OK, the usual bit out of the way first. Nice building at Airside Church, friendly people. Talented Minister with an appropriate and well delivered sermon. We've been to this church before, so no surprises.
So as the service finished, I saw someone I've not seen for about 10 years. We were at college together so I said Hi to Brian and we exchanged plesantries about what we'd both been up to. We were discussing the merits of various bible colleges in Scotland and their apparent theologies when Monday's General Assembly debate came up. Then the conversation got decidedly frosty, almost hostile.
I was treated to someone with an entrenched position on the idea of gay ministers. He's considering leaving the CofS because the church may be advocating gay clergy. Now the first thing is the motion from the GA has not been passed to presbyteries yet, so we've got nothing to debate. But Brian had a position and it wasn't for debate. I'll not re-hash the rant, but it's probable you've heard it, or a variety of it. It was a re-hash of the inaccurate parts of the reporting that followed the GA debate on Monday, which convenieltly fit his position. It certainly did not reflet the motion agreed by the Assembly. On top of that, Jesus wasn't Jewish, and eventually stopped preaching in temples. Seriously?
I've been to some varied congregations this year,but this was by far the most hostile reaction I've had so far. I wasn' expecting this from within a CofS building.
My problem is that Brian is an Elder of the church.The Eldership promise in part is "...To seek the unity and peace of the church; To uphold its doctrine, worship, Government and discipline...” There may be things about the church that I'm not keen on, but I have the option of contributing to the debate, accepting I'll not win every debate and moving on, or I can resign from the church. Brian made it clear that he did not want to leave the church because he was there at the construction of the church premises. But he was considering going to another denomination.
Perhaps I tend to take an over-simplified view of the world, but if an elder apparently is not willing to seek unity in the church, or to uphold the Government of the church, then they should not be in the role. They have ceased to represent me. In his position, Brian does not appear to be willing to negotiate, and sees his time in the church as in some way making his viewpoint more important.
At a point in a debate involving young people, someone will express the opinion that the children are the future of the church. So when are those members of the old guard who have entrenched opinions going to hand over the reigns of the church? When they have bled the life out of it, and the young are given the drained corpse of a once great institution? If those responsible for the leadership and pastoral care of congregations are not prepared to engage in debate, then the church has no future.
It is the debate that makes the Church of Scotland the solid organisaton it is. We don't rush into things. We talk about them. I accept that people will have firm, well reasoned opinions, on both sides of every debate. But when the courts of the Church have made a decision, then we have to move on and work together.
So why is it, that there's some of us who are prepared to be flexible, and to listen to the opinions of others, and to work with those who we may not actually agree with? But on the other hand, why has this issue has caused some people to dig their heels in and not engage in debate? I don't actually want Brian to leave the church. I'm not going to wish he leaves. But I do want him to use his experience to be an effective representative in the courts of the church. And that means listening, prayerfuly reflecting, contributing based on his knowledge of the facts, and then moving on when the debate doesn't go his way.
No comments:
Post a Comment