Irish Presbyterians prepare to ban gay blessings
As I predicted a couple of weeks ago, a last minute Resolution will be introduced tomorrow at the Presbyterian with the effect of prohibiting the church's clergy from blessing same-sex civil partnerships. The convenor of the General Assembly's , Dr Lesley Carroll, appears to have been concerned that a resolution would be tabled from the floor of the Assembly. Given that such a motion would almost certainly pass without controversy in such an overwhelmingly conservative denomination, Lesley Carroll has brought the Resolution herself. It reads:
The General Assembly affirms the broad agreement of the Church, as expressed at the 1979 General Assembly, regarding homosexual relationships, and directs that ministers and licentiates shall not conduct Services of Blessing in the context of a civil partnership.
Rushed law, the adage goes, is bad law; and this Resolution may be fought over in quite some detail tomorrow morning at the Assembly. In fact, I'm told there has already been a revision to the wording, since it's now been noticed that the current version ("shall not conduct Services of Blessing") merely prevents clergy from officiating at a plurality of services but would allow a clergyperson to conduct a one-off blessing service.
This may not be the only oversight in the drafting of this Resolution. What, for example, is a service of "blessing" (in Presbyterian liturgy) and how is that different from, say, a "service of thanksgiving" or a "service of celebration" or a "service of recognition"?
In the same debate tomorrow at 9.30 am, which I'll be attending, another last-minute Resolution has been tabled which would ask the Church and Society committee to:
. . . examine the nature and scope of homophobia within our church and society, and report their findings to the next General Assembly, with a view to developing more sensitive and effective pastoral care.
This motion with be moved and seconded by two former moderators from different wings of the church, Dr Ken Newell and Dr Alistair Dunlop.
I have no doubt that the ban on same-sex blessings (in one form or another) will be agreed at the Assembly without much difficulty -- the Assembly is not known for its liberalism. The request for a study on homophobia will be more of a struggle for some members, but it will probably succeed as well.
The more interesting question, I think, is whether tomorrow's Assembly will be prepared to have an open conversation about homosexuality, with a variety of theological voices represented. The United Church of Australia have gay and lesbian ministers; the has been openly debating that same issue for at least two decades; and the Church of Scotland's General Assembly has the right of ministers to bless same-sex unions. Similarly, the Anglican Communion continues to have a very public debate, across five continents, about the place of gay and lesbian people within the church and within holy orders. But the Presbyterian Church in Ireland has somehow managed to avoid any open debate about these complex and contentious issues for more than a quarter of a century.
Is it really the case that there is absolute consensus among Irish Presbyterians on an issue that is dividing churches around the world? Certainly not. I know of quite a few Irish Presbyterian ministers who disagree with the church's traditional condemnation of gay relationships but who do not feel able to express that view in their congregations, let alone in open debate within the Assembly. Why are these heterosexual ministers afraid to give voice to their own conscience on such a vital issue? They fear marginalisation within the church, they fear the consequences for their own ministry in congregations, and they fear disciplinary actions within presbyteries -- merely for expressing an alternative theological view. Is that really a healthy state of affairs?
Wouldn't the Presbyterian Church welcome the creation of safe space within its courts, including the Supreme Court of the General Assembly, for people of faith, in good faith, to disagree about one of the most challenging questions facing the church today? Tomorrow's debate may throw some light on that question.
Comments
But surely it's not 'merely for expressing an alternative theological view'? When they were ordained, they would have had to accept the Wesminster Confession of Faith, which states 'Marriage is to be between one man and one woman' (XXIV.I). So if they didn't believe that was Biblical, they shouldn't have accepted it, and if they no longer believe it's true, they should resign.
Stephen- As I understand it, PCI ministers do not sign the Westminster Confession directly at their ordination, but rather they sign a template which allows them to dissent from anything in the Confession which they don't agree with (that is not an essential doctrine of faith). Thus ministers can accept gay marriage and be entirely within church bylaws to do so.
As I have stated in previous blogs [in which the Bible talked about a Man and A Woman, The Song titled: "When A Man Loves A Woman", and even songs from Cuban Bandleaders such as Roberto Faz, Fernando Alvarez that talk about A Man, A Woman, and a Child"], this single sex thing is just another evolevment of Western Imperialism against Africa, Asia, The Middle East, and Latin America. Even the Racist US Congress who were quick to make English a unifying language did not want to block same sex marriages. This mutant form of imperialism [Not Ethnic Minorities] will be the downfall of Western Imperialism.
It seems to me that the issue here is not really whether homosexuality is right or wrong but whether we respect the authority of the bible as the word of God anymore.
I think it is great that homosexual people are getting more protection from abuse, but I would like to see people pressing for change to church teaching on these matters declare any personal interests they may have so we can understand our various positions more clearly.
Sincerely
PB
PB- The issue is indubitably about the bible and, as you say, the authority which it holds.
However, most significant in this discussion is interpretation - a discussion which underlies the authority debate. The issue is the choking of alternative voices - a prerequisite for democratic decisions - which is apparent in much theological discourse in Northern Ireland. It must be recognised that conservative theology is not theology in toto. Space should be provided for open discussion of such issues in all denominations in Ireland.
Tim
Judging by the Internet Use Guideline's presented at Assembly I'd guess PCI want to ban the internet too...
Tim
Yes have a free debate, but I have examined the bible on this closely and I dont see any credible grounds for other interpretation.
Homosexuality is never mentioned but it is condemned; never. And it is mentioned quite a bit.
Approved relationships are explicitly heterosexual from the outset until the end. The complete picture on each thread from Genesis to Revelation gives a very clear picture on both; Jesus was a joiner who used plain language because he was a man of the people. Occam's razor.
They say doctors would be struck off if they tampered with their textbooks the way some clergy now tamper with the bible...
PB
PBradfield says he's read the Bible and it entirely outlaws gay sex. Well what would you expect from an ancient text that permits slavery and requires women to stay indoors during their periods of menstruation? Come on PB, how about a little more intelligence in how you read the Bible? Look up "hermeneutics" in a dictionary and you'll find that the Bible isn't as simple a document as you imagine.
Submission to free debate means that one cannot hold a monopoly of the Truth; dialogue necessitates that one accepts that they may be wrong. Further, the bible has been construed to oppress many in the past; from the advocacy of slavery; to the Crusades; to Apartheid. The church is notoriously good at saying 'no' this may be seen in everything from astronomy to contraception to movements in the political situation in Northern Ireland. I think the recognition of subjective interpretation is important before the church embarrasses itself again.
Please note that I simply advocate the asking of honest questions, this timid step is met by avid rejection.
David, Tim
Appreciate the opportunity to continue this discussion. Good point Tim, I think asking honest questions is good and I try to do that of the bible to see if it realy measures up or not.
David, let's not try and hide behind big words, if you have an honest response for me give it to me and I will listen.
Ref the bible on slavery, Timothy and Revelation both clearly condemns people who force others into slavery. Did you know that? RSVP? anyone???
The greek word for slave in the NT allows for voluntary or involuntary "slaves". Slavery in the bible was a voluntary social security net and also a means by which people paid back debts etc. There are also strict OT laws to protect the rights of such people, humanising them like no other nation at that time and freeing them if there were abused.
Hebrew slaves were freed after 7 years and set up in business by their masters, by OT law.
I am therefore very sceptical that biblical slavery (bondservants) is the same as our conception of slavery at all (read Philemon closely where Paul tells Philemon's master to take the him back, not as a slave but as a brother, and this was guidance for the whole church!).
Also, Old Testament guidelines have been proven to be very wise in public health terms generally, ref womens periods.
Also David, I didnt mean to come across so harsh, in that the bible condemns gay sex full stop. We are all fallen and need mercy.
But I have an open mind, show me a logical way to interpret the bible otherwise on homosexuality - a challenge for you! Well?
PB
David
Just turned up another two refs to add to Timothy and Revelation; Ex21:16 and Dt24:7 both say anyone forcing someone into slavery is to be put to death.
No I am not saying I am an expert on this but all the pieces I am seeing strongly suggest it was either a voluntary social security net or reparation for thieves and bankrupts etc.
Again, Paul wrote a letter to the whole church for guidance where he told a "slave's" master to treat Philemon just like Paul and to accept him as a slave not a brother; This was explicitly Paul's guidance for the whole church....
Also...apparently there is quite a difference between a bondservant and a slave...still reading up..
I just dont see all the pieces together justifying your views that the bible supports the modern concept of slavery at all, but I am very open to learn more.
PB
sorry, that should read "accept him as a brother not a slave" and not vice versa.
PB
sorry, that should read "accept him as a brother not a slave" and not vice versa.
PB