Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gay minister dispute could force us to defect to Free Church, Kirk rebels warn

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: 28 May 2009
EVANGELICAL Kirk members have warned they might join the Free Church of Scotland following the decision to appoint the openly gay minister the Rev Scott Rennie.
The move yesterday came after a week of controversy in which the General Assembly, the Church of Scotland's executive body, agreed to uphold Mr Rennie's appointment to Queen's Cross Church in Aberdeen.

An evangelical minister, who asked not to be named, said that in light of the decision on Saturday night regarding Mr Rennie, he and others were willing to speak to the Free Church of Scotland with a view to joining them.

"If the Free Church of Scotland made agreeable noises I, and many others, would be willing to sit down and listen because of all the hurt people are feeling," he said. "The only thing that separates us is the exclusivity of psalm singing instead of hymns.

"Surely that is not enough to separate like-minded people."

The minister said the decision had been the "lowest point in living memory" for conservative Kirk members and that conservative congregations around the country had been "devastated".

"People up and down the country feel awful about what has happened," he added.

The assembly also stopped short of a potentially divisive debate on the issue of the ordination of openly homosexual ministers. Instead, it opted to set up a commission, headed by Lord Patrick Hodge, to investigate the issue and report back in 2011, barring the appointment of any more openly gay ministers in the meantime.

The Rev Iver Martin, a senior member of the Free Church of Scotland, said it would be "happy" to enter into dialogue with Kirk members seeking to join it.

"The Free Church has always been open to meaningful dialogue with like-minded believers, and would be ready always to sit down and talk about where we are and how we might interact in the future," he said. "To say more than that at this stage would be speculative."

He said worship practice was a "secondary issue and is currently under review".

"It can be freely discussed and is not an issue which would necessarily prevent the inclusion of like-minded believers in the future," he said. "As convener of our ecumenical relations committee I would be very happy to positively respond to any approach which might be made."

Many Free Church of Scotland ministers and members signed a petition set up by the conservative evangelical Kirk group Forward Together protesting at Mr Rennie's appointment.

In the run-up to the assembly there was a joint report on building closer links between the Free Church and the wider Kirk, but Mr Martin has in the past insisted that the primacy of the Bible in the Free Church's theology would be a fundamental stumbling block in any union.

The Kirk also moved yesterday to clarify the meaning of the moratorium placed on courts, committees and councils making public statements on the issue of ordination of gay ministers for two years. A statement has been issued for ministers to read to congregations.

Tutu points to Kirk court's 'merciful' support for gay minister

ARCHBISHOP Desmond Tutu has given his backing to the appointment of openly-gay minister Scott Rennie.

The Nobel Prize-winning South African cleric said it was "merciful" that the Kirk's supreme court, the General Assembly, voted in support of Mr Rennie.

The anti-apartheid activist addressed the Assembly yesterday with a sermon in which he said everybody, no matter what their background, race or sexuality, was part of God's family.

He was later asked whether he had been following the events of recent days at the Assembly. The archbishop said he was aware of the debate over whether the body would agree to endorse the gay minister's appointment, adding that, "mercifully", this was done.

"I find it a little difficult to understand when, from all that we know about our Lord, he would have been on the side of the oppressed and on the side of those in the minority, but then we say in this one case Jesus goes against all the paradigms that we know about him and sides with those who persecute an already persecuted minority," he said.

"And if we say sexual orientation is a bar to ordination, how come we don't say it's a bar to baptism, if it's such a ghastly thing?"

He said that he had been involved in the struggle to allow the ordination of women in his church, and that it was now a "non-issue". He continued: "So, under this rubric, I would find it impossible to stand by when people are being persecuted for something about which they can do nothing – their sexual orientation."

The archbishop also visited the University of Edinburgh, where he received an honorary degree.

Churches at risk as Olympics divert cash

A FUNDING drought caused by the London Olympics could endanger the future of some of Scotland's finest churches.

Congregations in some cases are facing bills close to a £1 million for substantial repairs, with no possibility of additional funding.

Addressing the Church of Scotland General Assembly yesterday, Findlay Turner, chairman of the general trustees committee, said that the 2014 London Olympics had caused government cash to "virtually dry up".

Speaking outside the Assembly, he accused the government of failing to live up to its pledges to conserve the UK's architectural heritage, and that the implications of this for the Kirk were "very serious".

He said: "There are certain jewels in the crown you can't imagine Scotland without: Kirk of St Nicholas Uniting in Aberdeen, the Church of the Holy Rood at Stirling and places like that. But it's inevitable that, unless there is money, some of these important, historic buildings could come under threat.

"It's time people spoke to the Church in the understanding that it can't solve this problem on its own. This has to be a partnership and we need government funding, and it's not there."

Culture minister Michael Russell said that he understood the concerns of the assembly and would be pressing for the return of funds diverted to the Olympics as soon as possible.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 May 2009 9:23 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Church of Scotland
 
1

Tracker,

28/05/2009 00:11:36
The Church has millions of pounds and can afford to mend its own roofs.
2

Brodric,

28/05/2009 00:19:18
Well said Desmond Tutu.

Although it is difficult for many people to understand (and accept) something that seems unacceptable to them, if there is no tolerance in the Christian church in the 21st century, no renewal of the revolutionary thinking of Christ; if there is no wish to move forward in our understanding of what it means to be on the side of those who are oppressed and to remember fully the early beginnings of Christianity, when Christians were themselves oppressed and in the minority - then there will be no Christianity in the future, because it will die.

It is also shaming and shows the parochiality of some of Scotland's people. Themselves oppressed and marginalised in history. Hypocrites who change their spots to save their petty 'ideals'.
3

Brodric,

28/05/2009 00:20:57
No 1 - though I am, in fact, furious that some of our beautiful churches (part of our cultural heritage and worth preserving) might suffer because of the Olympics, I think that money should be given to them ONLY if equal opportunities are respected at ALL levels.
4

Fifi la Bonbon,

28/05/2009 00:25:32
If the zealots want to join one of the Free Church sects, that's great. There is no need to bang the door on your way out. Remember to being some chains and padlocks to tie up the swings in the park on the sabbath.
5

Fifi la Bonbon,

28/05/2009 00:37:21
"Gay minister dispute could force us to defect to Free Church, Kirk rebels warn..."

No, seriously, is this meant to be some kind of threat?
6

S'me,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 02:34:06
Religion is supposed to be about love, tolerance, acceptance amongst others. The parish want him as their minister knowing his words and deeds are more important than his sexuality. We will look back on episodes like thes with shame. Some memebers of the church shooting themselves in the foot yet again with their messages of hate and intolerance.
7

Dougie Welsh,

Halifax 28/05/2009 03:47:42
I find it interesting that the Free Church spokesman and the "rebels" named different things as their primary differences.

I wonder if they noticed?
8

Norrie G,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 04:08:44
This is all a farce. The Kirk has been accepting gay ministers for some years now and Scott Rennie, in his BBC interview on Sunday, has predicted the number of un-openly gay ministers in the church as somewhere between 10 and 19.

This whole episode has nothing to do with love and tolerance, but with political goals. The church has now effectively been taken over by lesbian and gay ministers. Any opposition to it is being crushed instantly.

If you want to destroy an establishment, you first need to infiltrate it. And what better way of doing that under the disguise of being do-gooders and in the name of love and tolerance!

But hey, someone is watching all this farce and will have its say, and its way, at the right time.
9

fife runner,

28/05/2009 06:46:59
#2 even Saddam Hussain was part of God's family.
10

,

28/05/2009 06:48:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Andyfromedinburgh,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 07:11:58
Frankly, I would be very happy for the dogmatic evangelists to leave and join the Free Church. As representitives of literal interpretations they are alienating many ordinary people who belive in a tolerant and loving society. A split would leave the door open to many like my self who might re-join.

Perhaps there are other potential new members who take the opposite view, those who are unable to open their hearts to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, for whom the Free Church and its new evangelical bed fellows would be a secure and comforting home. I wish that marriage well but cannot see it lasting.

As in marriage, sometimes a split is more honest and offers new opportunities for growth and renewal.
12

Spanish Scot,

Las Galletas 28/05/2009 07:35:27
Whilst I am not totally against the appointment of gay people to the ministry, my personal feelings are that I would prefer them to be celibate.
13

redcliffe62,

28/05/2009 07:41:28
i think ministers should be married and have 2.4 little congregationalists.
there should be a don't ask don't tell policy on ministers, rather like the armed forces, although excessive mascara on a sunday and a plunging neckline will not be tolerated.
14

Alastair M,

Amsterdam 28/05/2009 07:43:37
Spanish Scot, how would you feel if I said I thought you should be celibate for some spurious reason beyond your control? Desmond Tutu was spot on, as usual. The church is supposed to be preaching Christ's love, not some warped message of prejudice.

If some folk want to join the Free Church, well, "bye, fare ye well".
15

,

28/05/2009 07:51:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Boy Wonder,

28/05/2009 07:52:47
Welcome to our Church ... if you don't share ALL of our outdated and bigotted views ... well, you can just go bu&&er off!

Jesus might have loved everyone ... but his folowers sure don't!!!
17

John Cameron,

St Andrews 28/05/2009 07:53:39
I think the Kirk should have called the bluff of its fundamentalist wing. What is the point in us asking our Muslim community to stand up to the Taliban extremists if we blink when confronted with our own loonies. There is not the slightest chance of any congregation in the Kirk giving up its church, its halls, and its manse to follow these nutters out into the night. Unlike our gay members, fundamentalists are ALWAYS disruptive in any congregation. They always try to form a "church within a church" and divide the congregation into 1st and 2nd class Christians.
18

Fifi la Bonbon,

28/05/2009 07:57:47
#15 - not only that, Jesus only picked Jewish men, born in particular postcodes, and strictly from a specific time frame, as his disciples. None of them are known to have spoken English, or to have eaten Chinese food. Was he trying to tell us something, or are you just desperately struggling to bolster your bigoted point of view in a manner gloriously portrayed in Life of Brian?
19

Finloch,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 07:59:03
The Church of Scotland is riddled with hypocrisy
So is the Free Kirk, and the Wee Free Kirk, and the RCs, C of Es, etc. etc.
And they all wonder why their congregations are in terminal decline.
20

Fifi la Bonbon,

28/05/2009 07:59:49
#15 - please forgive temporary loss of sense of humour in #18!
21

,

28/05/2009 08:00:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

john z,

edinburgh 28/05/2009 08:00:49
'The wee kirk, the free kirk. The auld kirk the cauld kirk' Or something similar....

Honestly, the views of these homophobes is really outdated. Young people nowadays couldn't give a fig what people get up to in their private lives - gay or straight.

According to these clowns, 'Jesus loves you - unless you're gay'

Honestly, whether somebody is gay or not is pretty irrelevant nowadays.
23

jockstrap,

Cyprus 28/05/2009 08:09:53
~18 & 20 I'm not bigoted at all.I couldn't care less who preaches in the church as I am a non believer. I was just showing the ridiculous positions all religions get themselves into.Believe whatever you want but don't try and force it on to others.
24

David Chapman,

Aberdeen 28/05/2009 08:14:43
#14 - Beyond his control? You mean someone forced Scott Rennie to become a priest? Best tear down the Kirk, then, if it's brainwashing people.

25

DMK,

Livingston 28/05/2009 08:18:28
More often than not the same texts proscribe divorce, various women's issues (such as short hair and not officiating as preachers- the Kirk has adopted an openly liberal view (in comparison to other churches) on these. I don't see the difference?
The minister concerned would have been booted from the C of E not for being gay but for divorcing his wife.
26

voltaire's janny,

28/05/2009 08:22:09
The trouble with pinning your morality to an often re-written medieval tome is that when it says something objectionable, the religiosity-prone mind ignores and then denies such offensive content while still claiming the source to be truth and supernturally inspired.

As each person considers different parts of the Bible to be truth or otherwise, intolerance, apostasy, heresy, schism, accusation, intolerance and hate all make their way centre stage.

If you don't like it in the tradesman's entrance, don't do it. Or why not, as in the Bible, offer up your daughter to the would-be gay rapists of your son?

Take all your Gods and stick 'em. And in the holy name of good taste, keep your ugly-rubbing tendencies to consenting adult company and out of view please.
27

Media at One,

28/05/2009 08:36:23
Question: Whether the "rebels" stay or go, will it alter the appearance of their god?
Or is this just ignorant men behaving like ignorant men?
28

Cadgers,

Perth 28/05/2009 08:37:55
This has descended into farce! The Wee Free split from the Church of Scotland because it's congregations demanded the right to pick their own ministers and not have them foisted upon them. If they accept these so called "evangelicals" into their church they may as well close their doors!
29

Stan Butler,

28/05/2009 08:39:05


If the Church of Scotland wishes to avoid the charge of hypocrisy it must now support the call for same sex marriage.



30

John Ronaldson,

Dunfermline 28/05/2009 08:52:57
as the word of God the Bible is clear that sex outside of marriage is wrong, either heterosexual or homosexual. I'm not sure how there can even be a debate on the matter...
31

Number 6,

Germany 28/05/2009 08:56:10
After a 2000 year abscence, would it not help if GOD clarified his position on homosexuality to the heads of the various Faiths.

Serious question by the way.
32

jockstrap,

Cyprus 28/05/2009 08:58:26
#31 What proof is there that the bible is the word of God?The bible was written by men as is evidenced by the many contradictions contained in it. Who married Adam & Eve? (if you believe they were the first people).Who did Adam's sons have children with? According to the bible Eve was the only woman at the time.
33

Zedwed,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 08:59:39
Fifi (#4) is right - literal fundamentalists, who are unwilling to interpret the Bible and New Testament in a way that fits the spirit of both Jesus and our times, would be better off in the Wee Frees, and the Church of Scotland would be better off without them.
34

Number 6,

Germany 28/05/2009 08:59:43
#31 How can you be sure it was the word of God.

I'm sure you are familiar with how the modern bible was compiled.
35

thinking,

Scotland 28/05/2009 09:00:42
15 jockstrap
There is no record of Jesus marrying but, according to the Bible, Peter was married.

To everyone else - If the Church of Scotland is the Lord's Church (If it is, why is it not called by His name?), then it is up to Him to change it's doctrine and set up by revelation. If it is not his Church then it is up to the people who run it and attend it.
36

Mark Insch,

28/05/2009 09:03:20
#22 John z "According to these clowns, 'Jesus loves you - unless you're gay'"

The point is being missed by most of the posters - Jesus loves you whatever, it doesn't mean He has to give you a job as His representative!
37

jockstrap,

Cyprus 28/05/2009 09:03:49
#36 Just proves the nonsense of religion. Peter was married and founded the Roman Catholic church which forbids its clergy to get married.
38

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 09:15:23
#29 Precisely! The Disruption was caused by the exact action the "rebels" want to take, and they use hollow threats to defect to the Wee Frees when they lost that argument! Laughable.

There's no question that the CoS should call their bluff, because these threats to leave are utterly hollow - as others have said, congregations will not be prepared to walk away from their churches and manses and build anew simply to satisfy the homophobic hatred in the hearts of their ministers.
39

Stan Butler,

28/05/2009 09:26:32
#39 Duncan in Edinburgh


Do you agree that the Church of Scotland should support the demand for same sex marriage?


40

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 09:32:36
#40 Of course. And they will eventually. I realise you are being facetious given your well rehearsed position on gay rights, but just as no mainstream church would today support slavery or racist policies, so in a few years it will be unthinkable for a church to support the oppression of gay people.
41

Stan Butler,

28/05/2009 09:44:46
41 Duncan in Edinburgh


And of course you support the idea of openly bisexual people to be appointed ministers in the Church of Scotland.


Perhaps polygamy is the way to go.



42

voltaire's janny,

28/05/2009 09:49:02
If man is in the image of God who is male which can only have meaning in terms of sex, what does he do with his willie? If in His domain he has the only todger and the only batty, well boys will be boys.
43

voltaire's janny,

28/05/2009 09:50:07
All religion, all bad, all of the time. Discuss.
44

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 09:50:10
#42 On yesterday's thread I explained that your understanding of bisexuality is fundamentally flawed; bisexuality has nothing to do with having multiple partners at the same time, it merely describes the genders to which one is attracted. Straight, gay and bi people can all choose to have open relationships or monogamous ones. There's nothing intrinsically open about bisexuality.
45

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 09:50:43
More blurring of the issue by bringing in broader issues.

THE C OF S (AND OTHER DENOMINATIONS) DOES ALREADY ORDAIN GAY CLERGY AND HAS GAY-ORIENTATED MEMBERS.

The issue is whether an actively gay, as distinct from gay-orientated, clergyperson can hold office in the Church. This is a crucial issue because of parts of the Christian faith refer to bodily/sexual discipline.
The Christian Gospel is not Gnosticism. The aim of the faith is not self-realisation. Therefore, for Christians, there are issues as to what you do with your body.

As far as I am aware, there is no 'witch-hunt' of ordained or congregational gay people, but neither is there a call for heterosexual clergy who have transgressed to be reinstated. The call of Christ is not to develop one's sexuality, that can be done by any human being outwith the offer of salvation contained in the Gospel.

The call is to redemption, sanctification (not sanctimoniousness!) and holy living otherwise there is no distinction within the Christian corpus from the rest of humanity and there is a blurring of the Gospel distinction of 'being in with Christ' with 'being in Adam'. There are some areas of our broader humanity which are off-limits to those who profess a Christian faith. However, the broader debate should also address heterosexual indiscipline otherwise it APPEARS to be targetting gay people only even though this is simply because this is the issue at hand.

I would like to see Desmond Tutu pushed on the matter of actively gay clergy. His careful words only refer to whether a gay person could be appointed and that gay-orientation should not be a bar to baptism or ordination. He has NOT, however, made his views known on active gay relationships within the body of the Church.

It may of course be selective reporting.
46

Stan Butler,

28/05/2009 09:54:44
#45 Duncan in Edinburgh

Are you a member of the Church of Scotland?

47

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 09:55:17
voltaire's janny "If man is in the image of God ..."

Yeah ... and did Adam have a navel?

However, your critique only exposes a very narrow interpretation of what it means when it says

"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
48

The Deil,

28/05/2009 10:02:55
Simple choice really for CoS folks. Embrace a tutu or a killjoy!
49

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 10:10:17
#47 Of course not; you know fine well that I am an atheist.

I would appreciate it if you are going to continue to direct questions at me if you acknowledged the answers I gave; specifically I want to know if you have now understood the difference between bisexuality and open relationships.
50

S'me,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 10:12:40
#8... sorry, but that was funny... that there is a conspiracy to "infiltrate' the church in disguise... ha ha ha... god bless you!
51

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 10:20:07
#46 Interesting and fair post. You touch on the real problem but if I may suggest, excuse the homophobia. It doesn't just "appear" to target gay people - this sort of vindictive campaign is ONLY directed at gay people, because the body of the church would not permit such small-mindedness to lead to victimisation of straight clergy. The church has moved on. It will continue to move forwards, because it has no choice.

The real conclusion is that same sex marriage must be sanctified in order to remove the cause of gay victimisation.
52

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 10:23:40
#8
"...The church has now effectively been taken over by lesbian and gay ministers. Any opposition to it is being crushed instantly.
If you want to destroy an establishment, you first need to infiltrate it. And what better way of doing that under the disguise of being do-gooders and in the name of love and tolerance!"

Rebels, Frees, undercover bufties, horrified worshippers... lol.
53

Stan Butler,

28/05/2009 10:31:49


The Church of Scotland in hoping not to offend anyone, in trying to be all things to all people, has become weak and its weakness has led it to a position where its actions have more support from atheists than from its own members.
54

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 28/05/2009 10:35:36
IT'S ORDINATION THAT IS THE PROBLEM NOT INCLUSION. GAY PEOPLE ARE WELCOME IN THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND AND THE FREE CHURCH.


As a Wee Free, I have probably seen as much discrmination, accusation and prejudice against Christians as against gay people or any other group. There are some horrendously brutal doctrines in the Bible but none of this makes me a bigot. Religion alone is rarely the problem. More often division, at which we Scots seem to be experts, is from legalism, religio-political ideologies and good old fashioned party politics. Religion is not going to go away. It has been here for over a thousand years and is part of the fabric of Scottish society. Hundreds of posters seem ignorant of religion and history. It's about time we all learned what makes each other tick. For those who won't and for all pointscorers, sh#t stirrers and smartgits, there is an open border.
55

Eire-Girl,

Dublin 28/05/2009 10:36:53
The fact that its only 10.30am and there are 53 posts around this subject amazes me! The fact that the majority of them are from people who clearly do not attend the COS even more so. The fact that the majority of them have no degree of familiarity or understanding of the bible not so much so.

This is essentially an employment matter between the COS and someone who chooses to work for them. As is the case for the rest of us, when we accept a job with a Company we take on board that we have to abide by their rules/regulations/ethos. Most large organisiations have a contract clause around 'brining the company into disrepute' Scott Rennie clearly did not choose to be gay, he did not choose who he has fallen in love with, but at the point that his personal life clashed with his professional, he should have done what the rest of us would do and look for alternative employment

Jesus does love all, as do his followers, but his ethos precludes an actively gay person leading his people.
56

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 10:41:42
#56 You appear to claim greater knowledge of the church than others, yet you are clearly unaware that ministers are not employees of the CoS. They are called by, and work for, their congregation; and they are managed by their presbytery. Scott Rennie is not an employee of the CoS, so your substantive point falls.
57

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 10:45:15
#54 What a ridiculous statement. The General Assembly has just voted on this issue. No atheists were involved in the vote, only senior members of the church. What you really mean is that *you* disagree with the decision of the General Assembly. Perhaps you need to acknowledge that.
58

Stan Butler,

28/05/2009 10:51:08
58 Duncan in Edinburgh


Would you describe yourself as a proseltysing atheist?


59

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 10:55:38
TEAM ATHEIST - WORLD EDUCATORS! *High Five*

"The only thing we believe in is shouting a lot, but we don't all believe in that together, it's more an individual lack of belief in not shouting a lot!”

60

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 10:55:53
Duncan 52

"It doesn't just "appear" to target gay people - this sort of vindictive campaign is ONLY directed at gay people"

I partially agree, in respect, that if there IS something that is purely homophobic (and nothing else) lurking in the shadows of the debate then it should be brought to light and exposes. However, I believe there is much more to the concerns of the detractors than homonegativity.

I know, and know of, gay people who have concluded in all fairness and without rancour that the Christian Gospel is not compatible with an active gay lifestyle. If that really is the case (and it IS up for debate) then any lukewarm, mealy-mouthed fudging does neither community any good.

The Church's message is salvation and it is not at liberty to compromise the core message although it is at liberty to wrestle with how it moves people to that core or that core to people.

"the body of the church would not permit such small-mindedness to lead to victimisation of straight clergy"

Don't know if I agree with the 'small-mindedness' part but it already HAS removed straight clergy from office for impropriety. It also imparts pastoral care for people who are struggling with straight issues. So, if I can put this kindly, I think that you are a tad unfair in your assessment.

There is a dangerous twist in the transition from 'God is love' to 'Love is god' as we often allow the latter to permit ourselves a very self-interested love. The focus of the former reminds us that God is also holy and believers have to find a Way in which both these attributes correspond.
Remove the holiness issue and the decision is akin to that for liberal humanism and, in the interests of social justice, is quite an easy decision to make.
It is precisely the issue of what it means to love God at the same time as loving one's neighbour that makes it a much more agonising debate for any believer who believes in the whole Gospel message not just in any selective, partisan tracts.
61

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 10:56:36
typo - exposed not exposes
62

Dave Scott,

St Albans 28/05/2009 10:58:01
(continued)
Duncan 52

When you say "must be sanctified" - only God can sanctify and you appear to be demanding that God 'must' do something. I say this next bit descriptively rather than judgementally, that demand is either incredibly faithful and admirable or else it is being insolent to God. I think the limits of any church's authority is that it may sanction certain behaviours and the C of S is in the process of making that decision. However, the church (in and of itself) is not the author of human salvation - only the care worker.

"It will continue to move forwards, because it has no choice."
Possibly but it can move upwards, backwards or downwards first - which direction(s) is/are the least damaging? ... therein lies it's choice.
63

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 10:58:35
autofill error ... I used to live in St Albans !!!
64

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 11:01:38
bad grammar - its choice not it's choice
65

Scottish Canadian,

ottawa canada 28/05/2009 11:02:25
The Western world is knocking at the door of a free and tolerant world only to find it locked and the key in the hands of the religious conservative.
Don't forget that most of the species that have ever evolved on this planet have become extinct. Just because it exists doesn't mean it will last.
If you look at the root cause for most conflicts, it appears to start with a religious dispute. Sure there are exceptions, but you cannot argue with this fact.
Finally, we optioned your open border and left your fine country because of intolerant people like you.
66

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 11:03:53
#61 Dave, I take your point that the church has in the past taken action against straight clergy for impropriety; my point was not clearly enough made, but I was trying to say that *today*, the church would not end up in full Court condemning a minister for a committed relationship outwith marriage, when that minister's appointment had been made by his congregation and approved by presbytery.

The statement of Peter Macdonald during the debate on the "singleness" report (which I have read and which is quite bizarre in my opinion) that he and many other ministers have had sex outside of marriage, did not cause seismic shock nor precipitate Court actions. That very report condones sex outside marriage in committed relationships.

I think the CoS's path is inevitable. It has never been a church of unchanging dogma, but one which works with the society in which it exists. I have no doubt it will continue to develop.
67

Eire-Girl,

28/05/2009 11:10:05
Hi Duncan in Edinburgh - Apologies - I didn't intend to put myself across as someone with greater knowledge, just first-hand knowledge which i suspect a lot of others don't have. I'm def no expert and bow to your superior wisdom in the matter However, Ministers are not paid directly by their congregations but by the COS. The point I was making stands ie each of us needs to make a personal decision as to whether we can abide by the ethos of the company when choosing to take up an appointment.

68

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 11:13:15
#66 Watch me argue with it.

Most conflicts are about power, people often use religion as an excuse, and religion does occasionally cause wars by itself but the vast majority of the time disputes are actually about influence or resources.

Most posters in this thread are completely ignorant of the Christian faith and the intricacies of Christian and church going religiosity, sure there are exceptions but you cannot argue with that fact. Some also don't know much about war.
69

Conan the Librarian™,

28/05/2009 11:19:00
59 is a right predicant.
70

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 11:26:10
"he and many other ministers have had sex outside of marriage"

non-loaded question: before or after coming to faith?

"That very report condones sex outside marriage in committed relationships."

if that is the case then the church is in deep brown stuff. Condones or (eventually) forgives? If the latter then surely only on a not-repeat basis?

"It has never been a church of unchanging dogma, but one which works with the society in which it exists"

OK but if it becomes separated from the Head then it is neither use to man nor beast (some are already of that opinion) and has just become a societal enclave of comfort rather than a transmitter of hope and of eternal life.

Colossians 2:18-20 (New International Version)

Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules:

71

Mark Insch,

28/05/2009 11:28:42
#67 Duncan

I wouldn't agree that the same wouldn't have happened in the General Assembly if it was a "straight" minister who clearly and blatently walked a path that was at odds with scripture and Christian teachings.

Also Eire-Girls comments in #56 are right on the button and go to the heart of the matter. If Mr Rennie found his own desires and lifestyle led him on a path which differed from that he knew to be fundamental to CofS teachings and policy, he should have found an alternative vocation, and not tried to change the entire organisation.
72

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 11:31:48
#71 After, I believe.

The report is Appendix 2 in the blue book, which is online here:

http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/generalassembly/downloads/gareports09missiondisciple.pdf

As I say, I think it is bizarre in parts, and not really a standard-setting tome, but it was accepted by the General Assembly I believe.
73

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 11:32:28
Dave Scott said

"That very report condones sex outside marriage in committed relationships."

if that is the case then the church is in deep brown stuff. Condones or (eventually) forgives? If the latter then surely only on a not-repeat basis?
........................

I'm not sure if you are a Christian or not, but I'm pretty sure that all Christian denominations would say that God forgives sin even on a repeat basis.

If you had a problem with sin of that sort you might not be suitable for the eledership or a pastoral care position unless there was big changes, God would forgive you though.



74

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 11:34:49
sex outside marriage in committed relationships

I think the Bible already says that such people are already (technically) married since they have consummated the relationship. I know the verse indicates a prostitute but it's the yoking that seems to be the issue and appears to transferrable to other relationships and not just with a prostitute (Sorry if I've misunderstood)

1 Corinthians 6:15-17

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body.

repeat: The Christian Gospel is not Gnosticism (or its New Age variants)
75

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 11:37:21
#72 Well given that there are several straight ministers who openly (within their parishes) live in committed but unmarried sexual relationships, I have to say I disagree with you.

As to whether Scott Rennie should have left the ministry as a result of finding a loving and committed relationship in his life, that sounds to me like a twisted application of dogma. The church is not unchanging, and he is not the first person to find himself in that position. Why should he be required to maintain the status quo? Would you have advised the first black minister to do the same? Why not?
76

MunrotheJambo,

Bo'ness 28/05/2009 11:42:33
A comment I heard this week sums it all up. "Instead of taking the Word into the world, we are now taking the world into the Word."
I also feel that it will be very difficult for a practising homosexual to do all that is required of a minister. Gay people are welcome, as is anyone else, it just makes his position untenable.As it would with a minister in an adulterous relationship.
77

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 11:44:56
Cheradenine

I think repeated sins are forgiven but I also believe that it may become progressively difficult to work one's salvation out through that sin.
Sufficient repetition would at some point count as working against the work of God's salvation in the believer's life since the injunction is always to resist or overcome sin.
Sin, by its very nature is anti-Life and anti-God.

If one really cannot help a besetting sin then that believer is seriously weakened and is probably not a good candidate for a leadership role (which is really what the debate is about)

As on a prior post: '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 also voted in by their congregation.'

1 John 3:5-7
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

Let's just not pretend that authentic Christian living is always an easy option.

1 John 3:8-10

He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he
78

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 11:45:37
(cont)

1 John 3:8-10

He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

Matthew 7:22-24

Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
79

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 11:46:37
#75 I see your point but think it's pretty thin, I would need to go over it with someone who had looked at it in depth.

My point at 74 still stands though, the number of prostitutes doesn't matter, God would forgive you.
80

Cheradenine,

28/05/2009 11:48:20
Dave Scott said..

I think repeated sins are forgiven but I also believe that it may become progressively difficult to work one's salvation out through that sin.
.............

Ok that's fine, I understand. It does mean that we shouldn't put number limits on things though.
81

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 11:50:21
#77 Only now you think that the church is adapting to the world? Never before? Not when the shift from condemnation of mixed race marriage to embracing it came along? Not when condoning slavery using verses from Leviticus became condemning slavery using verses from the New Testament?

Oh, and evidently the congregation which called Scott Rennie doesn't think that him being a "practising homosexual" will impede his work in any way; nor did the presbytery which approved the appointment. Oh, and nor does the General Assembly.
82

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 11:53:01
Duncan:

"Would you have advised the first black minister to do the same? Why not?"

There is the danger of blurring issues here. there should be social progress to correct the wrongs of the past but caution not to create new wrongs of the present.

If that black minister committed improper conduct then he should not remain in post just because he is black. Neither should he be removed from post ... just because he is black.

Now substitute any oppressed minority for 'black'.

Therefore the Church MUST decide whether it considers continuous homosexual practice to be a sin. It must also decide whether it considers continuous homosexual practice to be a sin too.

Otherwise, Christologically, it make a mockery of God-the-Son's work on the cross to purchase our souls and bodies for redemption.
83

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 11:55:40
the congregation which called Scott Rennie doesn't think that him being a "practising homosexual" will impede his work in any way

Worth considering:
(a) the congregation is not God
(b) congregations can be in error too
(c) the role is just not about a skill-set

I'm not pretending it's an easy decision-making process.
Thanks for the sparring to help me clear some of my own thoughts on the matter.
84

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 11:55:44
#79 I see that, but every Christian still sins. The point is that you attempt, with God, to put his word into practice but you are never going to be good enough.

That doesn't mean you have sinned in God's eyes though, because you are forgiven through Jesus. What it does is that you keep on sinning without caring you are going to find things difficult (or might not have been saved in the first place), and unless things change will struggle with your faith and are more likely to eventually fall away.
85

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 12:03:24
Cheradenine

"but every Christian still sins"

agreed, I think that's what I was saying but persistent, deliberate sinning - or sanctioning of it - is contrary to God's salvation.

Also, the medium to express our regret at our sinning is through repentance - a changing of one's mind, a turning away from - and not through permissive indulgence in the sin itself.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.

1 John 1:8-10
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

I am not being puritannical (honest) but I am advocating the process of sanctification which deliberate, wilful sinning militates against.

86

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 12:05:33
#84 I appreciate the opportunity to debate sensibly, many thanks. I do understand your wise point that "there should be social progress to correct the wrongs of the past but caution not to create new wrongs of the present". My reading is that there is as much Biblical justification of a bar on mixed-race marriage as there is of a bar on same-sex marriage. For me they both lie clearly in the pile marked "wrongs of the past".
87

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 12:07:27
#82 Duncan remember that Church institutions (not the same thing as the church of all Christians as the "Body of Christ" defined biblicaly) are not God, are full of sinful humans, have been wrong about lots of things, are still wrong about lots of things and will probably continue to be wrong about lots of things.
88

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 12:14:45
#88 And every one of them claims God to be on his side... :-)
89

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 28/05/2009 12:22:42
off to the dentist's ... be back soon

:-)
90

Stan Butler,

28/05/2009 12:37:01
87 Duncan in Edinburgh,


Is it only on the issue of homosexuality that you, as an atheist, take so much interest in the Church of Scotland?

91

Calum Crubag,

28/05/2009 12:42:10
~Wee frees - Scotland's Taleban.

What a positive move, eh? Get back to the days when people where stoned for adultery or disobeying a parent.

We should put all this religious nonsense in the bin once and for all.
92

Calum Crubag,

28/05/2009 12:43:29
#91 - I agree. The bible is so full of things that we couldn't possibly live by today. Imagine if our courts were to adopt 'faith' as a legitemate alibi! 'God told me to do it'!!!
93

Brideun,

Culloden 28/05/2009 12:53:54
It is a common error to assume that all homosexuals are alike in behaviour. There are the hurleys and the burleys ( an army description ), the takers and the givers. Without going into detail, one group is generally the more sensitive but submissive, can easily be conditioned when young and unsure of their sexuality. The burleys are often aggressive and enjoy dominating the weaker partner and more likely lots of 'partners'. This second group are the most likely to cause offense to society.
I write generally of course, there are always exceptions to the rule.
94

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 13:00:02
#94 You write generally? You write utterly outdated, prejudicial nonsense more like. Where are you from, the 1940s?
95

Media at One,

28/05/2009 13:08:00
What would happen if he was a black homosexual? What would happen then?
Isn't it funny how the so called righteous are the most intollerant?
Why would want to fall to your knees and worhip a god that was homophobic? Surely any decent minded person would be able to carry on worshipping no matter who the person at the pulpit was? Or is the person at the pulpit god?
96

Brideun,

Culloden 28/05/2009 13:10:00
#96 Did I hit a nerve, me thinks you doth protest too much!
97

Observer,,

Glasgow 28/05/2009 13:10:04
If the CoS can find theological means to accept divorce and the ordination of women, then there is no practical barrier to the acceptance of homosexuality as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality - provided relationships conform with the loving and monogomous relationship demanded by the Bible.

Anyone who can approve of divorce and the ordination of women but not of Mr Rennie is at least a selective literalist.

Anyone who can't accept Mr Rennie, should also disapprove of divorce, the ordination of women, and sex on a sunday (in case it leads to dancing) and should probably join the ''evangelicals''.
98

Pedantic,

Edinburgh City Centre 28/05/2009 13:13:52
96 Duncan,

What an extremely opinionated individual you are. Everybody is wrong if they don't agree with you seems to be your mantra.

Homosexuals have no place in the church. That's my opinion and I am entitled to it.

Move on will you.
99

Media at One,

28/05/2009 13:15:05
Observer has said -
#99 Best post I have read on the issue and no more need be said. That is it summed up in one post!
100

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 13:21:53
#100 Of course you're entitled to your opinion. But if you're unable or unwilling to defend it, that is your problem, not mine. I, similarly, am entitled to hold my opinion, and I am also capable of justifying and defending it. So no, I won't move on.
101

Mèths,

28/05/2009 13:23:26
101

Juvenile post.
102

Mèths,

28/05/2009 13:24:08
OOPS! I meant the nutjob on #100. Sorry media.
103

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 13:26:26
Hey Meths, you'll not be surprised to hear that I've heard nothing about no beer...
104

Bella bella,

Glasgow 28/05/2009 13:27:56
Someone has lodged a complaint suggesting that Rev Rennie's lifestyle is bringing the church into disrepute?" Who would CHOOSE to put themselves in the firing line of religious bigots?
In fact, i really get annoyed by the christian concept of martyrdom, which supposedly promotes love, understanding and a caring "lifestyle"

Well, let them split up the church and set up their own de facto church, where they can judge everyone but themselves (apparently) through the "word of God"... delve beneath the surface of any of these self rightchous, self appointed vile biggots and you'll find hipocracy, and hatred spreading,wrapped up in religious doctrine that has been misquoted.

Unfortunately, they have already started with their 'second thoughts'....... I mean come on, this comes across as a set-up job while they re-group for the kill, like the hyenas they are.

105

Brideun,

Culloden 28/05/2009 13:28:45
Duncan in Edinburgh. You stated that my comments on 94 were outdated and prejudicial - explain.
You are right on one part of your reply. I am from the forties and before and draw my opinions from a lifetime of experience and observation.
106

Media at One,

28/05/2009 13:33:25
Pedantic - #100

What is the church? Is it of man or is it of god?
107

Pedantic,

Edinburgh City Centre 28/05/2009 13:44:06
104 Meths,

Excellent! "I'm a nutjob" for what reason? That my opinion differs from yours perhaps?

102 Duncan,

I have no need to defend anything to you therefore I clearly do not have a problem. Unlike you I accept that others are entitled to their opinion. I have mine on the homosexual issue, you have yours. Simple really, move on.

108 Media,

Is the church not the house of God, built by man? Why do you ask?
108

Mèths,

28/05/2009 13:44:30
105 Duncan and the beer

Sorry Duncs. Evening News informed me I could pass beer on to someone else via email. I didn't want to pry for your email so Conan the Librarian got the beer.

Maybe next time ...
109

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 13:44:56
#107 It is laughable to suggest that there are two types of gay men; there are as many differences in character and behaviour among gay men as there are among the population in general. We are Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims; we are rich and poor, black and white, arrogant, quiet, successful, on benefits, football fans, taxpayers, doctors, patients, short, tall, clever, ignorant, bullied, bully, and all the other myriad types that exist in the world. And in sexual behaviour we are just as varied - the idea that one is either a "giver or a taker" is just nonsense. There's a lot more to gay sex than @nal intercourse, and more straight people do @nal than gay people.

In summary, your ideas are rooted not in experience but in prejudice. The reality is all around you, in the gay people you see every day but don't recognise, because they don't fit your stereotypical views. Your doctor, the shop assistant at Tesco, possibly even the old drinking buddy who has never told you he is gay because he knows what a prejudiced person you are.

That a good enough explanation for you?
110

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 13:46:23
#110 Ah, no probs, glad you got it out of them in the end!
111

Mèths,

28/05/2009 13:47:22
Pedantic

Not because my opinion differs from yours. It was your statement "Homosexuals have no place in the church."

So much for "Do unto others."

"Nutjob" stands. I won't withdraw. Sorry and all that.
112

Media at One,

28/05/2009 13:48:39
Pedantic - I am asking what the church is - man or god!

And if a person is unsuitable for your church, will they be going to hell?
113

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 13:52:29
#109 Sorry, you make no sense whatsoever. Did you think this was a conversation between you and I? You only joined in at #100, and your opening gambit was to tell me to go away. And now your response is to say it again. What was the point of you posting at all?
114

Mèths,

28/05/2009 13:56:03
115

"And now your response is to say it again. What was the point of you posting at all?"

He's in denial Duncan. He really should face his demons.
115

Mark Insch,

28/05/2009 14:01:09
Duncan in Edinburgh

You stated earlier that you were an athiest. Can I ask why you care so much about this issue and why you are so supportive of Mr Rennie when you are unlikely to attend any church (other than funerals/weddings)? Would you support any other person accused of being incapable of holding down a particular post due to their inabilty to follow company rules and regulations?
116

Stan Butler,

28/05/2009 14:01:17
99 Observer

'the loving and monogomous (sic) relationship demanded by the Bible.'


What do you mean by monogamous?

One at a time?

One after the other?

Or just one?
117

Brideun,

Culloden 28/05/2009 14:10:00
#111 I stick to my GENERAL description of homosexuals. I do know quite a few 'gays' but not as close friends, their way of life is not acceptable to me and like most folk think sodomy distasteful.
You state that @nal sex is as common in straight society as with 'Gays', come of it you are trying to normalise the abnormal.
118

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 14:14:08
#117 Actually I stated I am an atheist. I am also a gay man. I think you are well aware of why I care about this issue: it is an example of homophobia, and I am implacably opposed to homophobia in all its forms.

And I do not agree with your characterisation of this issue. It would be *illegal* for a company to deny employment on the basis of a person's sexual orientation, and for good reason - one's sexual orientation has no bearing on one's ability to do a job. But ministers are not employees of the CoS, and Scott Rennie is not in breach of any terms of his employment.

As others have said quite clearly, the crux of this issue is the right of a congregation to call a minister, and the right of a presbytery to approve that appointment. That right has been upheld by the General Assembly. Mr Rennie is far from incapable of holding down his post as you claim: as far as his congregation and presbytery are concerned he is the best man for the job!
119

Media at One,

28/05/2009 14:15:12
A lot of people missing the fact that the church ACCEPTED Rev Rennie - So my next question is who is right and who is wrong and what part does god play?

1. The CoS accepted the Reverend, so was their decision man made or did god guide them to that decision?
120

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 28/05/2009 14:22:53
#92. I'm sorry you feel that way about the Wee Frees, but if you are in any of the major cities, please let me know and I will personally ensure, on attendance, that you are invited out for Sunday roast and if you wish to discuss these things further then, so be it, and if not, you're still welcome.
121

Roberto Mc,

Glasgow 28/05/2009 14:25:28
I'm genuinely perplexed by the General Assembly's take on this situation.

'Can they point to biblical authority for what, on any estimate, amounts to a disturbing challenge to the values assumed in both Testaments? No. Can they point to any divinely inspired religious leader since to whom has been revealed God’s benevolent intentions towards homosexuals? I know of no such saint or holy man. Most have taught the opposite.

Can they honestly say that they would have drawn from Christ’s teachings the same lessons of sexual tolerance in 1000, or 1590, or indeed 1950? Surely not, for almost no such voices were heard then.

“Inclusive”, “moderate” or “sensible” Christianity is inching its way up a philosophical cul-de-sac. The Church stands for revealed truth and divine inspiration or it stands for nothing.'

Incidentally, these are not my words, but those of Times Journalist Matthew Paris in 2003, a confessed athiest and homosexual. Oh, the irony.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article861430.ece {orignal article}




122

Stan Butler,

28/05/2009 14:32:42
#120 Duncan in Edinburgh,


Whether a minister is employed at all or occupies an office is a moot point.

It appears that it rather depends on the context.

In the context of a claim to an employment tribunal for a claim of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation a minister would appear to be an employee and the body that would be sued is the CoS.

The legislation does however exempt Churches from the generality of the legislation to allow for matters of faith and doctrine.

Are you a proseltysing atheist?
123

Mark Insch,

28/05/2009 14:34:19
Duncan

It would not be illegal for, say, a bank to terminate the employment of someone of whom it was discovered had a previous unknown history as a bank robber. Similarly, it is not unreasonable for Mr Rennie's suitabilty to his post to be questioned when he carries on a lifestyle which is contrary to that which he is meant to teach and guide.

You and I also both know that as far as not being directly employed by the CofS, and being chosen by the congregation is just semantics. The worshipers pay their money, it goes to Edinburgh, Edinburgh pay the minister.

Although not a member of Mr Rennies congregation, it isn't all that far-fetched that some day I might be, or that a similiar situation may develop in our Parish. That is my interest in this matter. And I really don't think I would be comfortable with a minister whose lifestyle was far more permissive than my own would ever be, preaching from a pulpit to me every Sunday.
124

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 14:43:17
#125 Oh dear. By implication then, someone realising late in life that they are gay is, to you, morally equivalent to someone being discovered as a bank robber. How typical, how demeaning, how downright offensive.

You would only become a member of Scott Rennie's congregation if you chose to join it! And I don't know about your lifestyle, but for me there is nothing "permissive" whatsoever about two people in a long-term, monogamous, loving relationship. If that's what you see as "permissive" then I'd be fascinated to hear your definition of austere.
125

Media at One,

28/05/2009 14:55:05
Mark Insch

The CoS has spoken and the Reverend is accpeted.
Was the decision to include him a divine message? Or did it have nothing to do with god?
126

radge dug,

28/05/2009 15:01:30
#119 - does 'sodomy' refer to anl sex? The bible is unclear as the sins of Sodom were many and most were not 'of the flesh'.

WHY are Christians so obsessed with sex?

Will they also follow the bible's teachings on divorce, masturrbation, adultery, burning bulls, promoting incest etc? Why do the ant--gay lobby cherry-pick some bits and leave the rest?

Leave religion to the dark ages.
127

S T,

Scotland 28/05/2009 15:03:25
It seems that they need to look to the Bible more carefully. I do not have any doubts that the church in question is not reflecting God's Word. Do the adherents read the Bible at all?

1 Corinthians 1:10
"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

1 Corinthians 6:9,10
"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers--none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God."

128

Media at One,

28/05/2009 15:05:37
S T

So essentially the bible is a 2000 year old book of contradictions?
And people buy into this stuff?
129

Mark Insch,

28/05/2009 15:07:01
Duncan

Only in their ability to hold down their respective jobs. I have no issue with people realising late in life that they are gay, maybe-not-as-gay-as-they-first-thought, or that they do rather a good impression of Les Dawson! It is when they are put in a position of trust and moral leadership that I become concerned.

If I was to move not a million miles away to Queen's Cross, then you are saying that if I do not wish to follow the preachings of Scott Rennie, then as a CofS member, I just have to go elsewhere! That can't be right surely??

Further, there is something wrong with a morally rightous person who leaves his wife and child to take up with a same sex partner. He just discovered he was gay! How does that work? His wife must have satisfied his needs enough to marry her. Reverse the situation, and make 'gay' the 'norm' - I couldn't possibly find myself contemplating taking up with a man because I have doubts if I'm straight, but want to fit in to society meantime. How come it works the opposite way??
130

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 15:13:09
#129 God's word? Translated by whom?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
131

Mark Insch,

28/05/2009 15:15:21
#127 - Media

I do realise that the decision has been made, but I just see it as yet another watering down of our moral values. I think they are wrong, and have decided to follow a dark, unknown path. I have no problem with gays being welcomed into the CofS, but not as their leaders. It's like I said yesterday - for a preacher to be taken seriously and do any good, he must practise what he preaches, else it's all one big sham - a mockery!
132

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 15:21:25
#131 I appreciate the candour of your questioning, but there really has been for many, many LGBT people in the past, very little opportunity to accept their true selves. Marriages of convenience are far more widespread than you might imagine, and society's homophobia is internalised in many gay people to prevent them expressing themselves honestly. I realise it is almost impossible for you to empathise, but please believe me when I say that for many people, it is incredibly hard to accept the reality of their sexuality, and they are prepared to make compromises which seem almost unbelievable in the face of the homophobia which engulfs them.

I know of many people who have lived, or are still living, a lie. Family pressures, peer pressures, they are all very daunting. As I say, I appreciate the candour and understand the difficulty of empathising, but Mr Rennie's situation is very common, though no less sad as a result.
133

Media at One,

28/05/2009 15:59:38
Mark Insch

I hear you and I respect what you say - Is the problem then maybe that the bible is getting in the way of common sense?
In the bible, god makes some pretty barbaric decisions, or should we say, the author writes that god did these things. When people read about god murdering Egyptian babies they cannot take it seriously for obvious reasons and will therefore look for reasons or metaphorical meaning. That being the case when and what is the basis for looking for such meaning? If a believer can bypass the Egyptian babies saga can they not bypass the homosexual parts of the bible and then employ common sense?
Perhaps a belief in god is not the problem, maybe the problem is the bible and it needs to be scrapped so that people can pray and form relationships with their god without looking to an ancient book that confuses them and makes no sense.
134

mombassa,

28/05/2009 16:18:03
We should not be judgmental. However it is not for us to decide what is sin and what is not. That is for God and the sins are between the sinner and Him, not the sinner and us. To focus on homosexuality is a big mistake. All should be welcome in the church. But those who profess to change God's laws are in error. If we apply the same thinking to other sins, do we accept the profession of theft, adultery, murder, as being acceptable to the church? If you don't let God define sin, you lose the standard set by God. There is no other standard.
The issue raised is political, not religious and if the church decides to adopt liberal policies, it is because of political pressure and interested parties inside it, not as the outcome of deep conscience searching.
135

Keith Lagden,

28/05/2009 16:29:39
Who gives a rat's @rse anyway?, get on with life & smell the Roses
136

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 16:30:18
#136 "God" didn't decide that stealing or killing were bad; to suggest that is to fly in the face of logic. Theft is bad because it results in pecuniary loss to the victim. The bible is not a great standard to hold up when comparing such things, since it condemns the killing of a Jewish man as being punishable by death, but the killing of his wife, or a slave, is punishable as if it were theft. Did we "lose the standard defined by God" when we started treating all people as being of worth, rather than just Jewish men?
137

Phillip,

28/05/2009 16:46:32
Let me see if I understand this.
(1) A congregation within the Kirk chose to call a gay man to be their minister.

(2) Conservative elements who were not even a part of that congregation decided to contest it because they couldn't stand the idea that there was a gay minister anywhere inside the Kirk, even though they themselves were not a part of that congregation.

(3) The Kirk held a vote to determine whether that single congregation would be allowed to have an openly gay man as minister. The motion was carefully written so that it categorically stated that this would not create a precedent allowing other congregations to do the same. Instead, every single time would require the same kind of action by the Kirk as a whole.

(4) The Kirk voted by a decent margin to respect the tradition of individual congregations being allowed to select their own ministers but reaffirmed that this did not create a precedent allowing for the ordination of homosexuals to become common practice.

If the Conservatives had won, they would have expected the the rule barring gay clergy to be imposed on all congregations of the Kirk and for those congregations who would have desired to call gay clergy to simply submit to their rule.

However, since the conservatives lost they want to storm off like small children who haven't gotten their way.

Absolutely childish behaviour.
138

Mark Insch,

28/05/2009 16:58:11
138 Duncan

I would argue that adultery/divorce is equally as bad - it may not have the same result as theft/murder but it causes endless pain and grief. The wife must wonder what she did wrong, the child must wonder what he did wrong - 'thou shall not commit adultery' is there for a reason. No-one in this sorry, sad affair has even thought about his son - I would have thought growing up as the minister's son was hard enough - growing up as 'the gay minister's' son doesn't bear contemplating!

#139 Philip

How this cannot start a precedent is a mystery to me. If the next gay minister is refused a position then it really will be discrimination.
139

Stan Butler,

28/05/2009 17:01:15

139 Phillip


'(4) The Kirk voted by a decent margin to respect the tradition of individual congregations being allowed to select their own ministers but reaffirmed that this did not create a precedent allowing for the ordination of homosexuals to become common practice.'


It established the precedent that an openly homosexual person living with a same sex partner could be a minister.

I doubt that will becomes a common practice, but the CoS wouldn't now be in a position to do anything about it if it did. What do you suggest they would do, have some system of quotas?

140

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 17:09:27
#140 His wife is reportedly fully supportive of him. Just goes to show that leaping to conclusions sometimes leads to a fall. Any child of separated parents must feel hurt, but at least their child has parents who are still in close and anger-free contact. And as for the stigma of growing up as the son of a gay man - that is the problem of those who would abuse him for it, it isn't Mr Rennie's fault and it isn't his son's fault.
141

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 17:11:08
#140 I agree the precedent thing is a fudge to satisfy the conservative element. Of course a precedent has been set - a very sensible one.
142

Stan Butler,

28/05/2009 17:17:09
143 Duncan in Edinburgh


Are you a proselytising or non proselytising atheist?
143

Incandescent,

28/05/2009 17:22:12
So, Duncan, now you're apparently an expert in biblical studies, though a self-confessed atheist? Is there actually any subject on which you don't possess extensive knowledge?
144

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 17:34:23
#145 I'm no expert on tiresome, vindictive internet trolls who, when they can't win an argument take to stalking and personal abuse instead. Nonetheless, I think I've found one.
145

Observer,,

Glasgow 28/05/2009 17:36:52
145 The study of the Bible and indeed religion in general is quite fascinating. As an active atheist myself I like to keep up to date with current theological thinking.

It just seems a shame that some of the other posters on here haven't done the same.
146

Mèths,

28/05/2009 17:38:31
144 Stan

You are seriously getting on my t¡ts with this repetitive post of yours. Methinks you are so far in the closet you're in Narnia.

Come out come out wherever you are.
147

Mèths,

28/05/2009 17:40:20
Incandescent

Many atheists came to their decision (to be atheists) through intensive biblical studies, so your point is errant nonsense.
148

Mèths,

28/05/2009 17:42:21
... by that I mean - many people detested punk rock and had never even listened to it.

Sometimes even a smattering of knowledge about a subject helps when posting.
149

Observer,,

Glasgow 28/05/2009 18:07:20
150 Detesting punk rock ? Now that IS blasphemy :)
150

Incandescent,

28/05/2009 18:07:41
#146 Duncan

"Can't win arguments"? Interpret the outcome of our jousts however you like, though I suspect there are others on here whose interpretation will differ from your own.

I was mainly wondering where you find the time for the in-depth study of a bewildering array of widely differing, complex subjects. Well, actually, I wasn't. It's clear you have a phenomenal amount of spare time.

#149 Meths

"Errant nonsense"? I suggest your assertion that "Many atheists came to their decision (to be atheists)through intensive biblical studies" is utter balderdash. The fact that, in the absence of proof, we are naturally more inclined to disbelieve something than to believe it undoubtedly plays a hugely more significant role in atheism than "intensive biblical studies".
151

Pilrig,

Livingston 28/05/2009 18:15:02
75 - the Christian Gospel what the Emperor Constantine I decided it would be.
152

Pilrig,

Livingston 28/05/2009 18:24:42
128 - the church fathers felt threatened by female sexuality. They envied the good dirty fun that the pagans got up to.
Perhaps the most eloquent critique of the fuddy-duddy-ness is in DH Lawrence's essay entitled "Apocalypse"
153

Pilrig,

Livingston 28/05/2009 18:29:40
Duncan 129 - the New Testament, the oldest parts of the NT are not the Gospels but the Epistles of Paul. The Gospels were written at least a century after Jesus. Paul more or less created Christianity, inviting the Gentiles in to what had previously been an exclusive Jewish sect (which it what it's namesake probably intended it to be).
154

Mark Insch,

28/05/2009 18:35:29
Duncan

Your probably off for your tea by now. But, anyway - I am well aware that Mrs Rennie is "reportedly" in full support of her husband - but I have a sneaky suspicion that all is not as sweet and perfect in that camp - it cannot possibly be - she is probably made of sterner stuff than her husband and knows how to put on a brave face (and knows a little about damage limitation).

As far as possible bullying being the fault of potential abusers - I totally agree with you - but in the real world these things happen and it's unlikely the perpetrators will stop to wonder if it's their fault.

Finally, I question Mr Rennie's integrity - he has been happy to hurt anybody and everybody (even take the CofS to the brink of possible destruction) all so that he could fufill his heart's desire and have everything his way - sounds like an extremely self-centred and selfish person to me. I say again - I wouldn't want him as my minister - if only for that reason!
155

Media at One,

28/05/2009 19:44:04
I am confused so perhaps a beliver can assist - Knowing that the CoS has agreed to the inclusion of the reverend, is it reasonable to believe that the decision makers were guided by god?
156

Iain Mac,

from the 'Dear Laura' letter, applicable to Wee Fr 28/05/2009 19:44:19
Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
157

Iain Mac,

28/05/2009 19:44:47
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
158

Iain Mac,

28/05/2009 19:50:07
Now, maybe the Christians, of all persuasions could advise ME here. If we really have to stick to God's law, why is there no fuss from the Wee Frees over people who eat shellfish?

Would the Presbyterian Taleban condemn me for having 'contact' with my girlfriend during her period?

And, if Scots law forbids incest and slavery, is this going against the express wishes of the bible?

As to 'nice' Christians, who gives you the right to cherry pick the 'good' bits from the bible? And to the Wee Frees, why not enforce ALL of 'God's word' and not only the stuff about sex?
159

Iain Mac,

Take note.... 28/05/2009 19:54:24
Exodus 35:2 [KJV] Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. [NIV] For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
160

Conan the Librarian™,

28/05/2009 19:55:31
Dear old Leviticus.
He must have been fun at parties.
161

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 28/05/2009 20:01:04
Christians, Yeshua (i.e. Jesus) said that he came not to alter a jot or a tittle of the Law (Matt 5:18-19). Thus you must beat your children (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13). If your children give you backchat, then do the Christian thing and KILL them for the sake of Heaven (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Yeshua supported the killing of backchatting children (Mark 7:9-13) and Matthew 15:4-7). Yeshua also believed that a fig tree that had no fruit at the END of winter should be cursed and caused to wither. Yeshua also referred to gentiles as "dogs under the table", and stated categorically that he had only come for Jews. (Read what he says in the Gospels when he meets the Syrophoenician woman in Tyre.) Furthermore the Christian God belived in wiping out the first-born children of the Egyptians. He also appears to enjoy torturing people to death with appalling diseases such as systemic lupus erythmatosis, bulbar motor neurone disease, and many parasitic infections. He gets a real kick out of dragging children out to sea using tsunamis, and earthquakes are God's absolute pleasure. Christians, if your God exists I would preosecute him for unspeakable sadism. But He doesn't. Now grow up.
162

Conan the Librarian™,

28/05/2009 20:03:43
164
Are you fun at parties?
163

Media at One,

28/05/2009 20:06:17
Ian

Very good - I doubt you will get an answer, your questions are too close to the bone.
164

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 28/05/2009 20:10:58
Christians: If your faith and churches are inspired by God, then why did He protect and nurture so many paedophiles within them? Why did He allow such brutality to be meted out by His faithful followers to children who were taken in for "protection" by the Church in Eire and many other countries? If God exists, why did He not lift a finger to cleanse His own churches? No bolts of lightning? No churches tumbling in upon rotten priests? Yet the Bible says he wiped out entire towns for corruption: Sodom and Gomorrah. So maybe God is just a brutal sadist, and really revels in cruelty - He wiped the towns out just for kicks, and enjoyed watching perverted priests torturing children? After all, He could have stopped it, punished the wicked, and saved so many, many lives. Ah yes, but being mentally retarded Christians can just fall back on that idiotic saying: "God works in mysterious ways." Very mysterious, indeed.
165

Media at One,

28/05/2009 20:16:27
Conan #165

Read the persons post again and realise the horror therein is not some ficticious account written by some ancient scribe, but actual scripture that billions of people hold dear to their heart. The book that reveals these horrors is held in the hand of every preacher in the world. Think about that for a second, this most disgusting and evil book is sold off as the most moral and important book of all time and you will find one in almost every school, every home and in most hotels. How can it be that an entire species can miss the horror therein? How can it be that they can hold such a book so close to their hearts? Are they so barbaric and so brainwashed?
Hatred and evilness can be found at the heart of every religion because the book the flock base their faith on teaches horror whilst caressing their fragile hearts with stories of love and hope. What a shame
166

Norrie G,

Edinburgh 28/05/2009 20:24:49
Whoa! Anti-gay/lesbian Kirk members are now being labeled as 'Rebels' for speaking up their minds (they will probably be labeled terrorists soon)! By that extension, the pro-liberal, gay and lesbian members of the Kirk would probably like to be called indigenous, or natives? LOL!
167

James (1),

28/05/2009 20:25:55
Ah Duncan I see you are still trying to convert the normal to the abnormal!
Everyone is has the right to agree if and only if they agree with you? Correct me if I am wrong.
There seems to be many who are against this life style choice you are trying to sell as normal. Why do you think that is?
Whether you believe in God or natural selection both are against homosexuals.
Muslims for or against? So billions are wrong and you are the lone voice in the wilderness.
Mrs Rennie is probably hugely embarrassed by this turning of her husband.
#152 Duncan is the gay equivelent to the Scientologist.
They try to make out they are normal AND a religion.
Like Duncan they are confused and cannot take in why others see him and his like as weird.
Duncan takes apathy as acceptance. Only gays think being gay is normal.
The majority of people (normal people) could not care less what they get up to. So gays take that as they should be accepted in all walks of life. Never going to happen! Legislate all you want. It is like trying to tell someone not to blink.
168

r1niceboy,

Nebraska, via Polwarth 28/05/2009 20:32:27
The Free Church should really change their name because there's almost no freedom of worship within their realm. They remind me of American evangelists, but without the white teeth and charisma. They've got the intolerance down pat, "we're always willing to talk to like-minded individuals."

That suggests the either ignore, or talk at, people who are not like minded. Like people who follow the New Testament more than the old one.
169

Conan the Librarian™,

28/05/2009 20:36:05
168
Meedja

You don't need to prosetylise to me, I'm a rabid atheist;-)

Methinks James(1) (Very good name by the way)
needs it more...
170

Observer,,

Glasgow 28/05/2009 21:09:03
You should take your comic act to the Fringe James, I am sure it would be a hit. What do you do as an encore ?



171

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/05/2009 21:10:40
#170 Ah, my other deluded little stalker, I was wondering where you were today.

You do seem to be especially confused today. I am a "lone" voice, and yet I am speaking in support of the congregation of Queen's Cross, the Aberdeen Presbytery, and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.

Gay people will always be a minority; but homophobes like you will dwindle and die out altogether, and I can't wait for that day to dawn.
172

Conan the Librarian™,

28/05/2009 21:14:37
173
Evening Observer

Stones adulterers?
173

Observer,,

Glasgow 28/05/2009 21:30:40
175 Stones adulterers ? I don't think Charlie is, but the rest of the 'Stones are serial adulterers.

Boom boom.

I'm not as funny as James 'though.
174

Conan the Librarian™,

28/05/2009 21:45:10
176
Ah. Stoned adulterers any better?

Indeed Observer, James(1) is an ironic moniker for a homophobe.
175

Mèths,

28/05/2009 21:53:26
The "anti Duncan" brigade lose the plot, so they sign on with "new" names to back up "previous" posters. He he he!

Go Duncan. You rock!

(ps - I'm not gay but reading the rabid homophobic garbage posted here - I'd rather change my lifestyle than be associated with these bampots).

Well done Duncan!

(pps - sorry about the beer)

176

Mèths,

28/05/2009 21:54:19
Hoos Poos to Conan.
177

Mèths,

28/05/2009 21:57:06
Duncs

I disagree with you regularly on the politics threads, but I'm with you 100% on this.
178

Conan the Librarian™,

28/05/2009 22:02:29
Meths, why are you sorry about the beer?
Cheers.
179

MunrotheJambo,

Bo'ness 28/05/2009 22:58:10
After all is said and done, you either believe or don't believe there will be a Day of Judgement. I would hope that Mr Rennie believes there will be, and that is the only judgement that matters. For non-believers, you are going to have to die to find out if you were right or not





After all is said and done, you either believe a Day of Judgement is coming or you don't. I would hope Mr Rennie believes there is, as that is the only judgement that matters. For non-believers you are going to have to die to find out if your non-belief was accurate !!






180

MunrotheJambo,

Bo'ness 28/05/2009 23:00:12
This being the case all 182 posts are irrelevant.
181

Tris,

28/05/2009 23:55:24

Dear Church of Scotland Management,

You probably won't have noticed any of this, your heads being to firmly up your back sides, but there is a recession, nay depression, going on the country. People are losing their jobs; people are going hungry. Come the winter people will be going cold.

Some people will probably lose their homes. The government of the UK is in crisis for quite a few reasons, not least the fact that about half of parliament has been on the fiddle, got caught and squealing like the little pigs they are. The House of Lords is no better. Even the royal family are wasting our money, what little we have, on protection for junior members that no one has heard of much less would recognise.

Would it be too much for you to address yourselves to the core message of Jesus Christ's teaching which, if I'm not mistaken, was LOVE. Just while you might be a little bit useful. After that you can go back to sticking your head up your backsides and becoming, once again, completely irrelevant.

Best wishes

Tris Williams
182

Dunnie,

Canada 29/05/2009 02:01:58
Conan - good to see you on the threads.
183

Billy Boy,

Sherman Oaks Californiacation 29/05/2009 06:39:13
Where is the discussion this site is supposed to engender. Some of the posts are just nasty suggesting that many of the posters simply want to cause trouble. Clearly, many of you will be happy to hear that a high school in Los Angeles has selected a boy to be the School Queen, he even out polled seven young ladies for the position. A young man was also selected as School King. he competed with males only. The graduation party (PROM) typically starts with the King & Queen dancing, at this point the male has said he will not dance with the homosexual. What a mess we are making of society, HOW SICK CAN WE GET?
184

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 29/05/2009 07:40:41
So if you're not a liberal you're not just a 'fundamentalist', you're Fred Phelps or the Taleban. Shame on you Scotland. If you can't reason without trading insults, hell mend you.
185

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 29/05/2009 08:14:02
Will some people on this site please acknowledge that the decision-making process is very difficult for believers who are not into scoring petty points! There is a deep issue over what is means to love God and to love your neighbour and to avoid judgementalism.

To sum up some of the issues on this thread:

1. The church must decide whether continuous gay practice is a sin.
2. The church must be equally rigorous with straight sin.
3. The redemption of one's body is a Christian precept, Christianity is not Gnosticism, therefore what one does with one's body is important.
4. The aim of the Gospel is Christ-relationship not self-realisation - Christianity is not Gnosticism.
5. Principled Biblical interpretation cannot permit the arguing of a negative from a silence. If the Bible sets something out as wrong then it remains wrong unless repealed/refined/qualified by God.
6. The above progress must be revealed by God and not presumed by mankind (church or not) otherwise it is putting God to the test.
7. All Biblical quotes must be understood in the genre they are written - instruction, poetry, historical narrative, apocalyptic vision. Some parts are literal some are allusions.
8. Scripture must interpret Scripture = coherency ... this avoid building cultic beliefs on one particular verse.
9. God is love does not mean Love is god. relationship with God involves other attributes but Love is prime - but this means Love of God as well as love of neighbour.
10. Christians should beware the yeast of the Pharisees -sanctification is not a call to sanctimoniousness.
11. Congregations are not God, that is not to be anti-democratic but God's will is not something that is put to the vote. It's possible in any theological debate for the majority lobby or the minority lobby or both to be wrong in a given instance.
12. This debate is about whether ordained gay clergy can continue in active sexual relationships and not whether gay people can be Christians or ordained.

186

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 29/05/2009 08:15:05
cont.

Duncan - I really appreciate your part of this dialogue. The search, I believe, for Christians is to try and work out what GOD is saying to gay people. I have found your contributions to be really helpful, considerate and informative even though I belong to the 'other side' of the debate to yourself.
187

James (1),

29/05/2009 10:17:55
#174 Good one Duncan take what is said literally. When you know fine that I was talking relatively. You are not the only one who is promoting gay as normal. I am not the only one who sees it as abnormal. When we take Muslims then your views are equivalent to being the lone voice. If you move through different religions your view is the lone voice. It’s well known you apply whatever meaning to a word you choose.
Now to someone reading this and having never read your “logic” they will wonder what I am on about. However you know exactly what I mean. Take the word normal! You come out with such guff as what’s normal to you is not normal to me. You are correct. What you don’t say however is what’s normal to you is not normal to the majority of the population. That makes you abnormal but you don’t like that word do you?
Regarding who will dwindle and die first. You will never see that day you hope for because as I said your way of life will never become acceptable to the majority. Tolerated? Yes! Ignored? Yes but only if they would keep quiet and that is not likely to happen is it?
The life style of gays will ensure they die out before normal people. Natural selection will assist with that. Also you give impression that those who accept gays are more intelligent people so let’s assume they are. Well guess what, the population in all countries of the world are not so intelligent. So it is not looking too bright for gays!

 

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.