The Kirk are doing it better

[Rhiannon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39623071

Good to see.

[jeremyp]

Wait until the debate and then see what happens.

[Anchorman]

The debate will not settle it. Should any deliverance be passed, it will go to the Presbyteries under the Barrier Act for approval. Only if a clear majority of presbyteries approve the deliverance, can it become Church law. My own Presbytery will amost certainly depart dfrom any change in church law, as will at least nine others. Even should it gain acceptance, a substantial number of ministers and elders will leave the kirk.

[Gordon]

It will be encouraging if the CofS do progress this. The report on Radio Scotland this morning said the Scottish Episcopalians were going down the same path and that this could have an impact of the CofE/Anglicans in general.

However, it may be too little to late to halt the decline in Scotland bearing in mind the results of the study noted on the BBC the other day: below that link is the link to the study itself, by a Christian consultancy, which notes that currently only 7.2 % of people in Scotland are churchgoers and that this is projected to reduce to 5.3% by 2025.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39613631

http://www.brierleyconsultancy.com/scottish-church-census

[Robbie]

Only if a clear majority of presbyteries approve the deliverance, can it become Church law.
My own Presbytery will amost certainly depart dfrom any change in church law, as will at least nine others. Even should it gain acceptance, a substantial number of ministers and elders will leave the kirk.

Howw anachronistic, people with prejudices. The church needs to enter the 21st century (rather like the monarchy woke up to the 20th).  I expect you will take a stand and leave your presbytery if the law is changed, a courageous move.

[Rhiannon]

Wait until the debate and then see what happens.

At lest the debate is happening.

[Rhiannon]

The debate will not settle it. Should any deliverance be passed, it will go to the Presbyteries under the Barrier Act for approval. Only if a clear majority of presbyteries approve the deliverance, can it become Church law. My own Presbytery will amost certainly depart dfrom any change in church law, as will at least nine others. Even should it gain acceptance, a substantial number of ministers and elders will leave the kirk.

Which is as it should be, freedom of conscience on both sides, something the CofE is too afraid of.

[Anchorman]

Only if a clear majority of presbyteries approve the deliverance, can it become Church law. My own Presbytery will amost certainly depart dfrom any change in church law, as will at least nine others. Even should it gain acceptance, a substantial number of ministers and elders will leave the kirk. Howw anachronistic, people with prejudices. The church needs to enter the 21st century (rather like the monarchy woke up to the 20th).  I expect you will take a stand and leave your presbytery if the law is changed, a courageous move.

- Those of us who will leave the Kirk - forsaking our vows at ordination - will do so with sadness. Many ministers will give up their income, those in training for the Ordained Local Ministry such as myself will cease such training, with reluctance and a heavy heart, but standing on the Gospel. The Kirk is already short of parish ministers - this will exacerbate the situation, as many parish ministers, readers and elders will leave if this deliverance is passed. Nlot only that, around a dozen congregations have left in thepast few years, some to join the Free Church, others to become independent congregations. Should this deliverance pass, many more congregations will leave. The Free Church is growing - withouth renegade CofS members; an increase in membership will no doubt continue that expansion. That would not be my chosen patjh, but I must go somewhere.

[Rhiannon]

-
Those of us who will leave the Kirk - forsaking our vows at ordination - will do so with sadness.
Many ministers will give up their income, those in training for the Ordained Local Ministry such as myself will cease such training, with reluctance and a heavy heart, but standing on the Fospel.

Those who have been forced from the church over decades because they believe in love, in live and let live, or because they want to be free to love those that they love in the way in which they have been created to be have also had to give up so much. Maybe they won't have to any more.

[Anchorman]

Those who have been forced from the church over decades because they believe in love, in live and let live, or because they want to be free to love those that they love in the way in which they have been created to be have also had to give up so much. Maybe they won't have to any more.

-
II believe in love, Rhi.
I have never denied homosexual love, nor do I do so now.
However any reading of the Scripture - which, according to Kirk speak, is the "Supreme rule for faith and life' leads me to accept that marriage for the Christian can only be between a man and a woman.
This is not to denegrate civil partnerships, secular marriage or other formats in any way; simply that the Church can only marry males to females.

[Robbie]

If the law changes, the Church of Scotland will be able to marry same sex couples. As I understand it, marriage is not a sacrament in the Church of Scotland.

[Anchorman]

If the law changes, the Church of Scotland will be able to marry same sex couples. As I understand it, marriage is not a sacrament in the Church of Scotland.

-
The Church of Scotland, according to its Articles Declaratory of 1929, is subject to its'own discipline and interpretation of Scripture - of which it alone should be arbiter, free from state interferance.
Likewise, it will not interfere with the state in any way.
Unlike the Cof E, we are a national, not an established, church.

The state cannot legislate on Kirk affairs.

[Robbie]

I know that & wasn't thinking of the State, but of the Church of Scotland laws being changed.

[Rhiannon]

-
II believe in love, Rhi.
I have never denied homosexual love, nor do I do so now.
However any reading of the Scripture - which, according to Kirk speak, is the "Supreme rule for faith and life' leads me to accept that marriage for the Christian can only be between a man and a woman.
This is not to denegrate civil partnerships, secular marriage or other formats in any way; simply that the Church can only marry males to females.

That makes no sense. Either god's laws on sin apply to all or nobody.

[Anchorman]

That makes no sense. Either god's laws on sin apply to all or nobody.

-
Though we believe that marriage should be between man and woman (the position at present), we also believe we should not interfere in the lives of those who do not share that position.
For those who accept the Christian faith, though, there can only be one position.

[Aruntraveller]

For those who accept the Christian faith, though, there can only be one position.

Missionary?

I'll get me coat.

[Robbie]

Though we believe that marriage should be between man and woman (the position at present), we also believe we should not interfere in the lives of those who do not share that position.
For those who accept the Christian faith, though, there can only be one position.

Debatable, Christians vary in their opinions on this matter.
From the link posted in the first post, members of the CofS vary too.

"These range from the traditionalist opinion based on the view that biblical writers condemned same-sex acts meaning the Church had to forbid it to more “inclusive arguments” that the writing was made in “cultural contexts very different from our own and referred to individual acts rather than committed and faithful people willing to enshrine their relationships in vows before God.”

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

II believe in love, Rhi.
I have never denied homosexual love, nor do I do so now.
However any reading of the Scripture - which, according to Kirk speak, is the "Supreme rule for faith and life' leads me to accept that marriage for the Christian can only be between a man and a woman.
This is not to denegrate civil partnerships, secular marriage or other formats in any way; simply that the Church can only marry males to females.

Just out of interest do you think every other part of Scripture to be "the supreme rule" too, or are you selective about that?

[Rhiannon]

-
Though we believe that marriage should be between man and woman (the position at present), we also believe we should not interfere in the lives of those who do not share that position.
For those who accept the Christian faith, though, there can only be one position.

But other Christians disagree. It seems fair to allow both your beliefs and those who believe that gay marriage is ok, surely? Or do you believe that you have the monopoly on rightness here?

[Anchorman]

I am simply stating the position of the General Assembly of the CofS, and that's been the stated position for years now. For once, I happen to agree with it - which, given the Kirk's GA, is somewhat of a rare event. I've been a commissioner to three Assemblies, and an observer to a further two. I normally take a can of paint with me when I go, as watching it drying is usually a nice diversion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

I am simply stating the position of the General Assembly of the CofS, and that's been the stated position for years now. For once, I happen to agree with it - which, given the Kirk's GA, is somewhat of a rare event. I've been a commissioner to three Assemblies, and an observer to a further two. I normally take a can of paint with me when I go, as watching it drying is usually a nice diversion.

No doubt, but I'm interested in the rationale for this position. What I see as a general principle is that folks cite scriptural support for the biases they happen to have, and are indifferent to or flout the bits of Scripture they're relaxed about or actively disagree with. It's basically confirmation bias - rather than a one size fits all set of "supreme" rules (which would at least be consistent), rather it's a "select the bits that validate what you believe anyway" buffet of moral rules and injunctions. 

[Anchorman]

I've never yet seen any scripture which allows marriage between people of the same sex, BHS. The NT makes it clear that - for the Christian - marriage can only really be between man and woman, and sex outside that bond is simply wrong. The Kirk got itself tied in a knot over a legal question regarding a minister in a same sex marriage - and ruled - in its' usual fence-sitting way - that in future, any ordained person named before a Presbytery who enters a same sex marriage after ordination shall be subject to the discipline of the presbytery in which they work. That basically means presbytery sits as a court of law and tries them. Tedious, anachronistic, I know - but that's presbyterianism for you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

I've never yet seen any scripture which allows marriage between people of the same sex, BHS. The NT makes it clear that - for the Christian - marriage can only really be between man and woman, and sex outside that bond is simply wrong. The Kirk got itself tied in a knot over a legal question regarding a minister in a same sex marriage - and ruled - in its' usual fence-sitting way - that in future, any ordained person named before a Presbytery who enters a same sex marriage after ordination shall be subject to the discipline of the presbytery in which they work. That basically means presbytery sits as a court of law and tries them. Tedious, anachronistic, I know - but that's presbyterianism for you.

You’re missing the point. You’ve never seen any scripture either that allows lots of other things too (like a sorceress being allowed to live for example), but you’re relaxed about those things. Indeed for all I know you’re chomping down even now on a prawn sandwich while trying to keep the crumbs off your cotton/polyester mix polo shirt.

The point here is that you’ve looked for scriptural authority for something of which you disapprove already (equal marriage), but turned a blind eye to the same “supreme rules” about other matters.

How then is this anything other than confirmation bias, and what use is a supposedly inerrant book of rules if it turns out that it’s more like a "pick what you fancy" buffet?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anchs,
 

You’re missing the point. You’ve never seen any scripture either that allows lots of other things too (like a sorceress being allowed to live for example), but you’re relaxed about those things. Indeed for all I know you’re chomping down even now on a prawn sandwich while trying to keep the crumbs off your cotton/polyester mix polo shirt.

The point here is that you’ve looked for scriptural authority for something of which you disapprove already (equal marriage), but turned a blind eye to the same “supreme rules” about other matters.

How then is this anything other than confirmation bias, and what use is a supposedly inerrant book of rules if it turns out that it’s more like a "pick what you fancy" buffet?

It isn't in scripture for the reason that it is a brand spanking new idea.
Where to take it next though......weapon for antitheists? shibboleth to catch people out who do not look like they are really celebrating it, perhaps?......Secular Humanists....it's over to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It isn't in scripture for the reason that it is a brand spanking new idea.

What is?

Where to take it next though......weapon for antitheists? shibboleth to catch people out who do not look like they are really celebrating it, perhaps?......Secular Humanists....it's over to you.

Are you trying to communicate something here or just leaning on the random word generator?