I am somewhat surprised that Rev T Graham Longmuir (Letters, 7 June) claims that the liberal wing of the Church has biblical roots.
Given that the essence of “liberal” Christianity is to deny much of what the Bible says, or to deny that it actually is the Word of God, then it does seem somewhat disingenuous to claim “biblical roots”.
I recall one elder telling me that his minister did not teach the bible because it “did not attract the young people”
When it was pointed out that no young people attended this “ministry” the elder struggled to see the connection.
Given that the debate on homosexuality has been raging for at least the past decade, it was even more surprising to read Rev Longmuir’s claim that the current debate has”not yet taken place in presbytery and Kirk sessions”.
Rev Longmuir is correct, however, in stating that the issue of homosexuality is not the reason for the continued decline of the Kirk.
There are doubtless many factors but surely the move away from teaching the Bible as the Word of God, of which the current debacle over homosexuality is only one symptom, is the most serious.
Why should anyone bother attending a church which does not believe or take seriously its own book?
David Robertson may believe that the Bible is “the word of God” (Letters, 10 June), but that’s not its definition. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament”.
More precisely, the Old Testament consists of various Jewish writings and the New Testament consist of books about Jesus and the rise of the Christianity.
The authors of all the Bible’s books certainly believed that they were writing on a god’s behalf but that doesn’t make their words that god’s words.
Over centuries, scholarship and “liberal Christianity” have examined the authorship and provenance of all the Bible’s books and shown them to be as prone to error as any human work.
I would argue that it is naive and foolish to believe every word in the Bible or to take it as “God’s word”.