There seems to be lots of confusion about what the General Assembly actually decided today, with many media reports including the one on the BBC website giving entirely the wrong information.  I offer this to (hopefully!) clarify things.  I hope I’ve got this all correct!

 - The General Assembly voted for a motion which was proposed in the course of the day by Very Rev Albert Bogle.  The (unamended*) version of his motion can be found here: http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/14451/Bogle_Notice_of_Motion_and_Related_Overture_Principles.pdf

 - Thus, the General Assembly affirmed the Church’s traditional view on issues of sexuality.  However, it agreed in principle to allow individual Kirk Sessions to depart from that traditional understanding.

 - The Legal Questions Committee was instructed to bring an overture to next year, proposing legislation which will make this possible.  The General Assembly couldn’t consider legislation today, as Standing Order 72 states that any proposed legislation must come in precise terms.  However, it did set down the principles to be included in the overture – they are listed on the link above.

 - If next year’s Assembly approves the overture, it will be transmitted to presbyteries under the Barrier Act.  (The Barrier Act can be found here: http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/about_us/church_law/barrier_act)  This means that it will need to be approved by a majority of presbyteries. 

 - If the majority of presbyteries disapprove of the overture, the legislation will fall.  If the majority of presbyteries approve of the overture, it will be brought back to the General Assembly of 2015 under the Report of the Committee on Returns to Overtures to be enacted.  The Assembly of 2015 then has the final say on whether this becomes a standling law of the Church or not.

 - The proposal was amended to include an extension of the moratorium on the ordination, selection for training etc. of persons in a same-sex relationship until the process is complete.

 - The Theological Forum was instructed to give consideration on the “ecclesiological issues” surrounding the decision and report to next year’s Assembly.

 (*Amendments included effectively extending the current moritorium, enshrining the principles in the deliverance and removing the words “same sex sexual relationships or” from principle 3.)

Some people will see this as a victory, some as a poor call by the Church. Many Traditionalists seem dismayed, judging by what I’ve seen on facebook; they see this as the Church putting unity over scriptural teaching. While I certainly hold a conservative theological viewpoint (which has always been a source of tension with many I am close with in the wider Church), I’m not sure yet what my reaction to this is – I’ll probably be able to form my opinion better after catching up with some folks tomorrow who were at the debate and heard everything that happened. My gut reaction is that, this outcome, if ratified by presbyteries, will do what it seems it is meant to – it will appease the centre (of the theological spectrum) whilst those at either end of the spectrum will either see it as a step too far (which will perhaps be accompanied by a walkout of some sort – although I pray not), or the first step towards the “mainstream” view of the Church being that the ordination of homosexual ministers as the norm. What I think is clear from today, is that the Church (here at least, in some form) has learned better how to conduct itself publicly when dealing with such a sensitive issue. I’m also delighted that,once again, the debate was conducted with graciousness, thoughtfulness and prayerfulness.

For the time being, Linda and I will be staying put in the congregation we worship with in Aberdeen, we are led by a Godly, scripture centered Minister, who is quite willing to struggle through the hard parts of scripture with us as a Church family.

I know there is nothing earth shatteringly useful in this post, I wanted (for purely selfish reasons) to get some thoughts out there, to start writing again, and todays decision has given me food for thought to start that with.

Please, if you are reading this, I’d be curious to know your thoughts on today’s debate and decision.

Peace Out

My friend Stewart Cutler posted the following on my Facebook post, I liked what he had to say:

“One of the things which happened today is that people almost stopped calling each other names. Perhaps the unintended consequence of the theological commission’s polarised report was that people realised there was much more centre ground than they perhaps previously realised. The outcome certainly lives in the centre ground.

I’d still like it more if people who hold a ‘traditionalist’ view stopped saying that ‘revisionists’ don’t take the bible seriously. They do. Very seriously. They just disagree about what it means. That conversation about meaning is called doing theology. And that’s what happened today.”