Dear friends,
 In my report at the Annual Congregational Meeting I referred to the crisis created in the Church of Scotland by the appointment last year of an openly homosexual minister to Queen's Cross Church Aberdeen. This has led to a consultation process throughout the church with a view to a decision being taken in 2011 on the question of the propriety of allowing openly homosexual people to be ministers. This is an issue which has been simmering under the surface for a number of years now and has simply been brought to a head by this appointment. Since the involvement of our own Kirk Session and Presbytery in the consultation process is imminent - the Session will discuss it on 27 April and the Presbytery of Hamilton on 20 April - I feel it is appropriate for me to comment on it at this time although I may have further comments to make in the light of these meetings.
There are basically two sides in this debate although undoubtedly many shades of opinion on each side. On one side are the so-called traditionalists who hold to what has in the past been the accepted view within the Church of Scotland and is undoubtedly the majority view in the church as a whole world wide. That view is that homosexual practice is sinful, being condemned in the Bible.
The other view often referred to as the revisionist view regards the Bibles
condemnation of homosexuality as irrelevant to a faithful monogamous same sex relationship which it is claimed the Bible does not envisage in any of the specific references. Advocates of the revisionist view are often all too ready to accuse advocates of the traditionalist view of being "homophobic". This is unfair if the accusation is made solely on the basis of the traditionalist view which does not regard it as sinful to be homosexual, that is, to have a homosexual orientation. On the other hand the charge of homophobia cannot be completely dismissed. The church probably needs to reflect on how homosexual people can be made to feel accepted within the church regardless of its position on the morality of homosexual practice. I wonder how often homosexually orientated people have been marginalised by the church unjustifiably and unnecessarily? At least that is less likely today than in previous generations.
Even if it were true that the Bible does not clearly condemn a homosexual relationship where it is faithful and monogamous, that in itself would not provide anything like the evidence which would be necessary to conclude that such a relationship is morally acceptable. I would suggest we would need to come to the conclusion that the Bible clearly endorses such a relationship before we could give approval to anyone and particularly ministers to be in such a relationship. Giving the benefit of the doubt here will not do (not that there is any doubt in my mind that the traditional view is the right one). The Bible speaks positively about marriage but it is at best wishful thinking to suggest that all the Bible says about marriage can be transferred to a same sex relationship about which it is always negative. In the absence of any such endorsement how can we commend such a relationship? If we are unable to do that then we cannot have leaders of the church in effect modelling such a relationship. There is just no evidence of divine approval for an active same sex relationship only wishful thinking regarding approval by advocates for it.
Cameron McPherson
|
|
Read more...
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
| Results 2 - 2 of 30 |
