The new episode of the Something Beautiful Podcast features an interview with Lawrence Moore, director of the URC’s Windermere Centre and author of Disclosing New Worlds, a fabulous lectionary blog.  It’s his story of his journey from Zimbabwe  where he served as a police officer in special branch through the civil war to a realisation of what he’d been involved in and a changed life and understanding of who God is.  Well worth a listen!

I’m watching Question Time, the weekly political panel show, on the BBC.  I probably shouldn’t blog while watching.  I’ll probably write something I’ll regret.  But here goes anyway…

There seems to be a theme.  It’s all Gordon’s Fault.

The world economic situation was him.

The situation with MPs defrauding their expenses system is his fault.

The ‘young people’, you know, those aliens that roam our streets, stab each other and generally causing havoc, that’s his fault too.

We’re happy to blame others.  We’re happy to lay responsibility at the feet of the government.

But it’s just as much our fault as Gordon’s.

I think it’s fine to have a go at the government, but it’s not fine to abdicate all responsibility for every part of our lives to our elected representatives.

It’s interesting that the discussion has turned to a TV company’s duty of care to participants in reality shows.  There’s an outcry about how Susan Boyle was treated, mostly from the same people who bought the newspapers and watched the TV shows who dragged her through the mire.

Big Brother starts tonight.  Another chance for people to watch people be systematically abused for our amusement.

No-one forces us to watch, but we do.  No-one forced us to borrow more than we could afford, but we did.  No-one ever said that MPs shouldn’t be watched, but we were happy to put an X in a box as though that somehow ends our responsibility in a participative democracy.

There are reports that voter turnout could be as low as 28% or as ‘high’ as 50% in today’s elections for the European Parliament.  So, rather than taking action when we are dissatisfied once again we have chosen to disengage.

Why on earth do we think that things will change if we do and say nothing?

Silence is consent.  Shhhh.  It’s ok.  Someone else will sort it out.

As I sat at my desk yesterday afternoon another spectacle unfolded before my very eyes.  The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland webstream was on my desk top and the Council of Mission And Discipleship were presenting their excellent report on Singleness, asking that it be disseminated for study.

What followed was simply remarkable.  Speaker after speaker condemned the report and one went as far as to move that the report should be received but not sent out.  Why? What could the controversy be?  Well,  the report says that some people have sex outside marriage.  I know.  I was shocked by this revelation.  Who knew???

This is the body that only the day before had said that it wants to have an open and frank discussion about sexuality and was now chastising Peter MacDonald for having the nerve to a) admit to pre-marital sex with his wife of 26 years and b) be funnier than them.

There is a serious underlying issue at play in all of this though, and the proposal to supress this report is just a symptom of it.  Over the course of the past week the Church of Scotland has, in my opinion, trampled all over the human rights of all of its office bearers.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 states that

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

On Monday the General Assembly banned anyone subject to its courts (all ministers and office bearers) from making public statements about the ordination of gay ministers. (UPDATE: the final wording of the motion was: Instruct all Courts, Councils and Committees of the Church not to issue press statements or otherwise talk to the media or to make decisions in relation to the contentious matter of himan sexuality, with respect to the Ordination and Induction to the Ministry of the Church of Scotland, until 31 May 2001.)

Article 30 states that

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

So, congratulations to the Church of Scotland.  You must be very proud.  Contravening at least two articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in one day and that’s before we even get started on the employment rights of gay ministers which were curtailed by the moratorium on them moving charge for 2 years.

What on earth do you think you are doing?

Do you think that avoiding the debate, the fight, the argument, the falling out is the best way?  At any cost?

Or is their another way?  Is it not possible just to agree to disagree?  To give congregations the right to call who they want to be their minister?  If they want to call a minister who is gay, let them.  If you don’t want that then don’t call a gay minister.

Would that be so hard?  To agree to disagree?  To be grown up about it?  To recognise a genuine difference of opinion which will NEVER be resolved no matter how may Special Commissions and gagging orders you issue.

On Monday night, after the drama, confusion and intrigue of the Overture discussion that never happened something important happened… something which is at the heart of the future of the church.

It was late in the evening when Bishop Graham Cray spoke to a disappointingly small group of people as part of the Emerging Church fringe event.

Bishop Cray is the man in charge of Fresh Expressions, the joint project between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, and he has been working in the area of pioneering ministry for years.

His first sentence was a response to a video of a great youth project at the Steeple Church in Dundee.  ‘That’s great’, he said, ‘but that’s not what I’m talking about.’

In that one sentence he summed up the concern I have with the direction of the ‘Emerging Church’ conversations and support available through the Church of Scotland.

Graham spoke of ministry across cultural boundaries, of growing churches where there are none and of a mixed economy of church.  He shed light on the how and why, shared encouragement and pointed out some pitfalls.

All that requires legislation, changes in recognition and training of the ministry needed for these new expressions and funding.

I’ve heard little this week to convince me that the Church of Scotland has a corporate awareness of this area or a grasp of where it is heading, despite the good work of the development officer for this area.

The event was webcast.  It would be great if Graham’s talk could be shared wider.

I thought I’d have a go at exploring what the General Assembly has been up to because lots of people seem to be completely confused by what has been going on.  I know how you feel!  Let’s start with the part that has had all the headlines:

Did the Church of Scotland Approve Gay Ministers?

Contrary to what you have probably seen on TV or read in the papers, on Saturday the General Assembly did not vote to ordain homosexual ministers.  The case being heard on Saturday was a complaint that the Presbytery of Aberdeen.  The complainers were saying that the Presbytery hadn’t followed the procedures properly when they were dealing with Scott Rennie’s call to be minister of Queen’s Cross Church.

Their complaint was denied.  The General Assembly found that the Presbytery had followed procedure.

Mindful that the implication of this decision was by default to approve the induction of Scott to his new charge the Assembly inserted a disclaimer… that this decision did not overrule or change the code of ministerial conduct.

Yesterday (Monday) the General Assembly was scheduled to hear the Overture from the Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye.

That didn’t happen because a motion was proposed by Dr McPake which was heard first. (I blogged about it yesterday)

The outcome of that discussion was to return the Church of Scotland to it’s pre-Assembly position.  There was much discussion in Saturday’s debate that inducting Scott Rennie would set a precedent.  The General Assembly was keen that this wouldn’t happen without a debate.  That was partly the motivation for the Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye bringing their Overture which simply reaffirmed the historic orthodox position of the church.

The result of Monday’s deliberations was to:

• Set up another Special Commission to consult with Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions on the subject of human sexuality and report to the General Assembly of 2011
• impose a 2 year moratorium on inducting anyone who would bring a challenge to the potential outcome of that commission
• ban anyone subject to the courts of the church from making public statements about the ordination of gay ministers

Because of that return to the pre-Assembly position the Overture was withdrawn.

That might seem like a fudge and I know many who would have preferred the debate on homosexuality just happen and a decision be made but there seems still to be a greater desire to hold together the Church of Scotland.

Davslate on Twitter last night said: Prediction for GA2011 – Special Commission reports that there are a range of divergent and often irreconcilable views on sexuality.

There is a sense of inevitability about the discussion to come.  There are quite simply two sides of this debate, neither likely to move.  That said, there are probably more areas where those two side agree than disagree.  I would think that all would agree that good relationships are important and that committed, faithful relationships are the ideal.  That at least gives people a place of agreement to start at rather than starting at the point of most disagreement.

To me the ban on public comment makes no sense.  I understand that people involved in case should not comment on it but to ban all comment on a topic which will be the subject of much debate and discussion in the media leaves a vacuum which will be filled by those less qualified or poorly informed.

I hope that makes a bit more sense of what has happened, and what is to come.

Last night’s decision by the General Assembly was only the first of two crucial discussions to be had this week.  The Overture from the Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye is still before the Assembly and has been moved from last night to Monday at 4pm due to the length of time the Assembly took to hear the case against Aberdeen Presbytery last night.

Today’s headlines proclaiming that the Kirk has welcomed a gay minister are potentially misleading.  Last night the General Assembly upheld the Presbytery of Aberdeen but also added a caveat.

The following motion was agreed by the Assembly:

a) refuse the dissent and complaint of Aitken and others and sustain the decision of the Presbytery of Aberdeen on the basis that the Presbytery followed the vacancy procedure correctly in Act VIII 2003.

b) affirm for the avoidance of doubt that this decision does not alter the Church’s standards of ministerial conduct.

The complaint was that the Presbytery had not followed the vacancy procedure.  The Assembly disagreed…

However, what the decision did not do was preempt the discussion of the overture which will decide who can and can’t be ordained.  It remains to be seen how the Assembly will decide on the issue of homosexual ministers and elders.

“That this Church shall not accept for training, ordain, admit, re-admit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful marriage between a man and a woman”

There are a number of notices of motion which will suggest alterations to this motion, including one to add ‘or civil partnership’ to the end.  In many ways that would make sense of the decision last night, both to uphold the Presbytery of Aberdeen and also fulfil the second part of the motion reaffirming that the Church still has agreed ministerial standards.  That gay ministers would be expected not to engage in sexual relationships outside a civil partnerships would seem to be the most appropriate addition to those standards, but the General Assembly doesn’t always agree to things which might seem obvious!

What was obvious was that the discussions last night were conducted in a spirit of gracious understanding and patience.  I pray that the same spirit continues on Monday.

The Case

This evening the Church of Scotland hears the Case of the Dissent and Complaint against Aberdeen Presbytery who upheld Queen’s Cross Church in their call of Scott Rennie to be their minister on the grounds that Scott, an openly gay man in a relationship with his partner David, is unsuitable to be a minister because in their opinion homosexual activity is prohibited in the Bible.

This is a case about many things.  It questions the right of a congregation to call a minister.  It questions the right of a Presbytery to uphold that call by majority voting.  It questions the basis on which a minister can be excluded.

I’ve blogged before about my hope for a gracious and ordered debate and I still hold out some hope for that, even given the things said in sermons and reported in the press over the past few weeks.

Because it is a case and the General Assembly meets as a Court, as with any other court proceedings, there will be no live webcast while the case is being heard.  I’m sure that given the proliferation of communication technology news of what’s happening will filter out and it might be worth keeping an eye on #GA2009 on Twitter for any news.

The Overture

Following the case an overture (motion) from the Presbytery of Lochcarron and Skye will be heard.  These are the terms:

ANENT MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

From the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye

Whereas:

1. the Church’s historic understanding of the Biblical teaching on homosexual practice has been questioned in recent years.

2. a lengthy period of reflection has elapsed without a resolution of the issue.

3. it is undesirable that the courts of the church should be asked to judge on individual cases in advance of any such resolution.

It is humbly overtured by the Reverend the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye to the Venerable the General Assembly to receive the Overture set out below,

“That this Church shall not accept for training, ordain, admit, re-admit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful marriage between a man and a woman”.

There are a number of Notices of Motion already submitted and the discussion of the Overture will be streamed live.

Tonight will a defining moment for the Church of Scotland.  The outcome of this case may cause a split in the church.  It will cause hurt, no matter the decision.  I pray that God is with all of  those who are faced with this task and with Scott as he awaits the outcome.

This morning the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland heard the report of the Church and Society Committee.

First up was the ‘Growing Up in Scotland‘ report.  I was on the group which wrote the report so I was glad to see some good deliverences (motions) coming from the report.  I’ll pick out the highlights for me…

Child Friendly Churches

3. Instruct the Church and Society Council to work with other Councils to introduce a Child Friendly Church initiative based on the United Reform Church’s model.

This was amended to welcome the work the Mission and Discipleship council has already done on preparing a Child Friendly Church initiative, based on the United Reformed Church model.

Hearing Children

4. Urge Scottish and UK Governments to evidence as a matter of course how young people’s voices are heard in the development of legislation and policy.
5. Instruct the Church and Society Council, together with Presbyteries and other Councils of the Church, to bring to the General Assembly of 2010 a report on the ways in which each is enabling the voices of young people to be heard in their decision-making processes.

Great to see an emphasis on listening to children in decision making.  I wonder how congregations and the Assembly will make that happen?

8. Instruct the Church and Society Council to work with representatives of the National Youth Assembly to develop awareness of models of support in congregations on the issues involved in mental illness among young people.

This issue is one that has become ever more important to me.  My wife is a soon to qualify mental health nurse and her training has confirmed my belief that the church can and should play a role in supporting people with mental ill-health.  Like the other deliverence, the question will be how?

10. Urge Scottish and UK Governments to strengthen their commitment to end child poverty by 2020 and ensure that policies and adequate resources are in place to achieve that aim.
11. Urge the Scottish Government to ensure that resources, including partnerships with Churches and others, are in place to deliver the ambitions of the Early Years Framework.
12. Demand that HM Government uphold, respect and protect the rights of children who are asylum seekers or who are trafficked into our country.

For me these show that the church is where it should be, campaigning on behalf of the poor and those who’s rights are overlooked.

Engaging with Technology, Science and the Environment
Climate Change
16. Instruct Presbyteries, in association with the Church and Society Council, to produce a plan for each congregation in their bounds, setting out how they will measure energy consumption in their church
buildings, ascertain their carbon footprint and achieve a year-on-year reduction of 5% of their carbon
footprint using the Eco-Congregation Scotland carbon footprint module; and instruct the Church and Society Council, in consultation with the General Trustees, to report to the General Assembly of 2010 on the implementation of this instruction.
17. Welcome the proposed incorporation of Eco-Congregation Scotland as a Charitable Company and continue to support the work of eco-congregations.
18. Affirm the current commitment of the Church and Society Council to the ‘Responding to Climate Change Project’ and instruct the Church and Society Council, in partnership with other Councils, to complete the review of this project with a view to its development.

The climate change debate threw up some interesting discussion around how ambitious the church should be about targets, with 5% perhaps not being nearly enough of a reduction.

This raised the question again about the suitability of buildings for me.  Is the reduction of carbon footprints the catalyst needed to get rid of unsuitable buildings once and for all?  Can the church really claim to be good stewards while pouring money into drafty and expensive to heat buildings?  And the church’s central offices in Edinburgh won’t escape the carbon audit…

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland began this morning and a couple of things have jumped out at me already.

The first is the presence of ‘The Queen’.  She’s not there in person this year but when she can’t make it she sends someone in her place, a Lord High Commissioner.  The Queen or Lord High Commissioner sit outside the Assembly, technically.  They sit on a throne in the gallery behind the moderator.

The State being outside the Assembly is important.  The General Assembly is separate from the state and yet this morning found itself discussing whether or not business could be done at Assembly on Saturday afternoon because it clashed with the Garden Party at the palace.

Now, I’ve been to the Garden Party, so I speak from experience… (I have an invite for this Saturday but I’m not going) when I say that the cosy relationship between the church and state seems to be one the Church of Scotland should be wary of.  The Church of Scotland has for almost all of its history believed its own press that when Scotland had no parliament that the General Assembly was the next best thing.  Well it wasn’t and isn’t.  There must be a role for the church in holding the state to account.  I sometimes wonder if the cosy relationship helps or hinders that.

The second thing to note from a procedural debate this morning is that it seems to be an Assembly with some sense of what is being asked to do this week and the importance of the decisions it will make.

There was much discussion about the order of the Overture from Lochcarron and Skye and the case being brough against the Presbytery of Aberdeen for upholding the call of Scott Rennie, an openly gay minister to Queen’s Cross Church.  Common sense won I think and the case will be heard first.

It seems nonsensical to legislate in hindsight and then hold people to that new rule for something that happened before its introduction.  I’m glad the case will be discussed in full rather than being potentially curtailed by a previous decision.

You can watch the General Assembly online with live streaming, follow generalassembly on twitter and watch the conversation using twitter search #GA2009.

Tonight, for reasons I’m still not entirely sure of, I was invited to sit on a panel for a discussion of ‘The Emerging Church’ at International Christian College.  If you read yesterday’s post you’ll probably realise that i was pretty nervous about it for a number of reasons.

If you missed it, my article on Emerging Church is in the newly published OneKirk Journal (along with an interview with Scott Rennie and some amazing words written by Roddy Hamilton).

However, back to tonight.  It went pretty well I thought, despite me outing myself as never having been an ‘Evangelical’ which I guess was one of the inevitabilities of taking part.  Oh well.  Never mind.  I think my ‘outsider in terms of the evangelical church but maybe more insider in terms of emerging church’ position added a wider perspective to the debate.

I enjoyed the discussion but there were some things that I wanted to pick up on and perhaps save others having the same problems.

The first is that we always need to be pretty clear which emerging church we’re talking about.  This evening’s discussion grew out of the visit of Brian McLaren last year and the students wanted a forum to discuss some of their unanswered questions.  I saw the value of this but I’m not sure I see the point of only discussing what McLaren thinks the emerging church is, no matter how much fun that might be.

I don’t buy that McLaren is leading this emergence on his own.  I’m concerned that if we focus all of the discussion on what Brain thinks we miss the very real question about why stuff is emerging from ALL kinds of churches.  What is driving this experimentation?  What is it that people are dissatisfied with?  I think McLaren has a go at answering some of those questions, but he’s not the only voice in the discussion.

The second is that, believe it or not, this ain’t America.  The drivers for the Emerging Church in America are its particular political, social, cultural and spiritual context… none of which are the same here in Scotland, despite the very obvious homogenisation of western culture.  The evangelical context in America has a social and political dimension that is not replicated here in the UK where the ‘religious right’ doesn’t have the same influence in the political or social agenda.

I think we need to be more deliberate about finding out what’s happening here and who, if anyone, is writing about it.  That’s one of my hopes for Emerging Scotland, that people will share their stories and begin to chronicle the emerging church here in Scotland.

The third is that, even though it’s a crowd pleaser, cheap stereotypes about liberals sitting round candles isn’t an accurate representation of any of the Emerging Church.   Please don’t make fun of people who are trying honestly and earnestly to seek God’s will and to worship Him in ways that make more sense to them than whatever they have found in a denominational church setting.

So, overall, a good night I think.  It was filmed but I don’t know if or where that might appear…