Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Kirk orders ban on gay minister debate

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

Published Date: 26 May 2009
THE Church of Scotland last night effectively gagged its members from public discussion of gay ministers and postponed a potentially divisive vote on the issue for two years in a desperate bid to avoid a schism.
A debate on a call to ban openly homosexual people from appointment to the ministry was torpedoed by an 11th-hour motion that dominated the General Assembly yesterday.

Instead of proceeding with the vote – which many traditionalists had warned could split the Kirk – members agreed to establish a commission to study the issue and report back in 2011.

Until then, no more openly gay ministers can be appointed and no members can speak in public on the issue of openly homosexual, non-celibate ministers.

Only the Church and Society, HIV/Aids Project and Mission Discipleship committees can speak out on the broader issue of human sexuality.

One hardliner said last night Kirk members were now "effectively prevented from speaking out in public on this".

The decision came as 121 Kirk ministers and Church members showed their disapproval of the decision to allow the openly gay Scott Rennie to be appointed to a ministry when they signed a notice of dissent.

Before yesterday's General Assembly proceedings were able to start, a point of order was brought by one commissionaire that he wished to dissent against Saturday's decision to allow Mr Rennie to take up his ministry at Queen's Cross Church, Aberdeen.

Moderator Bill Hewitt said a document had been set up for those who wished to dissent on the decision to have their names recorded in the minutes of the assembly.

Although it will have no bearing on the decision itself, it was an expression of the strength of opposition to the crucial vote on Saturday that backed Mr Rennie's appointment. The vote was carried 326 to 267 and it is thought that many of those who opposed it would have signed the petition of dissent.

Ministers yesterday spoke of members being "in mourning" at the decision and in turmoil over whether or not they should leave the Kirk.

The assembly was yesterday due to debate an overture from Lochcarron-Skye Presbytery to prevent the training and ordination of openly gay individuals.

However, before the discussion on the substantive issue could start, a motion was brought by the Rev Dr John McPake, calling for the formation of a commission to look into the issue, which would not report back until 2011.

The motion also contained a clause calling for a moratorium on any public comment from Kirk courts, committees and ministers on the issue, effectively gagging them. Mr McPake said it was not about creating a silence, but about creating a space for "disciplined dialogue".

In commending the motion, the Rev Angus Morrison said any split in Church ranks would be a "deeply flawed" solution to the issue.

"It is comparatively easy to split a church, but the challenge of healing the divisions is of an entirely different nature," he said. "The notion that these tensions within a church can best be solved by going separate ways is deeply flawed. It is a path rather to the multiplication of problems."

Members backed the establishment of a commission to report in two years on the issues thrown up in recent weeks and the wider issue of same-sex relationships, stating that it would best serve the "peace and unity" of the Church.

However, the motion raised opposition from some parts of the assembly, on the grounds that the Kirk had been debating the issue for too long and that it was an attempt to prevent members discussing the issue.

The Rev Ian Watson, a leading member of the evangelical Forward Together group, called for a decision now.

"It seems to me we have the opportunity today to make a decision, not just make a decision ourselves, but allow our presbyteries to discuss, debate and reach a definitive decision."

He said the calls for the commission were "insulting" to presbyteries because it proposed only to "consult" them on the issue.

"Give the Church a voice – give us a real voice," he said.

The Rev Cameron Mackenzie agreed, saying: "I would rather we didn't take any longer … people really want to know what we think and care about our decision. There are people out there waiting for our word."

However, there were those who supported the whole of Mr McPake's motion, claiming a pause in the debate was needed to allow "damage limitation" and "healing".

The Rev Peter Johnston, spokesman for the OneKirk group, which has supported Mr Rennie, claimed a moratorium on public comments would create an unwanted vacuum.

The Rev Dr George Whyte, who had spoken for Mr Rennie's appointment, agreed a two-year pause was best.

The Very Rev John Cairns, a former moderator, also supported the motion, saying it was "very balanced" and would give presbyteries a chance to give their opinions and would "let things cool down a little".

Following the acceptance of Mr McPake's motion, the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye withdrew its overture.

Westminster losing moral authority – Salmond

THE Westminster parliament is losing its "moral authority" to govern, Alex Salmond told the Church of Scotland yesterday.

The First Minister warned the expenses scandal engulfing the House of Commons was eroding trust in the institution itself.

During an address to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on The Mound, Mr Salmond said:

"Some of our core political institutions have lost their moral authority. At the very time that people are seeking reassurance, guidance, leadership, the Westminster system in particular is unable to provide it.

"Trust is a precious quality, an essential quality, and once lost, it's not easy to rebuild. But that work must be done, because that trust is the lifeblood of a decent society and a true currency of democracy."

Mr Salmond praised former Holyrood presiding officer George Reid, in attendance yesterday as Lord High Commissioner at the Assembly, for his role in restoring the reputation of the Scottish Parliament after the outcry that met the £400 million-plus cost of the building. "The Scottish Parliament recovered," Mr Salmond said. "We opened ourselves up to full transparency, we admitted our mistakes and today the Scottish Parliament is much, much stronger for that and provides, perhaps, an example for others to follow."

'We are all guilty if we opt to stay silent'

HUMAN rights, it has been said, may go global by going local. This may also be the case in Scotland, writes George Newlands.

The integrity of the Church is important – but there are different sorts of integrity; of organisation, of doctrine, of identification with those who are discriminated against. Above all, the Church is mandated to maintain integrity with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What does integrity ask of us? The hospitable God is always there in solidarity with the subjects of inhospitality. The gay issue is minor compared with the huge issues of poverty and environment.

The awkward fact remains that we are all guilty in some degree when discrimination occurs and we stay silent. In Sachsenhausen concentration camp there is a memorial to gay people which simply bears two words: totgeschlagen, totgeschwiegen (murdered, silenced).

Ivory-tower reflection is not enough. The danger on all sides of these dilemmas is that the quest for hospitality may lead to demonising people whose views differ from our own.

Jesus nowhere mentions same-sex relationships. He turns to those beyond the pale, flouting many of the taboos of the time. Touching the leper, the living damned, is the touchstone of God's own hospitality.

The suggestion often remains that God is not uncomfortable with the just punishment of gay and lesbian people. But there is also the serious issue of the unity of the Church.

The disconnect between doctrinal reflection and human experience remains a barrier to recognition of the hospitable God. God's hospitality in incarnation invites us to look again at our political, social, and our church arrangements. We need to be hospitable in turn.

• George Newlands is Professor Emeritus of divinity at Glasgow University

'Third World' credit union plan for Scots

THE Kirk is investigating setting up a credit union based on a model used in the developing world to help people in deprived parts of Scotland start up businesses.

The church and society committee is examining ways to lend small amounts of money to people to help them create niche companies.

"The way into work for many is even further than it was a year ago.

"We need to find creative ways for people to participate in society and use their ideas and energy," said committee convener Ian Galloway.

The Kirk is considering setting up a company into which it would invest money that will be used as "micro-credit" loans for small business start-ups.

Mr Galloway said he hoped the government would help to set up a pilot scheme to show the idea would work.

"Using people's creativity and potential is a much better way of moving people from welfare to work than punitive measures," he said.

"We think that this would be a much more positive view of the people concerned. Rather than being seen as idle and not to be trusted, they are seen to have enormous potential and creativity."

A business plan would be required, and loans would be made to groups of four or five people, who would take upon themselves to ensure that they would all repay the debt. Admitting that there was the possibility that people could take the money while still claiming benefits, Mr Galloway said the experience of other schemes was that there was a pay-back rate of 98 per cent.

The Kirk will look for potential partners and the Scottish and UK governments will be approached.

It is working with Glasgow Caledonian University on a structure for the scheme.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 25 May 2009 11:51 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Church of Scotland
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 26/05/2009 01:58:22

What will take place, and believe you me!, is what is called,...
...'Adjustment-Therapy-Time', then all will be forgotten and well, no-one likes change, but life moves on,..'like-it-or-Not'!

2

Advance Alba,

edinburgh 26/05/2009 03:01:46
How very depressing. As one who used to be proud to belong to a Church that saw things square on and rejected bigotry, I now see how wrong I was. This is no church of the Gospel of Christ, this is a church of Leviticus, which instead of obeying Christ's command to love, instead chooses to worship an iron-age book. No Living God there, then. Secession is a two way street, and I am off elsewhere. Last person out please switch off the lights. After all, those living in the dark don't seem to want to let the light in.
3

Canada,

Canada 26/05/2009 04:03:02
Born 1560. Died May, 2009. Cause of death: Heresy.
4

Nanook,

Canada 26/05/2009 05:12:21
Homosexuality is no more or less an issue than anything else wrong with humanity. The heart of the Christian message admits we are ALL corrupt misfits and vagabonds incapable of improving ourselves.
5

Media at One,

26/05/2009 06:02:26
If you believe, would you say god made all of mankind?
6

Eckyboo,

26/05/2009 06:46:28
If this were any other organisation they would be dragged up in front of some tribunal or other if not arrested by the Police for being homophobic.
7

Kate,

Zurich 26/05/2009 07:35:54
He is a really nice man, great minister, excellent preacher and incredibly discreet in his private life. His appointment is to be celebrated. It will be a shame for Brechin Cathedral when he goes as he has been a very popular minister there, both when he first arrived as a married man and since acknowledging his homosexuality.

The bigots are pathetic!
8

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 26/05/2009 07:59:50
You'd think homosexuals are the only ones to get discriminated against. What about ageism, sexism, racism. The fact that some disabled people in the wealthiest parts of the country are living in squalor. That vulnerable kids are more vulnerable to bullying than ever. Yes there are people struggling with sexual issues but what about pointing the finger at the media, the porn merchants, internet companies, men's 'health' magazines, the 'sex' industry?
Peter Tatchell and his whinging crew can get lost. He's nothing but a sh*tstirrer who is perfectly capable of taking up more worthy causes but goes for something for which he lacks the theological nous. Some of the greatest 'saints' in society are written off as homophobes. Hell mend the pc mob. Shame on you you scumbags.
9

thinking,

Scotland 26/05/2009 08:25:21
If the Church of Scotland is supposed to be the Lord's Church then surely it is only the Lord who should be making changes? When Christ was on the earth he gave direction himself, at other times He spoke through Apostles and Prophets who revealed His will (revelation). When was the revelation given that says there can be a change of doctrine? When was the revelation given about ordaining women etc.?
10

Strict Ivan Jellicoe,

Renfrew 26/05/2009 08:56:21
I trained as an engineer but have decided I’d like to now be a midwife. I don’t have the correct training, qualifications or personal attributes to be a midwife – but so what. If my application is rejected, I will claim that I am being sexually discriminated against because I am male and most midwives are female. The European Court of Human Rights will support me and the national Council of Midwifery will place a banning order on open discussion. Crazy – isn’t it?
11

Kate,

Zurich 26/05/2009 08:58:39
#13 Ivan, what is your point? Scott Rennie is a highly qualified minister...
12

Stan Butler,

26/05/2009 09:20:32
14 Kate

'Scott Rennie is a highly qualified minister'


Surely he must be a bit slow on the uptake if he only realised he was a homosexual after he had been married?


13

Kate,

Zurich 26/05/2009 09:28:27
Stan, that has nothing to do with his qualifications. There are many many people who take a long time to come to terms with their true feelings, that in no way hinders them from carrying out the jobs for which they are trained and qualified.
14

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 26/05/2009 09:30:45
Kate

Silly question possibly, but how do you know all the things you stated at your comment at 10 when you resdie in Zurich? Is it anecdotal or do you know first hand?

Just asking.
15

Stan Butler,

26/05/2009 09:41:11
16 Kate

'take a long time'

As I said, a bit slow on the uptake.


16

Andrew,

26/05/2009 09:44:33
A case of "Locking the stable door........" etc., although the C of S is not now very stable, IS IT?
What a hypocritical move too!!
17

Kate,

Zurich 26/05/2009 09:54:59
17 Dave, My Mum lives in Brechin and I have attended Brechin Cathedral, both when Scott was first there with his wife and since his divorce and "coming out". I've heard Scott preach about half a dozen times and also met him on other occasions, although I've not met his new partner.
Does that help?
18

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 26/05/2009 10:08:55
Kate

Cool, you're a Brechin-ite! I like Brechin and the Cathedral is amazing.
19

Kate,

Zurich 26/05/2009 10:15:23
Dave, sorry, I went to Montrose Academy...officially a Gable Ender as I was born in Montrose way back when! Dad's Montrose and Mum is Brechin!
20

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 26/05/2009 10:16:37
Ach well Kate, you can claim both!
21

,

26/05/2009 10:18:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 26/05/2009 10:22:09
24

Are you suggesting that a hetrosexual minister is not suitable to be left alone with girls and young ladies?

Are you suggesting that this minister cannot cap his sexual urges but a hetrosexual one can?

What about a femalee minister? Are they safe to be left alone with young boys and men?
23

Boab,

Glasgow 26/05/2009 10:23:13
#5 Advance: Well put. Christ had plenty of time to speak out against homosexuality, prostitutes, money-lenders, Samaritans and all the other unpopular people of his day, but didn't. Strange how this point has been missed by people who have spent years at a theological college studying the new testament.
24

Kate,

Zurich 26/05/2009 10:27:22
25, Dave, thanks for that answer, Ivan is being offensive and pedantic!
25

Stan Butler,

26/05/2009 10:28:25
#24 Strict Ivan Jellicoe

I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say that he has put his own selfish interests before those of his Church knowing full well what the consequences would be.

Mind you, as a hardcore, sectarian, Catholic bigot I've always regarded the CoS as a Church for the self interested. There's something not right when people have to get dressed up to go to a church.
26

,

26/05/2009 10:34:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

Martin_edinburgh,

Edinburgh 26/05/2009 10:37:16
"THE Church of Scotland last night effectively gagged its members from public discussion of gay ministers"

Wrong. Journalistic exaggeration. A motion was withdrawn, because the proposers felt that alternative means (a proposed Commission) would adequately address the question. Voluntarily withdrawing a motion is hardly 'gagging'. How poor journalists love to distort the facts.
28

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 26/05/2009 10:38:45
29

Easy on. Homosexuality exists in just about every mamalian species. It's hard wired, not a choice.

Many studies on many different species all conlcuded the same way. The rise of homosexuality was linked with the rise of (percieved) over population.

It can be easily hypothesised that it is a natural response to scarse space, resources etc.

The man should not be condemed for being a homosexual and the religious aspect of it is an ecumenical matter as far as I'm concerned.
29

Strict Ivan Jellicoe,

Renfrew 26/05/2009 10:46:39
Dave and Kate
"Are you suggesting that a hetrosexual minister is not suitable to be left alone with girls and young ladies?
Are you suggesting that this minister cannot cap his sexual urges but a hetrosexual one can?"
I accept that well made point and it is worth pointing out that most Christian Churhes that I have knowledge of now have strict procedures for one to one counciling.
I am also suggesting that in this particular case with this particular minister he is completely unsuitable as a Christian minister for the reasons that I have already stated in my post in #24.
30

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 26/05/2009 10:49:17
Like I said Strict, it's an ecumenical matter after that, his sexuality has no bearing on his performance as a minister or undertaking his duties as a minister.
31

Stan Butler,

26/05/2009 10:56:45
33 Dave From Barra


'it's an ecumenical matter'


It looks like Father Jack Hacket is alive and well and living on Barra.

32

Bella bella,

Glasgow 26/05/2009 11:25:56
Yet another controversial issue on which strong opinions are being force fed i suspect to weaken and disrupt any public influence!!
(also known as a hissy fit) ....

When does the moral duty to bear witness outweigh the need to crucify sexual orientation?
Regardless, of whether sexual orientation is determined by nature or nurture or both, the most important thing is that the GLBT community are treated equally and are allowed to live their life without fear of persecution on account of sexual orientation.

33

Scottish Canadian,

ottawa canada 26/05/2009 11:30:34
Pierre Trudeau once said that the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. I think this would apply to the church as well.
The issue is one of competence, not sexual orientation.
#29-not a Genetics major, are you?
Censorship and procrastination are the desperate tactics of a dying institution struggling with its purpose. My advice is to get out of this Titanic before someone gets hurt.
34

DollyDimple,

26/05/2009 11:33:35
The decision made at the weekend upheld Queens Cross Church's right to call the person of their choice as Minister. That was all. This is made plain on the Church of Scotland website. An ongoing debate (which was already underway when Queens Cross decided to appoint Rev Rennie anyway) had not reached a conclusion on the subject of homosexual ministers. The Church therefore has no policy. That process now continues and is to be private which is understandable. It is Church of Scotland business and they wish it to be conducted in a dignified manner. What the media declared following the vote on Saturday was not fact. All that happened was the right of Queens Cross to appoint Rev Rennie was upheld. (Congregations have that legal right and this is what was being debated, not the subject of homosexuality itself.) I suppose we can only shake our heads at the shocking standards of journalism these days.
35

Saoghal Beag,

26/05/2009 11:46:18
29 what about the very many gay men who have fathered children, how do they fit into your view of the world.

your definition of gay love making is really rather limited, you certainly lack imagination. as for one person sticking thier anatomy into anothers there seems to be a far comparison with the heterosexuals.

Your views seem to have fallen straight out of the Victorian period...oh bet you have a prince albert!
36

Strict Ivan Jellicoe,

Renfrew 26/05/2009 11:54:41
I know that I am slightly repeating my earlier point but too bad – here goes be warned the gloves are off and not for the faint hearted!
Scott Rennie undertook Christian vows in a Christian marriage in Christian Church to a Christian woman.
Christians are expected to maintain their vows. After doing all that, Scott Rennie left his wife.
Scott Rennie broke his vows and is sexually active with other like minded men who he is not married to.
Scott Rennie wants to enter into a new and civil partnership with his male partner. The new partnership is to be a civil one and not a Christian church marriage. A very strange choice for an active Christian minister who want to serve the church in a leadership role.
Scott Rennie openly distorts established Christian doctrine as ‘modern interpretation’
It must have been patently obvious what reaction his behaviour would cause within and outwith the church – but Scott Rennie was prepared to put the Lord’s people and the Lord’s Church through that anyway - for his own personal gain.
Scott Rennie has not once said that any of his actions may be wrong and sought repentance or forgiveness.
Scott Rennie currently uses, and will continue to use, the pulpit to preach to lead and teach the congregation and feed them in Christian actions. God help them!
Willie Still – also an Aberdeen C of S minister - has written that the role of a Christian minister is a Shepherd to lead the flock. God help them at Queen’s Cross!
I trust that this address Kate’s earlier gentle chastisement of me for questioning Scott Rennie’s qualifications and attributes for being a Christian Minister! I cannot think of a more unsuitable, inept, disreputable and discredited Christian minister than Scott Rennie. He and his supporters have no credibility – none whatsoever.

Personal message to Scott Rennie – Scott, The Lord loves you and died for you. Please come to and attend church but not in a leadership role.
37

Ken26,

Toronto, Canada 26/05/2009 12:12:11
Well said, Scottish Canadian #36. Pierre Trudeau had his faults but he was one of the most enlightened politicians of the 20th. century.

#12 thinking:
"When Christ was on the earth he gave direction himself, at other times He spoke through Apostles and Prophets who revealed His will (revelation). When was the revelation given that says there can be a change of doctrine? When was the revelation given about ordaining women etc.?"

Since when did Christ set out doctrine in the Gospels? Doctrine is a man-made device used to control people's thoughts and actions, either by religions or by governments. In case you have forgotten, Naziism and Communism both espoused doctrines that ultimately led to the deaths of tens of millions of innocent people.

Quite apart from homosexuality, I see you also have a problem with ordaining women. If women in the church make you uncomfortable, perhaps you would be better off living in one of the (regrettably) many countries on this planet that still regard women as being worth less than a goat or a sheep and do not even allow women to participate in religious activity on an equal basis with men.

Although I was raised C of S, I do not attend church any longer as there is just too much hypocrisy and bigotry (as amply demonstrated above) for my liking. I do however endeavor to practise the principles that I learned such as love thy neighbor, treat others as you would want them to treat you.
38

Mark Insch,

26/05/2009 12:12:56
I am no fundamentalist, but I would think that in any "Christian" sense, Scott Rennie has well and truly strayed from the "Rightous Path" - surely he himself having been trained and practised as a minister must realise this himself. I cannot believe that any minister of the Church would counsel me to leave my marriage (wife & children) to follow my dream and hearts desire of a new exiting relationship (homosexual or otherwise) - yet this is exactly what he counseled to himself. Regardless of his current sexual orientation I would have thought by having a relationship out of his Christian marriage he would be commiting the sin of adultery - surely you can't have your church minister openly commiting adultery without any sign of repentance?? Or am I missing something??
39

Brodric,

26/05/2009 12:21:01
29 Darien. . "Homosexuals are therefore absolutely selfish in that they depend on normal (yes, normal) people to create them and their 'partners' (sic) in the first place yet they themselves fail to reciprocate during their own fruitless lives"

My dear, have you forgotten about the Fall of Man from the garden of Eden? Wonderfully biblical imagery seems to flash through your mind. "fruitless lives" - is this because they didn't do the apple bit? "normal people" - what is that given that, according to some biblical sources, we are all supposed to be born in sin?

The 'normal people' in the biblical story of the Garden of Eden were sinners of the highest degree - and their sin was that they strayed from God by being disobedient. We don't know that God actually wanted them to be sexual at all from this story, but perhaps to live as brother and sister without the knowledge of human sexuality. In this case, Adam and Eve were self-interested and self-indulgent in their desire for each other. This doesn't sound like a very different depiction you give for homosexual people.
40

Brodric,

26/05/2009 12:27:06
41 - Mark Insch. The righteous path! Ye Gods.

When Jesus was busy mustering up the disciples, he called them away from their wives and families and their work - to follow him. Was that the righteous path as far as their families were concerned.

We confuse morality, with ethics, with obligation and with our belief in something higher.

Further fundamental mistakes about having a 'choice' as a sexual being muddies the water. Scott Rennie no more fantasised about his 'heart's desire' than fly to the moon. He more than likely agonised about it and he would understand what it means in a small way to be sweating blood like Jesus in Gethsemane at the enormity of what he was about to do.

Little minds, little imaginations find little meaning.
41

Tartan Viking,

26/05/2009 12:27:28
Imagine other institutions banning thses type of discussions. Anyway, the church seems to be heading towards oblivion. How many people go there every week?
42

Dave Scott,

Broughty Ferry 26/05/2009 12:39:47
"Flouting many of the taboos of the time. Touching the leper ..."

Yes, but the leper healing is about redemption.
Inter-testamental thought decreed that only the (divine) messiah could heal lepers. I repeat, it IS about redemption not about indulgence. The leper did not REMAIN a leper, the adultress was told to 'sin no more'

Yes, all Christians stumble and, by virtue of a confessional relationship with God and pastoral care they are helped out of their erroneous way/habit.

All of which is a long way from actively condoning behaviour which Scripture states belongs to non-regenerate souls.
In terms of a judgement on a person's humanity it's really a non-issue - this is not based on secular criteria and Christians should abide by the law of the land in terms of equality of opportunity; In terms of remaining within the offer of eternal life it's a crucial matter concerning the salvation of the very souls concerned and Christians should be motivated by the inheritance of the life to come as well as what can best be achieved in the here and now. Imminence AND Transcendence ... and it was NOT consumed !!!
The C of S is in big danger of ignoring Bonhoeffer's criticism of Cheap Grace - the ultimate tragedy is that Cheap Grace saves no-one.

The C of S already has gay clergy - this can be upheld scripturally if the gay clergyperson remains celibate.
The real issue has been about the dialectic between permitting practising homosexuality and the role of an ordained member.

IMHO, C of S has bottled it and fudged the issue.
43

Mark Insch,

26/05/2009 12:40:44
43 - Brodric

I put the phrase in inverted commas because I was just using it as a Biblical, Christian or Church phrase - my minister is by no mean staunch in his views but I have often heard the phrase "the Righteous Path" used in sermons. Also, when Jesus called away his discipiles it wasn't to take up new sexual relationships (hetero or otherwise) - at least the Gospels don't admit as much.

I would also disagree that Scott Rennie chose the most agonising route to take in life - staying with his wife and child (who must have fulfilled his desires at some stage) would have taken more determination and strength of character.

You also didn't adress my other point - would you expect your minister to advise you to just leave your troubled marriage when you seek their counsel??
44

Darien,

Panama 26/05/2009 12:51:09
#41/42 Brodric: "Little minds, little imaginations find little meaning."

So homosexuals have bigger minds than the rest of us then? They are enlightened people and we are not? Please at least try to answer the sustainability question. Where is this ridiculous trend taking ours and other societies? As more and more people become 'gay' (sic), because it is seen as acceptable, a norm even, where is the sustainability in that? Where in your idyllic enlightened world indeed are the future generations of homosexuals to come from?
45

Mèths,

26/05/2009 13:01:56
Jellicoe

"I am also suggesting that in this particular case with this particular minister he is completely unsuitable as a Christian minister for the reasons that I have already stated in my post in #24."

That would be the deleted post would it?
46

Luke Skywalker,

26/05/2009 13:02:02
44 T.V. - How many? you ask. I would like to know the actual membership of the Church of Scotland. It used to publish the figures annually at its Assembly but does not seem to nowadays. Is that because the figures show it has slid into irrelevance? I suspect so.
47

Mèths,

26/05/2009 13:03:56
Much ado about nothing.
48

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 26/05/2009 13:27:23
#36 Interesting point but there is certainly growth in the church at certain levels. As people like Dawkins and Hitchens turn up the volume, secular society seems to be increasingly hostile to and cynical about religion and increasingly hooked on Darwinism. Yet there are those who perhaps don't want this kind of dry rationalism but still believe that religion has an important place in culture and as a focal point in society. Queen's Cross is probably a good example of this kind of church. On the other hand there are some young dynamic, often evangelical ministers and congregations, particularly in the towns which have been growing for some time and are now bursting at the seams. Unfortunately some of these two groups seem to be juxtaposed to each other. The church has somehow managed to keep both groups on board up till now, and it seems a shame that they should be at war. It might be too early to speak of sinking ships but many realise just how socially and religiously divided Scots have been for too long and are at least committed to maintaining dialogue.

A split at this stage could sidetrack dialogue about sexuality with both sides quietly carrying on as before without addressing things properly. Let's face it many of us have probably done things in this regard we'd rather not have or have disappointments or unfulfilled dreams because we lack the knowledge or experience to build the happiest families and marriages. All sides need to build up a theology of relationships bringing in material such as philosophy, psychology, sociology and life experience. Also necessary is a refraining from namecalling such as homophobe', 'bigot',
'fundamentalist' or 'sodomite'.
49

proudly smokefree,

Edinburgh 26/05/2009 13:47:25
sigh....the General Assembly's decision to impose what amounts to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy means that folk like me - who hope to be decent people, feel the need for a spiritual dimension in their lives, and who also happen to be gay - have another two years before we might just possibly be 'allowed' to feel like full and equal members of the Kirk. never mind about the ministers, what kind of a signal does this send to LGBT laity???

as far as I'm concerned, I no more 'chose' to be a lesbian than I 'chose' to be born in Scotland, or left-handed, or female; looking at the comments above, why would anybody 'choose' it? to face bigotry, fear and disapproval? no thanks! but at the same time, I'm glad to be gay - it's given me a different slant on life, hopefully made me more compassionate, and helped me accept people for who and what they are. I'm not ever going to apologise for who I am. I am somebody, and I believe I was created this way by a loving God.
50

Stan Butler,

26/05/2009 13:51:27
#52 proudly smokefree


Presumably you would support the appointment of an openly bisexual minister who was living with both a male and female partner.

Or is it OK to be prejudiced about bisexuals?


51

Stan Butler,

26/05/2009 13:55:44
#51 McGinty

You seem to think there is some incompatibility between Darwinism and mainstream Christianity.

There isn't.

Fundamentalist atheists would like to think there is and fundamentalist Christians believe there is, but there isn't.


52

Mèths,

26/05/2009 13:57:56
Stan

Enough of all this. Who do reckon for the Celtic job?
53

Media at One,

26/05/2009 14:03:22
If you're a non-believer this story is nothing more than interesting, but if you're a believer this story is important.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, 1 Cor. 11.7 after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea"

Note the word's - Let US make man in our own image - After OUR likeness -
As a believer you must accept there two or more people in this instance. However, based on the necessity to believe in one god this little the evidence is overlooked.

Nevertheless, in accordance with the bible god made man so he made homosexuals. However, many believers have a problem with this and will invent, fabricate, scour texts and manipulate the words or the meaning so that it turns out god didnt make homosexuals.
But maybe, just maybe since the wording suggests two gods - one created straight men and the other created homosexual men - then homosexual women were created from the rib of the homosexual man and straight women from the rib of the straight man - Some will say it is far fetched, but if you beleive there was nothing and then this entity appeared from nowhere moving over the water and the void, what I have said is mere basics.
Is it possible, there is a straight god and a gay god?
54

Stan Butler,

26/05/2009 14:03:38
55 Mèths

Probably Mowbray, possibly Coyle though I would prefer Moyes.

It's fairly clear the Board will have known for some time that Strachan was leaving and will have been sounding out potential candidates for a few weeks so hopefully there will be an announcement shortly.

It would be ideal if it was done and dusted for the Tommy Burns game.
55

Mèths,

26/05/2009 14:15:52
Mowbray No pedigree yet. Price a problem to buy out contract.

Moyes - no as he deserted Preston. Good manager, but fickle.

Coyle - yes, but I think he'd prefer to give it a go with Burnley.

I'd go for Coyle with WGS going to Burnley.
56

John Cameron,

St Andrews 26/05/2009 14:34:25
Clearly the way things stand, the Presbyterian Taliban should cease using the Psalms since David’s relationship with Jonathan was decidedly dodgy: “Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.” If they want to use Leviticus to attack Rennie they will also have to advocate the death penalty for both partners where one is married. Since even to the fundamentalist wing of the Kirk this might seem a lunacy too far, are they then allowed to cherry pick the Scriptures? Surely such activity is pretty much a mortal sin in itself?
57

Brodric,

26/05/2009 14:38:21
46 - Mark. Re the Righteous Path, I find these ideas not useful. In other parts of the bible there are contradictory ideas... the many paths to God, the many rooms in the mansion, and so on. As I said, we confuse morality with ethics and with bigger issues. The idea of morality is not the same as religious belief.

The problem with religious texts is they are often allegorical. They are often spoken to a specific period in history, rather than an eternal period. They are often taken out of context - chosen for the suitability of the development of the church at a specific moment. They are often erroneous in that they have nothing to do with the spirit of the beginning of the religious movement. In Christianity we can make all these accusations, but it needn't be that we throw the baby out with the bath water.

But the problem is that we just do not know what the righteous path is; what the real meaning is. We cannot separate it from the years of Christian doctrine, some good, some bad. If we take the Fathers of the Church for a moment, there is enough skullduggery and psychological problems there to fuel an asylum. These same men pronounced edicts on the church with which we live to this day. We have had their ambiguities and their fears imposed on the church - the role of women is one of them.

I didn't intend to answer your point about being advised by a minister. But, the truth is that nobody can tell you what to do, including the minister. As for Scott Rennie, the choice he made is between him, his conscience, his wife and perhaps his God. I would not want to stay in a marriage where my partner was gay and I was merely a duty or obligation.
58

Strict Ivan Jellicoe,

Renfrew 26/05/2009 14:41:07
Meths #48. Thank-you for pointing that out to me. I hadn’t noticed – nothing I can do!
WOW I’ve had a post deleted! I repeated some of what I have said anyway and said it better in #39.

Brodic #43 where you say “He [Scott Rennie] more than likely agonised about it and he would understand what it means in a small way to be sweating blood like Jesus in Gethsemane at the enormity of what he was about to do.”
Firstly you don’t know that but you cannot compare Scott Rennie’s suffering (if indeed he did suffer) to the suffering of the Jesus at Gethsemane and Calvary.

What is strange about reading the posts above is the number of familiar names who frequent this site and use any excuse to belittle and ridicule the Church. Many of them have come out (!) in support of Scott Rennie.
59

Brodric,

26/05/2009 14:46:48
47 Darien - I am not sure I understand where you are coming from. Where did I say that homosexuals have bigger minds etc? What I was expressing is that there is a lack of of thinking in some people in this forum. That they happen to appear to be hetero has got nothing to do with it.

The 'sustainable question is a red herring and one that really should need no answer. All the parts of a homosexual are functioning. Some homosexuals go on to have children. More importantly, not everyone is homosexual - and not all heterosexuals have sex to procreate.

As for your idea of trends of homosexuality. Your views are offensive, mean, trivial, misinformed, misguided and undesirable.
60

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 26/05/2009 14:53:55
The answer to this is simply to edit the holy scripture to remove the problematic parts. Hey presto!
61

Brodric,

26/05/2009 14:59:55
61 - Strict etc - I am merely using a point of view which many Christians hold. That the agony of a decision not lightly made, is akin to the Gethsemane experience. If you read what I said, you will see that I clearly make a distinction of likeness, not of an equal experience.

It is clear that many people have problems processing the church in all its contradictions and written/spoken certainties that exclude and divide, rather than unite and free people. Often these fly in the face of ethical secular values, such as human rights and equality of all people. It is quite understandable then why people might ridicule and belittle the so-called values of a church that puts tolerance at the very centre of its beliefs whilst, at the same time, ignoring these values in favour of some strict religious piety.

Scott Rennie, a man who gave himself over to God, in the service of the believers, will be seen to be a victim of such piety and hypocrisy by those who are not convinced about the honesty or motivation of the church of believers. Scott is the same man now as he was when he took up the cloth, a man who wants to serve God. Only many of those whom he chose to serve, have chosen to show their true colours and to shun him.
62

Brodric,

26/05/2009 15:02:25
continued. "Only many of those whom he chose to serve, have chosen to show their true colours and to shun him". This also happened to Jesus during his 'trial' and at Calvary.
63

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 26/05/2009 15:15:10


Jesus: Love Thy Fellow Man

Men: OK.
64

Sgian Achlais,

26/05/2009 15:49:47
If they do not let Gay ministers into the Body of the Church through the front door then surely they will enter the body of the church through the back door.
65

Sgian Achlais,

26/05/2009 15:52:51
Last time I checked the whole gay thing was a no no for the god squad. Seems they are applying the old woolworths policy of PICK N MIX.

Look what happened to Woolworths.

Personally I do not think that your imaginary best friend who does not exist expect in the mind and obsession of weak fools should have no say so about whether men have sex with any other men.

Any man who is willing to commit acts of homosexuality has obviously given it enough thought and given the bad press surrounding the issue it would seem these people are convinced they like same sex, sex.

Let them be what the want.
66

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 26/05/2009 15:58:19
#54 Stan Butler


'You seem to think there is some incompatibility between Darwinism and mainstream Christianity'

Without meaning to split hairs, there's a subtle difference in Darwin's ideas and Darwinism as there is between rationality and rationalism. The adoption of any purely deterministic, naturalistic or rationalistic ideology as an enclosed system independent of a deity is surely incompatible with Christianity. However I take the point that Darwin and Christianity are not mutually exclusive, much as though some would like them to be (not me). Part of the reason for this debate seems that many don't buy 'We don't do God' and seem to want inclusion in religion and religious leadership though without certain restrictions.
67

Ifan Har,

Scotland 26/05/2009 16:05:35
Post #67 Sgian Achlais

Have you stopped to consider your words in your Post #67 that admission to the Body of the Church through the "back" door is the most appropriate and accuratly descriptive in this case????
68

blackley,

Edinburgh 26/05/2009 16:29:05
How cowardly of the Kirk to sweep this issue under the carpet. No wonder people are deserting. Whatever side of the fence you come down on, you have to debate this thing.
69

Iain Mac,

26/05/2009 16:42:07
#72 - Indeed and the bible condemns much. Childbirth is unclean as is menstruation. Adultery punishable by death. Yet we are expected to indulge in incest like Lot did.

What a confusing book! Why not ditch religion and use common sense and reason?
70

Stan Butler,

26/05/2009 16:46:01

'Until then, no more openly gay ministers can be appointed and no members can speak in public on the issue of openly homosexual, non-celibate ministers.'


No mention of bisexuals there.

So what's the odds on an openly bisexual minister being appointed?


71

Sgian Achlais,

26/05/2009 17:00:43
70
Ifan Har,Scotland 26/05/2009 16:05:35
Post #67 Sgian Achlais

Have you stopped to consider your words in your Post #67 that admission to the Body of the Church through the "back" door is the most appropriate and accuratly descriptive in this case????

=================

Oops. It is difficult type type while rolling around the floor laughing at the attempts of the church to continue to modify scripture to be the total opposite of what it professed a couple of hundred years ago without the luxury of book burning or blasphame laws.

In the past when the church decided to rewrite the rule book they just changed it and pretended it had always been that way and jailed all objectors as heritics.

150 years ago Gays = Damnable sin likely to cause eternal suffering in hell due to sexual diviation.

Present Gays = Nopw be a priest and Gods annointed representitive on earth to guide the flock.

The church make New Labour seem like truth tellers.
72

Sgian Achlais,

26/05/2009 17:03:40
#75 Sgian Achlais,

Correction, I said it was OK for Priest to be Gay.

When I should have said "MINISTERS"

Obviously I know Priests must still pretent not to be Gay.
73

Sgian Achlais,

26/05/2009 17:12:05
73
Iain Mac,26/05/2009 16:42:07
#72 - Indeed and the bible condemns much. Childbirth is unclean as is menstruation. Adultery punishable by death. Yet we are expected to indulge in incest like Lot did.

What a confusing book! Why not ditch religion and use common sense and reason?

============================

Every now and then I read it again just to amuse myself at the utter tripe that is written in it. When you read religious books and accept that every word is meant as deception written by fraudsters, manipulators, liars and charlatans it becomes quite comical.

If you really want to be confused read the Quran and it explanatory books. They did not even attempt to make it consistent.

You could find a justification for almost every act particularly conquest and war.
74

,

26/05/2009 17:14:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
75

Rob SPC,

Banff 26/05/2009 17:15:04
I can hardly believe the twisted view so many people have of the Bible, do you guys not study! The Bible does not teach that we should stone people etc, this did happen, but God did not sanction this, funny enough it was the church of the day that 'interpreted' the law, and so crowd control through stoning was born.

Jesus approach to Sin was that we are all sinners and once we regognise our sin we should repent (see woman at well for instance). Scott Rennie is sinning because of the way he lives, being Gay may not be a choice (although that is not a fact), same as many afflictions in our lives. If I said I had no control over being a Peadophile, would that let me off the hook (I'm not by the way!). The Bible is clear, Gay activity is wrong and the sad thing is the church doesnt have the guts or the understanding to stand up for Biblical teaching.

Scott has said himself, "nobody takes the Bible literaly", well Scott, I do and everyone who seeks after God should, interpretation is not required, only understanding. Learn History, read the word, understand the meaning and take point God is making, recognise where you fall short and repent. This kind of liberal behaviour will lead to anarchy, and the Gospel message will suffer.

And finally.... The church will split to avoid hypocrasy, not because of it!
76

,

26/05/2009 17:19:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
77

Stan Butler,

26/05/2009 17:25:16
80 Exiled Scotsman

Nothing of the sort.

Perhaps you would prefer the term dogmatic atheists.
78

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 26/05/2009 17:32:24
I noramlly only make comments on ploitical items, but being a member of the Kirk I thought I would study the present debate. As regards my view on the call to Mr Rennie, it is a right of a congregation to call its own minister without intereference from other congregations, prebyteries or anyone else.

As regards the homosexuality debate and the ministry I decided to google Homosexuality and the Bible and read through all the various references in the Old and New Testaments where the matter was either mentioned or alluded to. I came to the realisation that the King James Version and more modern translations were not entirely accurate in the translations from original texts and in many instances give a false imnpression. Words have been inserted to change or alter meaning where the original texts were quite unclear. It was a very interesting exercise and I would recommend others to do the same. As far as i could see had homosexuality been an abomination to Jesus he would have said so in plain and unambiguous language and i could not see that. The passages in Leviticus were unclear as there was doubt "where mankind should not lie with mankind as lying wih womankind" is not what was orignially written. Also those who rely on the literal interpretaion of leviticus should prepared to be stoned to death for gathering firewood on a Saturday, wearing fabrics of mixed fibre (no cotton/polyester shirts)or eating prawn cocktails. The role and status of woman was totally different as well. So before ministers and churchgoers criticise Rev Mr Rennie they should be sleeping in the spare bedroom when their wives are having their period.

There were instances of what would amount to a possibly bisexual relationship and that was David and Jonathan. Even with the language used in the various versions they had a relationship that would be regarded as close same sex. So it would sppear that the House of David stemmed from a man who was in a gay relationship and was Joseph the husb
79

Russell339,

Edinburgh 26/05/2009 17:33:16
I don't see the problem here. Let the church of scotland get on with their antiquated boys club business, and the rest of society can address important matters such as the economy, and political reform.

The church is so out of touch with society, and the reaction to the subject of gay relationships is clear evidence of that. These people are living in a very strange world; they will blindly follow the ramblings of a mixed up book of short stories, and believe in supernatural beings and magic spells, and demands for explanation or proof is seen as needless and a trait of the evil non-believers.

The church of scotland openly demands respect, but its actions do not ever justify it. The church is automatically immune to the influences of proven science, and will willingly manipulate the words of the bible to have any number of interpreted meanings if it means a question can be avoided.

The church is a dying institution; congregations now average age 65, and this has been steadily rising over the last few decades. Perhaps some of these ministers will have a chance of heart about gay people when they need to save their jobs?
80

American Anglican Priest,

USA 26/05/2009 17:33:20
Those pushing the Gay Agenda are bound and determined to undermine 2000 years of consistent Christian teaching; You have to throw out both the Old Testament AND St. Paul, to support this sort of falsehood.

The reason so many American an Canadian members of the Anglican communion have joined the majority of the Global South in GAFCON an in abandoning fellowship with Canterbury is because we insist on calling Jesus the Christ an in rejecting the twisting of Scripture needed to support the propoganda of the Gay Agenda!
81

,

26/05/2009 17:35:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
82

Huntly loon,

26/05/2009 17:36:42
Joseph the husband of Mary not his descendant?

As far as I can see it would have been appropriate for the various professors of Divinity of the Scottish Universities to study in detail and in depth the various sources in the scriptures and arrive at a an opninion so that we can be properly informed. This is far from a black and white matter as many of the evangelicals would have us believe.
83

Gina Gibson,

Wales 26/05/2009 17:38:12
Religion is like masturbat1on, in that, it is best practised in private.

When it is practised in public it gives pleasure to some but causes revulsion in others.

Here endeth the lesson.
84

,

26/05/2009 17:40:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
85

Mèths,

26/05/2009 17:48:07
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should use it as an excuse to wage wars for 2,000 years.
86

Mèths,

26/05/2009 17:49:29
Stan & his bisexual hang-up (hang down?)

No Stan as that would be a sin. Adultery or something along these lines.
87

,

26/05/2009 17:49:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
88

Ally,

London 26/05/2009 17:50:22
"44 T.V. - How many? you ask. I would like to know the actual membership of the Church of Scotland. It used to publish the figures annually at its Assembly but does not seem to nowadays. Is that because the figures show it has slid into irrelevance? I suspect so."

Probably much the same reason the RC church keeps its head down lest anyone realise that we're all paying extra in tax to prop up a religion that very few of the kids involved will ever have anything to do with once they leave school.

Sunlight's a marvellous disinfectant, which is why these guys like to keep the facts in dark places.
89

Media at One,

26/05/2009 18:16:45
Exiled -
Problem is this; if homosexuality is not acceptable in christendom then the teachings need to reflect it.
If children are going to be indoctrinated from birth, in other words programmed as they have been for millenia then why not tell them that gay people are banned from learning religion?
Why not tell them straight up?
No Sunday school for gays -
But what if a child doesnt know he is gay yet? asks the person in the corner. He should leave religion once he finds out says the teacher.

Could it work? I mean after all if homosexuals are not permitted then why not tell the world at birth?
90

Media at One,

26/05/2009 18:22:41
On another note; howcome the righteous find fault and disgust in a homosexual entering the church, but see no fault in the murder of first born Egyptian babies? Or fault in the omnipotent god who asked fathers to take their sons to the top of mountains and sacrifice them only to tell them he was joking?
Seems a little weird to me - No, in fact it seems very weird to me, almost sickening.
91

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 26/05/2009 18:23:26
Romans 6:26,27 (Which I'm surprised I've not seen oft quoted as yet)
'Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.'
'In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.'
Whatever people think about the interpreting the Old Testament, it would be difficult to argue with this. I suppose some would argue that they weren't abandoning normal relations or that certain acts aren't shameful but I think that's playing games with literature and context which is key to interpreting these passages (as opposed to being literal). Whatever Christ may not have said, I think St Paul wasn't messing about. Even someone like Tony Blair would struggle to find ambiguity and wriggle room with something like this hence liberals' preferring to question the canon and the authority of St Paul.
92

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 26/05/2009 18:26:34
#92

Over 600000 at last count.
93

Mèths,

26/05/2009 18:55:51
The Old Testament is a load of fairy stories.
94

Huntly loon,

26/05/2009 19:01:50
The complete passage describes how a group of Christians left the church, converted to Paganism, and engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time. Paul writes that, later, God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. This implies that they had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex throughout their lifetime. God influenced them in some way to engage in homosexual orgies. This was, for them, an unnatural, and thus sinful, activity.

Paul criticized them because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion." The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior. Rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's basic nature (i.e. homosexual behaviors by people whose orientation is heterosexual). 2

For the vast majority of adults, those who are heterosexual, it is indecent for them to engage in homosexual activities. One can interpret Paul's writing as stating that, for the small minority of humans who are homosexual, it would be indecent for them to engage in heterosexual activities.
95

,

26/05/2009 19:04:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
96

,

26/05/2009 19:05:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
97

Huntly loon,

26/05/2009 19:06:14
Mcginty. the passage you refer to relates to heterosexual men "who gave up women" to take part in same sex orgies. homosexual men would i presume not be given up women since they would not have been with them in the first place. all passages from the bible can only be interepreted from the original sources. many greek words are not translated with the nuances and usages of the period when they were written
98

,

26/05/2009 19:14:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
99

,

26/05/2009 19:15:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
100

eeyore,

My own thoughts 26/05/2009 19:20:55
The truth -

If you're not a member of the CofS, then this is NONE of your business.
101

,

26/05/2009 19:21:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
102

thebob,

Paisley 26/05/2009 19:24:37
@#30 "Voluntarily withdrawing a motion is hardly 'gagging'"
If you read past the first few lines of the report, you register that members are not allowed to discuss the issue in public. So that's them effectively gagged, you dolt.
103

,

26/05/2009 19:25:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
104

,

26/05/2009 19:26:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
105

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 26/05/2009 19:50:21
#98, #101, #103, #105.

Either way, Mr. Rennie is sticking his neck out becoming a minister if he accepts that this is part of Scripture, tradition or church practice. It'll be interesting if he sticks it out because most people seem to be saying that the C of S is out of touch and he's certainly got people thinking. Many in the church never seem to think about these things.

Also it seems inconsistent that people be so antireligious if religion is accomodating a diversity of views. Bad religion has caused strife, but religion is/has been also part of the warp and woof of Scottish society for 1000+ years and a force for good and that's not necessarily going to change.
106

Huntly loon,

26/05/2009 19:57:51
There are no passages I could see where Jesus himself condemns homosexuality.In Matthew 8 5-13 he had an opportunity where a centurion who had a young male "sex slave" PAIS, sought help from Jesus to cure the boy. These verses describe how a Roman centurion asked Jesus to cure his "pais" who lay paralyzed and in great agony. The centurion stated that all Jesus had to do was to say the right words to effect the cure. Jesus praised the centurion for his faith. If the boy had been the centurion's son, then the author probably would have used the Greek word "uios" (son). If the writer wanted to imply that they boy was a slave or indentured servant, then he probably would have used the word "duolos" (slave). But he did not. He used the Greek word pais which, in this situation, contains the suggestion of a young male kept for sexual purposes by his adult owner. The English word "pederasty" comes partly from this word. Various translations of the Christian Scriptures have suppressed the possible sexual component of the term and translated the word simply as a "servant boy", "serving boy", "young servant," "my son," and "my boy." A present-day relationship of this type would be considered child sexual abuse, a serious crime. However, such arrangements were common in the Roman Empire at the time, and were tolerated by society, as was human slavery itself.

107

Stan Butler,

26/05/2009 20:02:53
105 Exiled Scotsman,


That's all very well but will no one spare a thought for those individuals who can only find true satisfaction by having sexual relations with both men and women?

Surely they were made that way by God and it is therefore wrong to exclude them from being Ministers?

Or is it still acceptable to discriminate against bisexuals?
108

Huntly loon,

26/05/2009 20:19:34
It is very easy to be selective in quoting biblical passages to suit a case for or against but it is far from easy to draw precise conclusions without appearing to be bigoted and prejudiced.
In the Old testament in leviticus there are "anti homosexual" texts which are alongside not eating shellfish, mixed fabric clothes, gathering of firewood etc. But if it was to have been regarded as a serious crime it would have featured in the Ten comandments, along with thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not covet they neighbour's wife. I dont see "Thou shalt not have sex with someone of the same sex"
109

OkiePresby,

Oklahoma, USA 26/05/2009 20:20:45
Scott is an excellent minister and has a great deal of integrity. I know Scott through ministry and I think the world of him. He has integrity beyond most people and has very high ideals. I would be proud to be a minister where Scott is the minister.
110

,

26/05/2009 20:37:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
111

Stan Butler,

26/05/2009 20:37:51

#113 OkiePresby

You don't think there's any chance he might decide he's heterosexual after all and that he's just been a bit confused?


112

,

26/05/2009 20:38:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
113

McGinty,

Glasgow & Aberdeen 26/05/2009 20:43:11
#110. Are you not in danger of anachronism? What many tend to do is to use the gospels but out of the context of the rest of Scripture, especially St Paul. But biblical interpretation, for all its inconsistencies, contradictions and antinomies tries to find themes running through the whole canon. Where this gives a difficult principle, it's then usually the other theological sources - reason, church tradition and experience, from which an application is then made. Either that or you start writing off passages as ahistorical. Best left to the experts I say.
114

,

26/05/2009 21:36:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
115

Mèths,

26/05/2009 21:37:31
Exiled Scotsman

"So is the New Testament."

Yep. You get the same "stories" re virgin birth in loads of fables.
116

Mèths,

26/05/2009 21:43:52
"Or is it still acceptable to discriminate against bisexuals?"

I told you before Stan. If someone is bisexual (they can give it and take it), it means he/she is not being true to one partner. Surely this is not the Christian way.

I reject your assumption.

ps - does it say anything in the bible about cavorting with other species?
117

Mèths,

26/05/2009 21:44:32
...as in Woody Allan

"The lion will lie down with the lamb, but the lamb won't get much sleep"
118

Mèths,

26/05/2009 21:46:11
.. and as I'm the only saddo posting now - isn't it better to pray by yourself in the wood to whatever God you believe in, than attend an organised church so people can see what a damn fine person you are?

Off to the woods!
119

Kenny A,

26/05/2009 23:52:03
I have read a good few comments on this issue, some good and well thought, some that make my eyebrows curdle. After a great deal of thought and some calls to my friends in the North and Islands, this is the consensus.

It is wrong against the laws of God and the Church as it was established.

If he wants to be a gay minister no problem but a different church, who's members may be better to deal with this issue, it is the Church of Scotland we are on about here, just a step down from the wee free and a few ladders below the Free Presbeterian.

Rights and beliefs of the majority being set aside for the rights of the few are wrong.

This gagging order will not make the issue go away.

Thats a summary of the feelings I got and not all I spoke to were hard core church goers.

For myself I think Mr Rennies practices are both wrong and alien especialy for a minister, but as I do not know him I cannot comment on his standard of preaching or his spirituality.

An anology sprang to mind a while ago about gays, the Spartans were raving gays with much more sinister sides as well, however in military terms the are a by word, for courage, honour and the "phrase back on your sheild or do come back". The were the 300 who stood against Darius.

What is not so well known is that they were unable to adapt, unable to accept chance and lost sight of what their core vertues were, and when the Theban Band of Brothers who were based along the better sides of their lines conquered them the were consigned to history as a side show.

Now I have phrased this last comment so both sides can make out what they wish.

My belief is the appointment of Mr Rennie is fundamentaly against the principles of the Church.
120

Scottish Canadian,

ottawa canada 27/05/2009 11:24:33
Mcginty#95-"...shameful acts..." What exactly are these? What does the original Aramaic say these "acts" are? On what basis are they shameful? How does Paul know the men "lusted" for other men? What does Paul consider to be "natural sexual acts"?
I find it very easy to argue with this passage.
And if you are basing a large part of your religion on a passage in a historical book,, I believe it behooves you to be literal.
121

eeyore,

thinking on freedom 27/05/2009 18:34:18
Exiled Scotsman 107:

Sorry, but you are wrong. Not everything is your business. You aren't the only one in the world to pass judgment on others simply because you feel everything can influence someone else.

As long as the CofS isn't trying to actively push their views on those outside their church, they have the right to do and think as they want.

I believe you and I have a similar view on the morality of an adulterous homosexual minister. But as long as he's not trying to make me one, and he's not preaching to me, we don't have the right to take his freedom to be who he wants. And I can avoid his influence on me and mine by staying away from the CofS.
122

,

27/05/2009 19:29:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

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.