Crisis, What Crisis?
People of my age and older will remember Prime Minister James Callaghan uttering these words on his return to the United Kingdom in the midst of a petrol crisis (if that is what it was).
So, is the Church of Scotland currently in a state of crisis? (I first wrote these words in the summer of 2013.) Let’s look at some of the evidence for and against.
For the past few decades there has been a steady decline in membership and the number of active churches. In my own native Aberdeen, the city centre now looks more like Moscow in the days of the Cold War, with a depressingly high number of closed church buildings, many converted into night clubs or public houses. I am sorry to say that a blood relative of mine owns a couple of them.
Until I was given a seat in the Presbytery of Hamilton in 2012, my entire ministry had taken place in and around Aberdeen. When I look at the edition of the Aberdeen Presbytery calendar that was in use when I was Clerk in the mid-1970s and then compare it with today’s edition, I am shocked at just how much the visible church has shrunk in that city.
Apart from some apparent increase in numbers attending independent and/or charismatic fellowships, there is almost nothing but retrenchment in churches throughout Scotland. Some churches that had large, strong and well attended congregations (like the Langstane Kirk that I mentioned earlier) have shrunk and disappeared without trace.
So, what has gone wrong? Of course, if I actually knew all the answers, I would be in great demand. All I can do is contribute to the ongoing debate.
When I first entered ministry in 1969, there was a real spirit of optimism, especially among the new breed of younger evangelical ministers. If we remained faithful to Jesus Christ and proclaimed the Gospel, God would surely refresh and revive the Church of Scotland. It was a strategy that simply could not fail, or so we thought. There was a very real spirit of optimism in the air. Yet the reality has been different. I have seen many thoughtful, intelligent and well balanced ministers who have faithfully and graciously preached the Gospel and pastored their flocks. Yet, many of them have seen surprisingly little actual growth. Sometimes, if the truth be told, there has been no visible growth at all.
Whilst there are some congregations whose memberships have grown, in practice this has often been at the expense of others. It is as though the same people are continually recycled through the church system. There are very few actual genuine “converts” in modern Scotland. I would go further and suggest that some other denominations and independent fellowships see the Church of Scotland as fair game and are certainly not above cherry-picking and poaching its members.
Of course, there have been major sociological changes. Family life is different and society is much more individualistic. Due to the internet, the world is undoubtedly a smaller place. Expectations are also very different. “Church” for many people now has a somewhat negative connotation. In the past, people who were not believers were generally prepared to live and let live. Now, there is far more open hostility to the Christian message from hard-line secularists. An increasing number of weddings and funerals are being conducted by secular or humanist celebrants without the perceived need for any religious input. When filling in forms, many people now tick the box “No Religion” as a matter of course.{15} Indeed, even some people who would consider themselves to be at least nominally Christian will tick that box, feeling that otherwise they may be discriminated against or thought to be fanatical.
I remember reading a rather challenging book some years ago titled The Gagging of God.{16} Certainly God seems to be increasingly gagged in modern Scotland. My own University (Edinburgh) no longer includes a prayer at the start of a graduation ceremony. Local authorities and similar statutory bodies, who are generally touchy and old-maidish in their political correctness, routinely ban the use of such terms as “Christmas”, acting like latter day Scrooges. The Scout movement, of which I was a member throughout my school days, has recently removed the need for any reference to a duty to God.
The ostensible reason for such change is the need to avoid offending people of other faiths in today’s diverse society. My perception is that people of other faiths, such as moderate Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism are not actually those who are offended by Christian practices or festivals taking place within the United Kingdom. It is the secular humanists who now seem both to take centre stage and call the tune. To them, the secular view is the only viable and intelligent way of thinking and they will often defend it with an anger and ferocity that can only be described as a form of fundamentalism. Secularists now seem to have a constitutional right not to have any opportunity to be offended by even the slightest whiff of religion anywhere in public life. In practice, they are becoming the established “church”. Christians, on the other hand, can apparently be called for everything and generally misrepresented, rubbished and ridiculed with impunity.
The disgraceful episodes of child abuse by some clergy – even though most of it has taken place in the Roman Catholic Church – unfortunately has, by association, tainted everyone in the Christian church. The subsequent cover-up and denial has done almost as much damage. It has compromised the moral authority of the wider church. This is a blow from which the church may never fully recover.
The recent division and furore in the Church of Scotland over gay ministers, civil partnerships and gay marriage has also shown just how far much of the church is out of kilter with society in general. It seems, in popular perception that the church is generally dragging along at least 50 years behind public opinion. Many people simply cannot be bothered waiting for the church to “catch up”. The increasing number of humanist celebrants at naming ceremonies, marriages and funerals demonstrates that they are perceived as being more friendly and accepting than traditional clergy. That perception may be unfair, but it is there nevertheless.
There was a time – and not so very long ago – when, in Scotland, the ministry was one of the most highly respected of all the professions. The same certainly cannot be said today. Only too often ministers are the target of pity, ridicule or even contempt. There are parts of our towns and cities where it might be inadvisable nowadays to be seen wearing a clerical collar. To many people, the presence of a minister is no longer a requirement at any stage of life.
The ministry is also an increasingly ageing profession. At the time of the second edition (2014) there were only two ministers in the Church of Scotland under the age of 30 and the average age of candidates for the ministry (who are few and far between) was 46. The General Assembly of 2014 was told that the Church of Scotland needs to prepare itself for a more or less permanent ministerial vacancy level of 20%.
Now, it can be validly argued that it is not the role of the church to follow every whim of society. Saint Paul explicitly warns us not to be conformed to this world.{17} Yet, the other side of the coin is that in its anxiety not to compromise with worldly values, the church can forget how to accommodate itself to the world.
If we look at the life of Jesus, we see someone who never compromised himself in any way yet who constantly accommodated himself to the people whom he met, even to their sinfulness. His critics never lost an opportunity to point out that he ate and drank with publicans and sinners. Looking round the town of Hamilton, where I have lived for only a few years, I already have a mental list of places I wouldn’t want to be seen dead in, mainly pubs and night clubs. Yet, I have the distinctly uncomfortable feeling that, if Jesus walked the earth today, he would go first to these very places. I find that a very disturbing and highly inconvenient thought.
The church is certainly capable of accommodating. Even during the so-called swinging sixties, it was considered rather shocking for an unmarried couple to live together. Now, it seems to be almost the norm, even among Christians, that couples live together and sometimes even have children before they get married. It is not that the church has given approval to this practice. That would be compromise. It simply means that the church has accommodated itself to the people whom it serves which, to me, is a Christ-like thing to do.
Another example of accommodation is the dedication of infants. Although I certainly cannot claim responsibility for this relatively recent innovation in the Church of Scotland, I remember raising the possibility in the (then) recently created Ministers’ Forum (a newsletter for ministers) in 1979 {18} that ministers who felt that they could not offer the full sacrament of baptism to children of non-members, might offer a service of dedication (sometimes known colloquially as a “dry christening”) instead. This was an attempt to avoid the negative impression that somehow God was not prepared to bless their children. I was surprised, at the time, that this suggestion was so well received by colleagues. Only one person expressed “dismay” at the suggestion and it was clear from his comments that he had not actually bothered to read the article in question. Certainly there are ministers who now regularly offer dedication ceremonies.
Unfortunately, some Christians fail to see the sometimes subtle but absolutely crucial distinction between compromising and accommodating.
In spite of the many forebodings, the Church of Scotland has also been able not only to tolerate but to embrace the ministry of women. I would go further and say that the Kirk has been enriched by the growth in numbers of both women elders and ministers. The world has not come to an end. Unfortunately, even though the Church of Scotland has been relatively quick to accept the ministry of women, the wider church is still perceived as being somewhat misogynistic. There is at least some justification for this perception.
Also, there is no doubt that the Kirk did get itself into a disproportionately frightful mess and tangle over the so-called issue of gay ministers.
In 2008, the Rev Scott Rennie, minister at Brechin Cathedral, received a call to Queen’s Cross Church in Aberdeen. Mr Rennie is openly gay. He has been in a conventional male / female marriage and is now divorced. He entered a civil partnership with his male partner in 2013. At the time he was called to Queen’s Cross, Mr Rennie was not under discipline by his own Presbytery.
The issue of Mr Rennie’s call to Queen’s Cross sparked a country wide debate on so-called “gay ministry” which ended up at the General Assembly. Some individuals appealed to the General Assembly against Aberdeen Presbytery’s decision to sustain the call. However, the Assembly of 2009 sustained it. Gay clergy ordained before May 2009 would also be allowed to stay in post although no further openly gay men or women could be ordained or accepted for training in the meantime.
In 2011 the General Assembly postponed a formal decision on the wider issues involved and set up a Theological Commission to look at the matter in detail. It also took the quite extraordinary and highly un-Presbyterian step of placing an embargo on public comment or discussion of the issue. It was actually an issue that many people did want to discuss, if only to clarify their own minds.
Jesus, of course, has not left us any specific teaching on the question of homosexuality. Actually, there is very little mention of the subject in the Bible as a whole. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the following but I have heard it said that in the entire sweep of Scripture there are seven verses which are possibly against homosexuality, twelve verses against divorce, four against sex with a women who is menstruating, 2,350 about money and 300 about social injustice and the poor. And how far, in context, some of the seven verses against homosexuality are permanent instruction is open to debate, especially those from the Old Testament. We all tend to pick and choose when it comes to Biblical teachings.
As regards the New Testament, much centres round the interpretation of Romans 1: 24-27.{19} Some scholars suggest that the original Greek text refers to such matters as male prostitution, molestation of boys or men or promiscuity rather than committed same sex relationships (which would have been virtually unknown at the time). I am not a sufficiently competent scholar to give an authoritative judgement on this. However, I do get impatient with sanctimonious and patronising people who jab at this text and tell me that the “Bible is quite clear.” (The clear implication being that if I don’t agree, I am not a proper Christian.) The Bible on this point, to me, is not actually clear beyond all possible doubt and I would hesitate to erect any doctrine on such a shaky foundation. As is often the case, the experts do not agree, not that in my wildest dreams would I claim to be an expert.
At the risk of shocking some of my evangelical friends, I have to say that I simply cannot work myself into a state of moral outrage over an issue that, in the larger picture, I believe to be trivial. There are far more important issues facing the church and society today than what a tiny minority of ministers might do in their bedrooms. That may sound like compromise. To me it is simply a pragmatic approach.
The Report of the Theological Commission on Same-Sex Relationships and the Ministry that was submitted to the General Assembly of 2013 contained thoughtful and scholarly summaries of what have now become known as the “traditional” and “revisionist” approaches respectively. (This is perhaps rather more helpful than the familiar labels of “evangelical” and “liberal” which have ceased to have any clear meaning.)
This little booklet is not a theological work and I will not attempt to replicate any of the arguments, so well set out in the Commission’s Report. The Report did make it clear that homophobia has no place in the Church of Scotland. That clear statement was to be welcomed and certainly should never be a contentious issue. How many people outside the Kirk will have read that part of the statement is another matter altogether. Perception is everything and there is no doubt that many people do still perceive the church in general as being homophobic.
The Commission itself was divided down the middle and made no recommendation, although three possible deliverances were originally published. Almost literally at the eleventh hour, the Very Rev Albert Bogle, retiring Moderator of the General Assembly, presented a notice of motion (the one he had prepared earlier) putting forward a new fourth deliverance that has become known as 2(d).
Basically 2(d) affirmed the Church’s historic and current doctrine and practice in relation to human sexuality (i.e. that homosexual practice is against the teachings of the Bible) nonetheless permitted those Kirk Sessions who wish to depart from that doctrine and practice to do so in calling a minister.
The legal and doctrinal questions arising from the deliverance 2(d), which was carried, were further considered by the appropriate bodies within the Kirk. Draft legislation was brought to the Assembly of 2014 and, after a thoughtful debate the package of arrangements was agreed in principle. These proposals went down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act procedure, coming back to the Assembly for a final decision in 2015. Indeed, the mills of God can grind exceeding slow.
As most people would surely have anticipated, a majority of Presbyteries (31 to 14) approved of the draft legislation that put 2(d) into effect and this became the law of the Kirk after the Assembly of 2015. Following this historic vote, it means congregations may now call a minister or deacon in a same sex civil partnership. However, that provision did not yet extend to any ministers entering into same sex marriages. (Special provisions were agreed which protect any minister or deacon ordained before May 31st 2009 who is now in a same sex marriage.) A proposal to amend the legislation of 2015 to include ministers or deacons in same sex marriages, as distinct from civil partnerships, had to go down to Presbyteries under the Barrier Act, with a view to approval by the General Assembly in 2016. Very Rev Albert Bogle once again raised his head above the parapet and moved a countermotion that sought to defer any decision on this matter until the Theological Forum could submit a report on same sex marriage to the Assembly in 2017. However commissioners voted for the proposal and against his countermotion by a very narrow margin of 213 in favour to 205 against. There was the real danger, as pointed out by Dr Bogle, that if the Barrier Act proposals were agreed in 2016 (which they duly were) the public perception will be that the Church of Scotland is now generally in favour of same sex marriage which had certainly not been the intention behind 2(d).
The original 2(d) deliverance in 2013 was certainly well intended and set out to be inclusive. Dr Bogle, in my perception, was one of the more “real” Moderators of recent years. He did have things of value to say beyond the usual run of wish-washy and complacent platitudes that are, unfortunately, generally expected of Moderators. I think it is grossly unjust and unworthy that so much sharp, and even bitter, criticism has been aimed at him personally.
His deliverance did, however, succeed in wrong footing some members of the Assembly. Given that its ramifications had not been fully considered at the time, some commissioners quickly expressed regret at having voted for 2(d). It was perhaps unfortunate that Dr Bogle’s motion had to be voted for “on the hoof”, as it were. Dr Bogle considered that, as long as he was still Moderator, it would be inappropriate for him to bring forward his motion. Whilst this is understandable it was unfortunate that 2(d) was not given more mature discussion and consideration long before the vote was taken in 2013. He could surely have put a notice of motion forward through someone else at a much earlier stage, could he not?
To me, it seems that the traditionalists really could not have expected to achieve very much more than 2(d) and the legislation that flowed from it in 2015/16. They might very well have got considerably less had Dr Bogle not intervened when he did. Some traditionalists seem to miss this very basic point.
The new legislation now allows revisionist congregations (such as Queen’s Cross) to call a minister in a civil partnership or same sex marriage. It also allows men and women in this position to enter training for the ministry or the diaconate.
No congregation will be forced to accept a gay minister. Equally, no congregation, it seems, will be prevented from having a gay minister. Is it not possible to live with that compromise arrangement and move on? Apparently not, so far as one can judge, in the case of some people.
The General Assembly usually tries to pass deliverances that are seen to be inclusive. As far as possible, the Assembly will do what it can to allow people to have their theological cake and eat it. Perhaps too often it sets out to try to please everybody, which in a diverse Christian organisation, is impossible, even if it laudable in its intention.
Since the days of the Jerusalem Council in the Acts of the Apostles, there have been elements of disagreement. However, the outcome of the Jerusalem Council shows that disagreement need not involve division. Sadly, throughout the history of the church, often it has and only too often it does. It is unfortunate too that there are people within the church who seem to believe that when they disagree on an issue, it is their Christian duty to be as disagreeable and unpleasant as possible.
Critics of 2(d) on all sides have said that it is classic fudge. Well, get real, guys! Even the Nicene Creed is fudge. The Christian church has been fudging for many centuries simply because both in doctrine and in ethics it is not as easy as it might seem to achieve total clarity and certainty on any subject involving faith, far less total agreement.
It is part of our western way of thinking that we assume that there can only be one possible correct solution to, or explanation for, any particular issue. I submit that this can be a blinkered and limiting approach.
Incidentally, I find no evidence in Scripture, Old Testament or New Testament, for a voting process when it comes to important decisions in a Christian context, even though it is well entrenched within our Presbyterian tradition. I believe that wherever possible the church should keep debating difficult issues until a way forward can be found that includes everyone or at least as many as possible. To suggest that because a majority voted in favour of any proposal is the end of the matter seems (to me) to sit uncomfortably with any concept of unity of the Spirit.
Including everyone is not the same as pleasing everyone and, of course, the process of discussion and negotiation can take a much longer time. I have to nail my own colours to the mast here. Whatever personal reservations I might have deep down, society has moved strongly and quickly in the direction of gay equality. People are who they are and there are certainly a good number of gay people in the church who have been and are faithful and valuable contributors. Traditionalists often overlook this uncomfortable and highly inconvenient fact.
In the past, there have certainly been homosexual ministers both from the traditional and revisionist elements of the Kirk although even to suggest so has been an absolute taboo. There seems to be some crazy assumption in some quarters that because someone is homosexual, it follows that s/he is automatically promiscuous and even dangerous. Such an idea is utterly preposterous as well as being unworthy.
If I had still been in active ministry, I think I might have been prepared, in principle, to give a blessing to a civil partnership, if asked so to do. I might also have been willing to do the same for a same sex marriage, whatever my own personal reservations. Almost certainly my Presbytery would have stopped me from doing so and, of course, the matter is purely academic. If two people want to commit to one another in a permanent and loving relationship, my own feeling is that it is nothing short of cruel for the church to appear to withhold its blessing. It also gives the wider world a picture, however unfair this may be, of a church that is negative and judgemental and this plays right into the hands of the secular humanists. How the world perceives the church does actually matter; in fact, I would suggest that it matters a great deal.
Personally, I would have strongly preferred that the distinction between marriage (i.e. between and man and a woman) and civil partnership (i.e. between two people of the same gender) could have been maintained, with the proviso that legal rights and duties arising from civil partnership should be, as far as possible, equivalent to those of marriage. However, it became clear at an early stage that gay marriage was, to all intents and purposes, a done deal. For some Christians now to keep ranting about it is about as effective as Canute telling the waves to go back.
At the same time, I do think it sounds a little absurd to hear a registrar pronouncing two men “husband and husband”.
Although gay marriage was not in the manifesto of any of the major political parties in the 2010 General Election, there seemed to be a popular roll of opinion in that direction and nothing could realistically stop it from reaching the statute book. The Scottish Parliament duly passed the Marriage and Civil Partnership Act 2014 and the first same sex marriages have already taken place.
Possibly the time will come, probably not in my lifetime, when gay marriages will even be possible in the Kirk and no one will give it a second thought.
Who knows? Never say “Never!”.