Lesley Riddoch: Kirk gay debate must show courage

The Church of Scotland could learn from actress Angelina Jolies decisiveness and bravery. Picture: AFP/Getty

One person last week offered comfort, leadership and moral guidance to tens of thousands of Scots. Was it a member of the clergy? Was it an expert? Was it even a Scot? In fact, it was a 37-year-old Hollywood actress called Angelina Jolie.

The world’s most beautiful woman and Hollywood’s highest paid actress revealed she’s had a double mastectomy rather than wait to (probably) contract breast cancer thanks to a faulty gene.

Every aspect of her news was astonishing. The Lara Croft star is relatively young and relies on looks and glamour for her on-screen appeal. She is also a mother of six and it was this reality that prompted her surgery and straightforward, unsensational public explanation.

Ms Jolie’s opinion column in the New York Times paid tribute to her partner, doctors and children and described her condition with eye-watering clarity.

For a public drip-fed on the belief that artificial good looks matter more to celebrities than actual health it was a stunning reversal of showbiz priorities.

“My chances of developing breast cancer have now dropped from 87 per cent to under 5 per cent. I can tell my children they don’t need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer.”

Her message was clear. Face up to big decisions, take them early and take them well. You could call it an act of sisterhood, leadership and courage. You could even call it an act of love.

What credentials allow Ms Jolie to offer moral succour to women touched by cancer? None. Indeed what allows her to travel the world campaigning for an end to violence? Nothing. And yet what impact does she have? Massive.

There’s a point in all of this for the faithful gathered today in Edinburgh for the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Religious leaders no longer have a monopoly in the business of advice, comfort or moral leadership. An articulate, prominent individual with faith in reason, medical science, public judgment and family loyalty can be more useful and just as inspiring. Particularly when they show how difficult decisions can be taken, not fudged.

Today the Church of Scotland faces its own hard choice as delegates decide if a gay or lesbian Christian in a civil partnership can be ordained to the ministry. This “black or white” decision has faced the Kirk for years – now there’s the additional threat that dozens of congregations might break away if the “liberal” stance wins.

Now a “third way” amendment has been championed by Professor David Fergusson, principal of Edinburgh University’s divinity school, giving gay ministers equal rights but pointing out that individual congregations can decide not to appoint a gay minister.

Might this compromise work? Not unless there is some agreement about the best way to make a decision. Since the theological commission charged with looking at this rather bottled the task, there currently appears to be none. Lack of method is as disempowering as lack of agreement.

Should theological reference rule the day? Well, each side cites its own textual support. Should the Kirk aim to mirror the views of modern secular society? Opinion polls suggest the majority of Scots back equal rights in marriage. Few polls have tackled gay clergy because it is that unimportant to the majority of ordinary Scots.

So it’s likely the gap between wider society and a discriminating Kirk people will widen over time as liberal youngsters become voting adults and church members. This generational issue is important. Should current Kirk members fit policy around their own views or – like a “roomy” school jacket – build in “room for growth”? Kirk members are generally older than the average Scot – and yet any organisation aiming to have social relevance must be mindful of a consensus beyond its own.

The BBC did just that in the 90s when an audience survey found a big divide in attitudes towards authority. Over-50s were more likely to want “tablets of stone” during news programmes with opinions handed down as gospel by ministers, senior politicians, judges and figures with similar status. Younger viewers intensely disliked being told what to think by the great and good, turned off within 15 seconds of a political “talking head”, cared little about the “rank” of speakers and identified with opinions which most closely mirrored their own.

This was a dilemma – not unlike that facing the “traditionalists” and “revisionists” in the Kirk today. The over-50s wanted a single moral message. The under-50s wanted a range of views. A choice had to be made.

It was – and the under-50 view prevailed. Almost overnight the BBC retrained staff to give priority to participants in events over expert observers, however distinguished. This democratising of opinion-forming predated the explosion of channels, internet, the challenge of multiculturalism and the growth of nationalist movements. It was a far-sighted decision by a (then) confident organisation which understood it had to be ahead of the curve to retain the moral authority needed to justify special treatment through the licence fee.

What has any of this to do with the Kirk? The Kirk once achieved authority in Scotland through its rank and status. More recently it has sought to demonstrate clout with statements on poverty – but then so has everyone else. One unique role has awaited the Kirk since Margaret Thatcher addressed the General Assembly 25 years ago, appearing to declare society dead, nonexistent or unimportant.

Society desperately needs skilled and egoless facilitators to help create consensus and momentum among communities which can easily fall into petty squabbling and trivial division. Can a group “terrified” of debate rise to the occasion? Or can the Kirk yet earn respect and a new civic role by the way it tackles this difficult decision?

Surely Prof Fergusson is absolutely right to say there is only one yardstick – which option best encourages the growth of the Kirk as “a community in which we can manage disagreement while maintaining unity with one another”.

My own view is that a vote for equality by the Kirk would have an empowering resonance beyond the gay community, the Church and even Scotland. But that requires more than a narrow, frightened vote in favour. It requires confidence and grace.

As an actress recently said: “Life comes with many challenges. The ones that should not scare us are the ones we can control.”