundamental. The issue caused the huge split in 1843 called the Disruption. To deny someone a job which he/she has proved they can perform perfectly well simply because of sexual orientation (or gender or race) would be considered outrageous in the secular community. Surely a national church should not be allowed to operate at lower standards. At my church we have had gay members in the congregation for decades and they have always been a huge asset to the life of the parish. The only disruptive elements we have ever had have been fundamentalists who always seem to want to create a "church within a church" and divide the congregation into 1st and 2nd class Christians.
14

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 08:28:07
#12 You are quite mistaken. This issue arose because a congregation called a minister, in accordance with church law, and their presbytery approved that appointment, in accordance with church law, and then people from outside that congregation who didn't like this lawful appointment mounted a vicious, homophobic hate campaign to try to block the democratic decision of the congregation and presbytery.

This issue had no input from the "gay lobby"; it is an internal matter of the church of Scotland, and it has been resolved as such.

You may wish to paint things as though some "gay lobby" was manipulating every agenda, but you are wrong. The facts in this case are clear - the congregation and the presbytery wanted Scott Rennie, and it was homophobes who tried, and failed, to block his appointment.
15

DannyG,

27/05/2009 08:50:18
Since when was Newmilns in or near Irvine?
16

im brian and so is my wife,

edinburgh 27/05/2009 09:12:57
all this howling ,my satan must be rubbing his hooves with glee lol
no matter what we think or say,only when we die will we find out if we have been right or wrong,let the guy do his job,and if he proves to be useless or not up to the calling,then he will be removed,democraticaly,not by a baying mob,who wouldnt look out of place in a hammer horror
17

stuart mctavish,

27/05/2009 09:42:43
add generous, gentle, patient and kind to the words of #3 and #4 and we would appear to be going in the right direction
18

Darien,

Panama 27/05/2009 09:57:47
I wholeheartedly agree with #3 and #6. As a relatively recent Christian, it never ceases to amaze me how friendly church people are, and how blessed in many many instances. Those sceptics among us should try it and see for themselves. #3 is especially right about the Methodist Church. There I found services varied and very interesting, within a friendly joyfull atmosphere. For someone who once was a sceptic himself, I would urge every other sceptic to go to church and witness for themselves the great things He has done. Not to do so means you are missing out on the Good News, and the blessings that would come your way. Try it!
19

Mark Insch,

27/05/2009 10:16:55
I don't think the issue is one of the Church being homophobic, in most cases it sees homosexuals at best as misguided and at worst as sinners that should repent their ways. I don't think there is any C of S congregation where they would not be welcome.

14 John Cameron said

"To deny someone a job which he/she has proved they can perform perfectly well simply because of sexual orientation (or gender or race) would be considered outrageous in the secular community."

The problem here is that Mr Rennie's beliefs and lifestyle are integral to his job - he has a post of responsibility for his congregation - he has to uphold moral & Christian values above all else and all others - that is part of his job - how can he do that when he lives in an adulterous relationship? If his present life choice was so fundemental to his very being then he should have given up his position of responsibilty within the Church.

20

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 10:47:16
#20 As a gay man I would prefer it if you didn't use the clinical and dehumanising term "homosexual" to describe gay people. You may not intend it to be either of those things, but it is to many gay people, so I would ask you politely to stop using that term, and to instead use the term we have chosen for our own identity.

With respect to your final paragraph, this begs the question as to why other ministers are not similarly hounded for sexual activity outside of marriage when that activity happens to be heterosexual; surveys done by the CoS itself suggests such relationships are commonplace. Why is only gay people who are attacked? The answer is that this IS homophobia, and you need to accept that in order to deal with it.
21

Mark Insch,

27/05/2009 10:59:27
# 20 Duncan - my apologies, no offence was intended to you or others.

The reason I chose to criticise Mr Rennie for his "adulterous relationship" is that I do not think it matters whether that relationship be same sex or otherwise. It is never more important than for the minister to "practice what he preaches" and as Mr Rennie is meant to preach the Gospal and it's moral values as per C of S doctrine, then how can he possibly do that. It is not only Mr Rennie I target here - I would expect any C of S minister with any degree of integrity or moral fibre to stand down from their position if found in breach of the Chritian and moral "code of conduct". And I believe that if you researched all known cases, you would find that most guilty ministers did vacate their positions (voluntary or otherwise).
22

Luke Skywalker,

27/05/2009 11:10:37
Thank God for Atheism. We don't need to become involved in criticising other people who are every bit as kind, gentle and considerate as us. We can just sit back and enjoy watching the fun.
23

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 11:16:26
#22 Much appreciated, and I understood that you hadn't meant it to be offensive.

I understand your position, and it does have a core logic. There are two nuances though which I think have to be acknowledged. First, Mr Rennie *cannot* marry his faithful partner, and so his relationship will always be condemned as adulterous because he has not way to sanctify it - that is unfair. Second, other ministers are unlikely to be exposed as adulterous in the same way because there is not the same level of opposition to straight ministers having normal, modern relationships - so even if there is even handedness in treatment by the church, there is not even handedness in identification or pursuit.
24

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 27/05/2009 11:25:01
#23. Don't worry, it works both ways. What about Alastair Campbell's 'we don't do God' crowd. Just been watching 'The thick of it' and 'in the loop'. 'Without God everything is permissable' said Dostoevsky -certainly in the case of Mr. Campbell and co.
25

Stan Butler,

27/05/2009 11:32:21
#24 Duncan in Edinburgh


Do you agree that the Church of Scotland should allow openly bisexual people to become ministers?

26

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 27/05/2009 11:46:51
#24 I accept it's difficult for him to 'sanctify it' as you say but should he not at least have sought civil partnership as soon as possible? A heterosexual minister couldn't have a 'bidie in' at the manse and would have to marry first, so the equivalent rules should apply for him. If he wanted a 'gay marriage', then there are churches elsewhere that provide that facility. At present, by current definition, he is 'living in sin.'
27

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 11:52:30
#26 Yes - they should not discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
28

Stan Butler,

27/05/2009 11:58:05
#28 Duncan in Edinburgh


Do you think that atheists should be allowed to become ministers in the Church of Scotland?


29

yockel,

27/05/2009 12:32:22
#15 & #21 Duncan in Edinburgh, I always thought you were a committee but hay ho.

What is clear, is you have a serious authoritarian streak regardless of whether you are a committee or a sentient individual.
30

P I Staker,

27/05/2009 12:36:07
Duncan in Edinburgh - you are not happy about being described as 'homosexual' (though for the purposes of strict definition you are) but want to be described as the term you use - 'gay', fair enough. I'm not happy about being described, in your terms as 'heterosexual' (again the strict definition), but would much rather be described by the term I use - 'normal'.
Or would this offend your sensibilities, not accepting the opinions and wishes of those of us who take opposite sex partners. (Whom I are probably in the majority in this country but suspect you will know differently.)

Each to his own.

The wonder of natural procreation is not a phenomenon in the gay community, is it?
31

P I Staker,

27/05/2009 12:37:29
Really should read these posts more carefully before hitting the 'post' button!!
32

Iain Mac,

27/05/2009 12:46:09
Let's just use reason and common sense and turn our backs on ALL religion and mumbo-jumbo.
33

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 12:49:58
#29 An atheist couldn't be a member of the Church of Scotland, so of course not.
34

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 12:53:37
#31 The term 'normal' already has a meaning which would conflict with its use as an equivalent for heterosexual. But heterosexual merely describes your sexual activities, not your sexual orientation; so perhaps you ought to all get together and think up a word for a predisposition towards sexual attraction exclusively towards the opposite sex.
35

Stan Butler,

27/05/2009 13:01:34

Duncan in Edinburgh


Why is the word homosexual unacceptable but the word homophobic acceptable?

Surely it would be more consistent if you would to used the word gayphobic?

Or lgbtphobic?


36

Ken26,

Toronto, Canada 27/05/2009 13:17:17
#24 Duncan in Edinburgh

If Mr. Rennie were to leave Scotland and come to Ontario in Canada he would be legally entitled to marry his partner. Then he would not be labelled an "adulterer" or "sinner" as some of the posters above have stated.

BTW, I am straight but fully in support of free choice for all. Gay people have the same right to happiness in their lives as non-gays. Why some of you would deny them this right is unconscionable.
37

Stan Butler,

27/05/2009 13:26:07
#37 Ken26


Would you support the appointment of an openly bisexual minister in the Church of Scotland?
38

bluehead,

edinburgh 27/05/2009 13:31:17
what a world this is ! it seems to stink like a piggery,more and more each day,! never realised that there was so much evil around these days, that I think I will take shelter in my old air raid shelter though I don't think you can escape no matter where you go,pardon me while I be sick at some of the things I read daily I am disgusted!!!!!!
39

P I Staker,

27/05/2009 14:13:15
#35 Duncan in Edinburgh seems you have lost the ability to pen reasoned argument, or indeed, accept that there are 2 sides to an argument/discussion. Is it not the case that 'gay' has long had a meaning, totally unconnected with any sexual proclivity? - yet it has been kidnapped by the homosexual community as their own. To me the word has a totally different connotation. I have friends who's sexual orientation differs from mine, they care little for the label others (such as yourself) find so important. They, like myself, treat people as they find them, can laugh at themselves as we all do without having to retreat in to dark hole with a label tattooed upon their brow, try to justify their feelings or worse, thrust them upon others.
40

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 14:28:47
#40 Amid your gratuitous insults I sense that you haven't understood my point. It is indeed the case that "'gay' has long had a meaning, totally unconnected with any sexual proclivity". The problem with your suggestion is that 'normal' has a meaning which *can be* connected with sexual proclivity. Lest you have forgotten, it was *your* suggestion that if I wanted to be called "gay", you wanted to be called "normal".

Do you describe your gay friends as "homosexual"? Do you describe them on the basis of a sexual act which they may or may not do? I doubt it. We are all human and can laugh at ourselves, but when under attack on a messageboard or in our places of work or rest, most of us do not feel like laughing.
41

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 27/05/2009 14:46:28
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2510754.0.Church_of_Scotland_Tutu_supports_gay_ministers.php

Misleading headline. He only says he is in favour of the church being welcoming lgb. He doesn't spell out he supports an actively gay minister, as in this particular case.
42

Stan Butler,

27/05/2009 14:54:51
41 Duncan in Edinburgh

'Do you describe your gay friends as "homosexual"? '


Do you describe your homosexual friends as 'gay'?

43

P I Staker,

27/05/2009 15:18:17
Duncan, now you are becoming quite tiresome. As I said, and you obviously chose not to pick up on the point, my friends care not a jot what label they have. From your response at 41 you obviously feel under attack, threatened by reasoned argument that you are no longer able to defend, either here or wherever you happen to be
So I say no more on the subject as you have hijacked the entire thread with YOUR perspective on life, irrespective of the thoughts/feelings of others.

Enough said - the comments on this article were opened regarding Mr Rennie and if Mr Rennie believes (as he obviously does ) that his life style is commensurate with his religious duties and has the support of his congregation then he deserves to serve his flock and be left in peace to do so.
44

calum,

27/05/2009 15:18:51
Funny how Duncan was very very quiet during the period when the other Rennie, notably James, was tried and is now awaiting sentence. What is he, Duncan, gay or homosexual?
45

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 15:24:51
#44 I hijacked the thread? In #31 you picked an argument with me over a post which had been a reply to someone else, to which that other poster had graciously replied and I had replied to their response and the discussion had closed.

I think you claim for me what is actually true for you - it is you who feels threatened, and it is you who wanted to hijack a discussion which had moved on in order to take me to task.

I agree with your summary of Mr Rennie's position; I'm glad you've decided to stop picking arguments with me.
46

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 15:40:02
#45 Just as the killers of Baby Peter are not representative of straight people in general, the abusers of children tried recently are not representative of gay people.

As you well know.
47

Alasdair MacWhirter,

Just in from the garden 27/05/2009 15:43:26
#44 I do find it somewhat incongruous though that 'Duncan in Edinburgh' has chosen to cross swords with you and you alone. From your posts I didn't get the impression that you felt threatened at all.
Several have asked him questions that he has chosen to avoid and have to wonder why.

Going back to the original subject, your last comment sums up the Mr Rennie situation and I quite agree.
48

calum,

27/05/2009 15:47:08
#47 You haven't answered the question, again. So what, by your carefully crafted definition, is James Reniie, gay or homosexual?
49

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 15:51:01
#49 Your question is stupid, intentionally needling, and already answered. He is a gay man, because he self-identifies as such.

No doubt for answering this question I will be pilloried for "hijacking the thread" again?

The laughable thing is that so many of you don't even realise you are being homophobic bullies. It just comes naturally to you.
50

calum,

27/05/2009 16:12:41
#50 - Oh, grow up, Duncan! "Homophobic bullies", indeed! You defined "gay" and "homosexual", I just asked for a bit of clarification on one of the former leading lights in LGBT Youth who, like yourself, has consulted with the highest levels of Police and Scottish Government.
How about if I accused you of being "heterophobic" because of your opinions and your put-downs of anyone who questions or disagrees with you. You're becoming a very poor representative of your "community" (your word).
51

Esox Hunter,

Edinburgh 27/05/2009 16:15:25
#50 Duncan. I've come late to the debate but in scanning through the various contributions I'd have to agree with your general position regarding the stance, one would like to say unwitting stance of some of the posters who do come across as grossly predjudiced in this subject.

I'm not religious in the least, and reading of the comments and actions of some who claim to have faith, I'm delighted that I need have no involvemant whatever with them. All I would say is that Scott Rennie seems to be very highly regarded by his parishoners so good luck to him for the future.
52

Stan Butler,

27/05/2009 16:18:25
50 Duncan in Edinburgh

Why do you persist in using the word homophobic?

Surely that is legitimising the use of the word homosexual?
53

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 16:19:52
#51 If I expressed dislike, or offensive opinions, of heterosexual people then you would be justified in calling me heterophobic. As it is, you are just confirming your own lack of empathy. Opposing homophobia does not make a person heterophobic! Think about it for a second.

You know full well that bringing up the recent court case was simply designed to rile, and introduce some notion of guilt by association, which you continue to do. It's not me that needs to grow up.
54

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 16:21:14
#52 I appreciate that, thank you. There are deep-seated prejudices which come out when this topic is discussed, and I genuinely think that many of those expressing them have never sat down and thought them through, let alone empathised with those they seek to condemn.
55

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/05/2009 16:58:25
55 ''There are deep-seated prejudices which come out when this topic is discussed''

Yes - and the post made linking the rightfully called Minister Scott Rennie with the convicted criminal James Rennie is a perfect illustration of that.

On the subject of the article - if the Kirk has managed to deal theologically with both female ordination and divorce, then gay Ministers are not that tall an order. People who choose to quote passages from the Bible justifying homophobia are selective literalists. Their selectivism is a matter of choice.
56

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 17:10:43
#56 Indeed, indeed. I suspect that most of the noise on this issue is coming from those who have not dealt, theologically or socially, with either female ministers or divorce, and who see "their" church slipping even further away from the conservatism they espouse - despite the reality being that the bulk of the church is moving and will leave them behind.
57

Stan Butler,

27/05/2009 17:11:52
#56 Observer


'if the Kirk has managed to deal theologically with both female ordination and divorce, then gay Ministers are not that tall an order'


Next up, bisexuals.

58

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/05/2009 17:24:57
58 Stan - no one likes a smartass. Obviously the Kirk could not accept an active busexual as a Minister. That implies a sexual relationship with more than one person. We are talking here about a Minister in a monogomous relationship with a loved partner who happens to be another bloke. Now if the Kirk can handle the fact that he is divorced and that the Minister in the next door Parish might be a woman, it ought to be able to handle his sexuality too. Especially as he isn't being imposed on the Congragation - they called for him.
59

calum,

27/05/2009 17:27:31
#54 - Quid pro quo - I have no dislike or irrational fear of homosexuals, there are homosexuals in the workplace ..... so what? Does that, by your odd logic, make me homophobic?
Anyway, your posts are becoming increasing tedious and tiresome in their predictability that anyone who has any other opinion to yours is anti- ..... anti-Labour, anti-homosexual (or gay), anti-tram, anti-bicycle, anti-development, etc. etc.. See a pattern?
60

Stan Butler,

27/05/2009 17:55:47
#59 Observer


Just as homosexuals can only can only be truly fulfilled and reach their full potential as human beings by being openly allowed to express their homosexuality so also can bisexuals only be all that they want to be and all that God wants them to be by being able to have sexual relations with both male and female partners.

To deny them the opportunity to do so is to deny them their place in God's creation.

Why should bisexuals be denied the rights enjoyed by homosexuals and heterosexuals?



61

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 27/05/2009 18:43:54
The crux of the matter is whether an actively gay clergyperson can hold office. An inactive gay person can. The basis of the discussion is not whether the person can be elected democratically nor whether they have the skills and personality or not but whether the person can fulfil a ROLE.
The Church is full of latent sinners, repentant sinners and actual sinners but the commitment they give to their LORD is that they will make all attempts to overcome and desist sinning. Therefore the Church MUST decide whether it considers continuous homosexual practice to be a sin.
It is not just a homosexual issue since persistence in sinful heterosexual practice would render someone unfit for office even if they had the requisite skills and personality and were voted in by their congregation.
If the Church states that it IS a sin (i.e. continuous homosexual practice) then Rev Scot Rennie's calling must be called into question - i.e. who is the author of his call?
If the Church states that it ISN'T a sin then there's going to have to be some careful excising of parts of Scripture and the termination of certain valid, or at least arguable, theological contours.
The C of S is caught between loving God and loving their neighbour which are normally meant to be in harmony but on this issue the two axioms are working against each other. That is why it is a hard decision to make for the Church and why it is an easy decision to make in a secular context, the difference being God.

I think the Bible makes it clear that God can ask any person to make a hard decision regarding their identity or sexuality if they want to find Him regardless of their gender or orientation. The Church has to find a way of keeping that intrinsic invitation from God open to all people without closing the door through being over-rigorous while at the same time not assuming that it (the Church) is the author of human salvation and offering the invitation on its own principles rather than God's.
Having acce
62

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 27/05/2009 18:44:16
Having accepted salvation, the Christian Gospel expects a bodily/sexual discipline from its adherents. If the Church sanctions lifestyles which are astray from its core principles then it is not communicating redemption but dissolution. The general Assembly must know this ... mustn't they?
63

Mark Insch,

27/05/2009 19:05:07
I would like to know how many of the pro-gay/pro-Mr.Rennie/pro-"each to his own" posters in this article are either C of S members (active, and not just because they were Christened in a church 20+ years ago), and regular church attendees, and also how many would know and speak to their minister or seek his counsel in difficult and troubled times.

It seems to me it is only active church members that are entitled to voice their opinion on this matter (for or against) as they are the only ones this is ever going to affect directly.
64

Mark Insch,

27/05/2009 19:09:10
Posted above before reading #63,64 Dave Scott -
Very well put - couldn't have said it better myself - really, I couldn't!!
65

Pilrig,

Livingston 27/05/2009 19:22:59
10 - Jesus wants you for a sunbeam !
66

Observer,,

Glasgow 27/05/2009 19:32:33
61 Stan I am disappointed. To have an open relationship is entirely different from a monogomous one. I have not read or heard anyone suggesting that the requirement for monogomy is not a fundamental tenet for a Christian. So your argument is rather a red herring.

If the Kirk can accept the ordination of women and divorce then what is the problem with a gay Minister in a monogomous relationship when the congregation have chosen him. Apart from selective literalism that is.



67

Pilrig,

Livingston 27/05/2009 19:32:49
Leviticus - one of the books that Constantine should have consigned to the Apocrypha dustbin in Nicea.
Oh I forgot, it was 'written' by that vidictive auld soandso Moses. Yes, the wisdom of the Bronze Age prevails....
68

Duncan in Edinburgh,

27/05/2009 20:38:03
#61 Bisexuality has nothing to do with having more than one partner at a time. This is a classic confusion of sexual behaviour with sexual orientation. I know lots of bisexuals and I have *never* met one who had multiple relationships going at once. A bisexual orientation simply means attraction to both sexes - but just as I am attracted to many men but only have a relationship with one, and you are no doubt attracted to many women but only have a relationship with your right hand, so a bisexual person can be attracted to many people of either sex but only be in a relationship with one person.
69

Stan Butler,

27/05/2009 22:44:14
68 Observer

What do you mean by monogamous?
70

Pilrig,

Livingston 27/05/2009 22:47:52
71 - try consultin a dictionary !
71

Stan Butler,

27/05/2009 22:49:50
70 Duncan in Edinburgh

Obviously you are just a narrow minded, bigoted, bisexualophobic with a sexually repressed circle of friends.

So much for LGBT solidarity. It might as well be a type of sandwich for all you care.
72

Stan Butler,

27/05/2009 22:53:44
72 Pilrig

Surely serial monogamy is sufficient?

So long as there's no three-in-a-bed sex capers a la Angus MacNeil?
73

Pilrig,

Livingston 28/05/2009 18:08:56
3 in a bed ? I don't know where they get the energy.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.