Although at its crux it is a fascinating debate about gay rights vs religious views, there has still been some Grade A guff spouted recently about Scott Rennie, the gay Church of Scotland minister, and at the front of the queue is Sound of Gunfire, a Lib Dem blogger.I know the Lib Dems like to come down the mountain faster than a skiing elephant when there's a chance to indulge in some handwringing so allow myself to stick my head over the parapet in the hope that a well-meaning but ultimately buffoon-like Lib Dem comes along to try to kick it off.
As far as I am aware, within most religious circles it is (to put it mildly) frowned upon to be gay. A dead homosexual approaching St Peter at the gates of heaven will have his or her angel wings on a very shoogly peg, or so the apparent religious teachings would have us believe, Church of Scotland included.
So if religion is inflexible in its intolerance of homosexuality, why should it be any more flexible in its intolerance of homosexual clergymen?
Centuries old religion isn't the kind of thing you get involved with to try to change from within like your local Rotary Society. If you don't like the rules, join a different club.
I'm with the conservative religious zealots on this one, and that's saying something!
17 comments:
I'm happy to say that I'm a godless heritic. Having read the promotional literature put out by the various franchises of the Christian church I am more than a little surprised that this chap has come in for so much stick from his fellow Christians.
Admittedly it been some time since I read the bible, but I distinctly recall that wee JC was a chap who was more than a wee bit hippy and into his love and forgiveness. I had thought we were meant to love the sinner - as we are all, in the eyes of the church, all wretched sinners.
If folk want to talk to their imaginery friend then that's fine, but their religion is all about love and tolerance. Perhaps they should remember that before casting the first blog (apols).
What I don't understand is, if it's usch a problem for other presbyters there being a gay minister, why did thye bother ordaining him in the first place?
If he was good enough to be ordained, he's good enough to preach, and if the local congregation has no prolem with him (and why would they? they chose him!) then what right does anyone else in the kirk have to say anything about it? Each congregation has the righ to choose their own minister. Other memebers of the kirk over-riding this goes against a central plank of both the kirk's organisation and belief.
I'm not going to be well meaning or buffoon like Jeff. But haven't spent over 10 years coming to term with my sexuality in terms of my faith I know that one of those things is a choice of free will and the others is not.
Scott was indeed ordained before he was out even to himself. But has been minstering to the people of Brechin for a number of years now without hiding his sexuality or his partner. Now that he has moved to another Kirk who were fully aware of his situtaion and didn't bat an eyelid.
Yes the church is against all number of things, but the centre of the messagge is one of grace. The fact is the man has basically been head hunted by another congregation because he is good at his job. The people who want him don't care about his sexuality. But others are causing a stoochie against the democratic process within the code of the Kirk and are now seeking to shut the barn door.
BTW Scott is now the first gay minister in the Kirk but he is probably the most open about it. (I have that from an member of the General Assembly)
So I guess you think it's ok for the church to practice slavery and wife beating which are encourged by Paul in the New Testament?
The overwhelming majority of Scott's church and the local presbytery are in favour of his appointment. It's a small minority who are rather vocally opposing him. This group have, by the way, had to apologise to him publicly for making false allegations about him.
I just think it's little wonder that Church attendance is down when it displays such outdated attitudes.
If that makes me a buffoon, then it's a badge I'll wear with pride.
BTW, Mr Glenn and I are typing separate comments from the same room.
I meant Scott is 'not' the first gay minister in the gay.
I must disagree with you Jeff, sometimes a group's rules are wrong, and the most effective way to change those rules, are to be a part of it. There are things in the SNP manifesto I disagree with, no one would ever agree with every little bit of it - do I leave and start my own party? No, I join and campaign from within.
The same can be said for this Minister. He believes in almost everything I'm sure the Kirk says, but disagrees with the interpretation of one part of the book, and seeks to alter that interpretation.
"If you don't like the rules, join a different club."
I'm not sure which club Jeff is referring to when he says that. The sexuality club or the God club?
What you are saying is either "deny what you are", or "deny what you believe".
Not exactly the easiest of choices, especially for men of the cloth (although, if we're going to be making misguided comments, being gay, probably a much finer cloth than a straight man would have chosen). Priests, vicars, nuns - they see this as a calling from God. Straight, gay, bi, - this is how we are made by God (if you believe in one).
The hypocrisy of the Church (and I'm including Roman Catholic, Church of England, all Christian variations) is apalling. If you follow the teachings of the Bible to the letter, then yes, homosexuality is frowned upon. But so is eating meat on Fridays. So is having sex for pleasure. Do you and Dave Thompson believe that anyone who's had a burger on a Friday then shagged his wife should not be allowed to go to mass? I'll bet you don't.
The Church has a history of hypocrisy. The Homosexuality issue for one, is another annoyance of this. The Church believes homosexuals are living a life of sin from which they cannot be saved and until recently, were not welcomed into Christianity in any way. Then, as we may all remember, the Church of England made a TV advert, inviting/encouraging more people to come to services and this made the news as they were even encouraging homosexuals.
Women weren't allowed to be Bishops, for example. Then, suddenly, despite the teachings of the Bible not changing, they were allowed to be bishops.
Sex must only be for procreation. Then, they said, ok, as long as you don't use any man-made form of contraception, then sex is ok. Don't remember any new passage of the Bible creating this change.
They change their minds not on the basis of belief or scripture, but in terms of "we need more money". When the congregations are dwindling they find a new way to get money through the doors. Happy to take the pink pound, but not let them say grace.
Sorry Jeff, but your views are harking back to the days when Rosa Parks was being told "if you don't like it, don't take the bus", which I find quite sad.
If you follow the teachings of the bible to the letter, then not only will you be breaking the law (stoning your children, for one), but you'll also tie yourself up in knots as different passages are so contradictory (thou shalt not kill, eye for an eye). Not that you should expect any better from a mish-mash of writings by iron-age desert nomads.
The sooner everyone realises the farcical nature of this Good Book, the less death and violence there will be in this world.
See Here for illustrations
Just found out that eating black pudding is to be punished by death. (Leviticus 7:26-27)
That's most of us Scots knackered then.
Not to mention that pork, lobster, prawns and shellfish are all verbotten.
What a strange book!
Perhaps, Richard, you should take a look at what Jesus had to say on the Old Testament laws, as the Kirk (and most Churches) applies that thinking, instead of your strawman.
...or rather what he didn't say - when he made is "he who is without sin" remark, he refused to condemn the practice of stoning for adultery.
Anyway, for a book that is held up as the word of God, how can you pick and choose which bits to follow?
Are you saying that you know better than God?
Well, first off, I don't need a Testament, Old or New, to tell me that black pudding will be punishable by death. Mortality rates across Scotland tell us God is hard at work north of the border sorting that one out.
Anyway, more seriously, questions of religion and sexuality always tend to be highly sensitive issues so conflating the two is always going to lead to fireworks.
For the record, if it was up to me then Scott Rennie could take whatever role in that Church that he was fit for, from candle-holder to archbishop. But it's not up to me and it's not up to any of the well meaning commenters on this post.
I don't know for sure how strongly the Church of Scotland feels against homosexuality but I'm reasonably sure they are not in favour of it.
Taking things to the extreme, would it be reasonable to have a gay pope? I don't think so, so where do we draw the line?
Scott Rennie should be welcomed into the church but he can have no complaints if that same church denies him certainm positions due to a very particular conflict of interest.
"...or rather what he didn't say - when he made is "he who is without sin" remark, he refused to condemn the practice of stoning for adultery."
I was thinking about the time that he and his disciples took corn form the fields to eat, without first washing their hands, and Jesus said:
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.That's in the book of Mark, chapter 7, by the way. You would find it interesting to read it, and might draw similarities between your line of argument and those of the Pharisees. The Church takes its line from Jesus [and also Paul, who says some similar things later in the Bible].
"Anyway, for a book that is held up as the word of God, how can you pick and choose which bits to follow?
Are you saying that you know better than God?"
No, I'm saying I know better than you. The laws in the Old Testament are, in the view of almost every Church, laws for the Jews, not the gentiles, and as such can largely be disregarded by non-Jews.
Of course, you can't pick and choose which parts of God's Word you follow, but when God sends a prophet or messiah to over-ride some of his earlier laws, it's a pretty good bet that those previous laws no longer apply.
Anonymous:
Perhaps, Richard, you should take a look at what Jesus had to say on the Old Testament laws, as the Kirk (and most Churches) applies that thinking, instead of your strawman.
What did Jesus say about Old Testament laws? There's this in Matthew 5:17-9:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
So doesn't all the mixed fibres and black pudding stuff still apply?
I am not a member of the C of S and am no theologian.
But as I understand it there is a very serious error in Jeff's piece on this.
The church does not object to a person being homosexual in inclination and to say that it teaches that a person would be debarred from heaven on the grounds of their sexual preference,homosexual or heterosexual,is wrong.
The problem is what a person does. To put it in old fashioned terms,sodomy,the homosexual , act,is seen as sinful, not the inclination.
"If you don't like the rules, join a different club."
I would normally completely agree, but this is not the WRI. This ‘club’ tries to twist and change the laws and state we live under to suit its own delusional beliefs.
I think fairies live in the bottom my garden and gnomes prepare my crunchy nut cornflakes in the morning, ok I don’t, but if I did I wouldn’t expect my beliefs to have any effect on the legislature or on the way any other human lives thier life and the rights they are entitled to. Religious sects and their hypocritical and bigoted societal straight jackets, on the other hand, very much do.
Post a Comment