Letter: Kirk cannot condone a 'biblical sin'

You say "learned theologians" would do well to follow what should be a "simple, fundamental Christian principle: under God or otherwise, all men are born equal". Indeed, all are, and can surely choose to follow the word of God as Christians as delivered to us through the Holy Bible, or ignore it as they please.

The Kirk, however, must remember that the Protestant Reformation was founded on the word of the Bible in preference to the convenience and whims of clerical diktats which sought to favour and excuse their own corruptions.

The Holy Bible is unequivocal on the issue of homosexuality: it is a sin. For the secular world, homosexuality is rightly an issue for each man or woman to judge according to their own rational mind, but for the Protestant Kirk there can be no excusing the continuance of a grievous sin for a person in a leadership role.

The penultimate book of the Bible offers clear guidance and instruction to Christians to reject the false teachers currently leading the General Assembly and the Kirk towards excusing sexual immorality among the clergy.

However, it also offers Christians a caring and loving attitude towards homosexuals: "Show mercy toward those who have doubts; save others by snatching them out of the fire; and to others show mercy mixed with fear, but hate their very clothes, stained by their sinful lusts." (Jude, verses 22-23, GNB).

Christian love and understanding can easily be reconciled with the issue of homosexuality, but the Kirk cannot excuse or promote in its manses what is clearly a biblical sin.

Philip Lardner

Parkinch

Erskine, Renfrewshire

Few would disagree with the principle that all are born equal, as your editorial makes clear. Another fundamental principle needs to be stated, and it is one of authority. Who should be listened to: man or God?

The Church of Scotland acknowledges the word of God to be the supreme authority in all matters of faith and life. Should the Church decide to change this final authority, it would no longer be the Church of Scotland and would forfeit all rights and privileges as such. It would, in my view, be an act of self-destruction.

(Rev) David C McLeod

Carseview Gardens

Dundee

As an atheist, I watch with amusement as the Kirk gets its ecclesiastical knickers in a twist over what consenting adults do in their bedrooms. Letters on this topic (25 May) illustrate how little Christianity has to offer gay people.

First, the Rev Dr Cameron assures us that explicitly homophobic passages in the Bible don't mean what they say. In a grotesque exercise in revisionism, he tries to argue that black is, in fact, white.

His arguments are unconvincing, and rejected by traditionalist Christians like Richard Lucas. While I disagree with Lucas's position, it is biblically correct, and free of the intellectual contortions needed by the trendy Dr Cameron to keep up with what secular humanists worked out long ago - that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Unfortunately, the biblical position still holds sway over huge portions of Christendom. The dreadful consequences for gay people in countries like Jamaica and Uganda reminds us that Christianity, too, has its very own Taleban.

(Dr) Stephen Moreton

Marina Avenue

Warrington, CheshireI am not a member of the Church of Scotland, but of a very gay-friendly congregation of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

That said, I recognise the Kirk as the national Church, and have friends acutely and personally affected by the Kirk's views on homosexual clergy.

Bill Naphy's analysis (24 May) seemed to point out the absurdity of a distinction between those ordained before or after May 2009.

I take it that that date refers to the assembly's vote to approve Scott Rennie's appointment in Aberdeen. How can ordination before or after that date possibly affect the will of God on such matters? What are another two years going to do?

It is no good saying there is no consensus at this point. The sad truth is that there never will be any full consensus.

If the Kirk is to command any measure of respect it has to get off the fence before the iron enters the soul. If it says it will not ordain or appoint openly gay ministers, so be it. I could not agree with that decision, but we would know where the Church of Scotland stood, and those within it would know where they stood.

Instead, the national Church seems bent upon kicking this ball into ever longer grass in a forlorn hope that it will not be found.

I pray for the Kirk, but at present it seems to be incapable of doing itself or its members a service on this issue, which will not go away.

James Campbell

Newhaven Road

Edinburgh