confessing churches

An article appeared in The Herald today which is, in all sorts of ways, sadly and soundly misleading.

And since it implicitly implicates all of us here, it's helpful, I think, to try and set the record straight.

The writer's referring to the 'fellowship of confessing churches' and here's what he says -

"Nearly 40 rebel parishes across Scotland have joined forces in a defiant stand against the Church of Scotland over gay ordination, the issue that threatens to split the ancient body.

Well, that's an unfortunate start, is it not?

'Rebel'? Hardly. The fellowship of confessing churches is concerned to affirm what the Church of Scotland has always historically believed. Which doesn't exactly tie in with the notions of rebels.

And a 'defiant stand against the Church of Scotland'? That's a little bit over the top, to say the least. Affirming these long-held convictions which the Church has historically held is not either fairly or best described in these terms.

And to suggest that this 'stand' (defiant or not) is 'over gay ordination' is missing the point - and not really reading the text of the fellowship's script. 'Gay ordination' (whatever exactly that means - and readers assume different meanings whenever such shorthand is used) gets no specific treatment in the list of affirmations which the fellowship articulates.

As fears rise that the Kirk’s move to halt public discussion on human sexuality could accelerate its disintegration, individual churches have “unashamedly” signed up to a campaign of non-co-operation against the Church over its decision not to address the question of allowing gay ministers for two years.

I don't for a moment doubt there are very real fears that the whole Kirk could 'disintegrate', but it's simply not true that there's any 'campaign': and it's really unfair to suggest there's a stubborn 'non-co-operation' at the heart of what the fellowship's about. Unfair because untrue. There's no 'campaign' of any sort, and 'non-co-operation' is not on our minds at all: unless 'co-operation' means agreeing with everything that's said and done, which it doesn't.

It includes nine churches in Glasgow and surrounds (it depends what you call the 'surrounds': the way they're listed on the website there are twelve in Glasgow and the South West),

four in Edinburgh (which includes ourselves),

and four in the north-east around Aberdeen.

Members of the General Assembly have described the move to appoint a special commission, which it is understood does not have any gay or lesbian members, to review gay ordination after the gay divorced father of one Rev Scott Rennie was allowed to take up a post as minister in Aberdeen, as a “fudge”.

I'm not so sure it's as much that the thing is a 'fudge' that the comments suggest as that the result is highly confusing. The General Assembly decides one way at one point, and then, in almost the very next breath, it declares, 'No wait, we're not really sure, and haven't decided anything really yet'. That, as I say, is as much confusing as fudged.

But this, of course, is a widespread perception that many have shared and is not the particular property of the fellowship of confessing churches.

One parish, which the Kirk refused to name, has indicated to officials that it will withdraw congregational funding to the central Kirk, a key component of Church of Scotland affiliation for hundreds of years.

That may be so, but it should be underlined that this is not in any way a 'party line' commended by the fellowship. The fellowship is just that - a fellowship, not some sinister lobbying group.

As long as that's clear, that's fine. But it's made to read as if this is somehow the 'line' the fellowship's taken. Not so.

Now 35 churches have publicly said they will not accept gay ordination under any circumstances, putting them on collision course with the Kirk ahead of the critical 2011 General Assembly when the special commission reports back, and more are to follow.

Well, actually they haven't. Not if you read what the fellowship seeks to affirm. You can draw that implication if you like, but it's not what they've actually said. What they've said is rather different and addresses the whole broad issue of sexual morality in a much more rounded way.

To suggest, moreover, that 'they will not accept gay ordination under any circumstances' is the stuff of innuendo. By contrast, it's never suggested at all by anything the fellowship affirms that those who are homosexual should not, by reason of their sexuality, be ordained.

It's never suggested. Because that's simply not the case. And it's highly misleading to suggest by the use of that very ambiguous phrase - 'gay ordination' - that it is.

And the whole business of this 'putting them on collision course with the Kirk ahead of the critical 2011 General Assembly when the special commission reports back' - well, that's an interesting statement, is it not?

I thought the Kirk was yet to make up its mind on the matter. And that that's what the Special Commission was helping the Kirk to do.

How can you be on collision course when, at least in the general theory of things, the Kirk hasn't said what the path is it's chosen to take?

Come on, who's playing games with whom?

The defiant congregations believe that by adhering to a “covenant” compiled by the evangelical group, Fellowship of Confessing Churches, they can stay within the auspices of the Kirk while standing firm against accepting gay ordination. They have agreed to place the unambiguous statement in a prominent place in their churches.

There we have it again. 'Defiant' congregations. I think that misrepresents what they're about.

The 'covenant' is really nothing more than a straightforward re-statement of what the Church has always historically believed. I mean, you can check it out and see for yourself.

It's not about 'gay ordination'. It's about what it is that as Christians we believe and how it is that as followers of Jesus Christ we're called to behave.

The covenant signatories “recognise God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We acknowledge the great harm that has come from our failures to maintain this standard, and we repent and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.”

This is as much (if not massively more) about heterosexual behaviour as it is about specifically homosexual behaviour. Great harm (and hurt - great hurt) has been done by our failure to uphold clear biblical standards in relation to sexual activity, not least on the part of ministers, and not least in regard to heterosexual activity.

Is there a problem with our humbly acknowledging that?

Isn't it plain as daylight when you look around society that enormous harm and hurt has been done within our society's life by the wholesale permissive attitudes which have prevailed and the consequent relational chaos within which so many grow up?

And isn't it simply the case that the church has been too often silent, and even indeed complicit in all of this, by herself being plainly 'permissive' in failing to challenge and deal with such things in her members' and ministers' lives?

And isn't it time that some of us simply spoke up and acknowledged the hurt and the harm that's been caused in this way? What on earth is so wrong with that?

The fellowship, which was in existence for some time, is not solely there to fight gay ordination, said one Glasgow minister.

It's actually stronger than that. It's not even primarily there for that reason. And the notion of 'fighting gay ordination' ... well, I hope that I've highlighted enough how misleading that phrasing can be.

The Rev William Philip, of St George’s Tron, said: “I’m very glad that the fellowship gives our congregation an opportunity to publicly make a stand for the orthodox Christian Gospel, so that anyone who comes to our church knows this is what we believe in.”

In the wake of the widespread confusion as to what the church believes, it's surely both helpful and fair to let folk know. We owe it to folk to be clear about what the Church has always historically believed.

The Herald revealed on Wednesday that the controversial gagging order has already been disregarded by one minister, while another has resigned over the Kirk’s position, narrowly established after debate and a vote at the gathering of nearly 1000 Assembly delegates in Edinburgh in May. However, no-one at the Church’s headquarters in the Scottish capital is willing to address the latest breach on the grounds that members are unable to discuss publicly anything to do with the issue.

Well, of course, that's part of the problem! We're caught in a really pretty pickle!

I'm not all that sure that the so-called 'breach' of the 'controversial gagging order' is actually such at all. The guy wasn't talking about the 'issue' itself: he was talking about the 'moratorium' on speaking publicly about it.

But maybe you're not allowed to speak about that either!

In fact, maybe I'm not meant to comment in public about a (misleading) newspaper article which refers to the 'moratorium' which relates to our speaking publicly about 'the issue'.

Which is about third-cousin-twice-removed from what the Assembly actually ruled in its so-called 'gagging order'. But now the whole thing's got just about everyone running scared.

The Kirk insists potential disciplinary matters are firstly dealt with by presbytery officials, but clerks say they are prevented from acting publicly because of the ban.

The Rev Louis Kinsey, of St Columba’s Church in Aberdeen, who vehemently opposed the appointment of Mr Rennie, said the moratorium “only adds to the momentum towards disintegration”.

None of the presbyteries of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Lochcarron and Skye, the latter of which had sought debate on gay ordination at the last Assembly, would comment.

Silence rules.

But in days of considerable confusion it's not silence which is going to help so much as a clear, unequivocal voice.