Reply With Quote
Kelly d,
Religion is a very ‘sensitive topic’ as you rightly say. It is contentious and invariably provokes very heated debate. If there was any topical subject of current interest that could be selected to compound this sensitivity and guarantee adding fuel to the fire you would be hard put to find another subject as explosive as that of admitting gay clergy into the Church of Scotland.
Since you raise the topic I hope you will not take it ill if I respond. What I have to say is not a personal attack on your own beliefs. I have no objection to you holding them, whatever they may be; rather take it as a critique of the Church of Scotland.
The service you attended could not have been the General Assembly. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland meets every May for a week, usually in the Assembly Hall on the Mound in Edinburgh. It is not a Church service as such; it’s more like a Parliament of delegates from the various congregations who discuss and decide matters of church policy and rules. It would appear that the majority of the delegates to this year’s Assembly voted to admit gay clergy and relax its rules on civil partnerships.
I am not sure if you are a communicant in the Church of Scotland, attend regular services, or if they have a congregation in Hartlepool. I am not sure whether or not you are an advocate of ‘the belief of our modern world for diversity’. The Word of God does not make allowances for diversity. One either accepts it as it stands or rejects it. Tweaking it to suit one’s own feelings or ideals may be convenient but it is being untrue to God, to the Church, and to one’s-self.
Nearly five hundred years ago the Reformation in Scotland resulted in the Protestant faith becoming the predominant faith in Scotland. John Knox, a leading figure of the Reformation, produced a confession of faith which became the credo, the articles of faith, of the newly founded church, the Church of Scotland.
Through thick and thin, and through many turbulent times the Church of Scotland persevered, grew in strength and became the national Church of Scotland, defending itself and the nation along the way against Catholicism and Anglicanism. The abdication of a Queen, the Union, the National Covenant, the Solemn League and Covenant, the execution of a King, a civil war, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the overthrow of another King, the struggle to reinstate another King, to mention just a few of the events through which it managed to prevail and survive intact.
Then in 1843, with the Disruption, came the first chink in its armour, the relaxing of the Articles of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the rejection of some of its teachings and the desire to apply several wishy washy interpretations to the Bible itself. This resulted in the split and formation of the Free Church of Scotland.
Then in 1892 the Free Church passed a Declaratory Act subordinating the Westminster Confession of Faith as its chief standard. This resulted in that church splitting. From this split arose the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, therefore, is now the only Church in Scotland which remains true to the Reformation, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the articles of faith of the original Church of Scotland that many thousands over several centuries fought and died for.
There is no such thing in the Church of Scotland as a strict Presbyterian Minister. Ever since the Disruption it has wandered farther and farther from its original articles and confessions. If any Church of Scotland Minister, or members of its congregations, feels that they cannot sign up to new, modern, diversified interpretations of their faith, they have the option of joining congregations more akin to their beliefs, although it seems unfair that they should have to leave their Church of choice to satisfy the personal, selfish predilections of minorities.
I do not have any problem with anyone taking communion in the Church of their choice. What I find difficult to comprehend is that having taken communion, which means accepting the articles of faith of that Church, they should renege on their vows and seek to force other communicants into the sort of conflict of conscience and pain in which the good minister with whom you sympathise now finds himself.
It should come as no surprise to any Church of Scotland Minister that the Church of which he is a member has chosen to journey on a road that is going to take him farther and farther from the Word of God. Note the comment in the preface to the Revised Edition of the New English Bible, to which the Church of Scotland subscribes:
“The Joint Committee commends the Revised English Bible to the Churches and to the English-speaking world with due humility, but with confidence that God has yet new light and truth to break forth from his word. The Committee prays that the new version will prove to be a means to that end.”
They are basically saying that there are more, ‘new lights and truths’ to ‘break forth’ from the Word of God, that there will be more interpretations to come and that the present version of the Bible will prove to be a means of making it easier to introduce such interpretations, or, more likely, distortions. What ‘end’ is this ‘Joint Committee’ praying for, do you suppose? Nothing less than bringing all the Churches back under the influence of the Church of Rome.
Any Christian whose faith is based on the Word of God should have no problem resolving competing emotions, choosing right from wrong. If a Minister can’t do that, what chance do the rest of us have?
Bookmarks