Split in the Kirk deepens over gay minister

However, conservative opponents of Mr Rennie refused to concede defeat and said there was still a chance to prevent him being appointed.

The Kirk's executive body, the General Assembly, today faces a pivotal debate on a contentious motion from Lochcarron-Skye Presbytery that seeks to ban openly gay people from being accepted into the Church for ordination or training.

The Assembly met on Saturday night to consider the legality of Aberdeen Presbytery's move to call Mr Rennie to become minister of the city's Queen's Cross Church. It had been claimed by objecting members of the presbytery that to appoint an openly gay minister was at odds with the Kirk's current code of ministerial conduct would create a precedent that would force it to take a stance that departed from biblical teachings.

After four hours of debate and evidence, the Assembly voted by 326 to 267 to uphold Mr Rennie's appointment but also said the decision would not set a precedent affecting any further cases.

Yesterday, evangelical group Forward Together, which has led the campaign against Mr Rennie's appointment, said the decision had brought "great shame" on the Church.

The acting convener of the group, Rev Steven Reid, said:

"I think it deepens the divide. That's an accurate assessment of the situation we are in. There have been issues down the years, issues to do with the scriptures, and this has brought them to a head.

"I think there will be those members who leave on the grounds of the result alone. I think there might be some churches and ministers who will be trying to find a way of distancing themselves from that decision. What form that will take it's difficult to say.

"For those of us who hold the scriptures to be the supreme rule of faith, the decision seems to fly in the face of that belief."

He said that if today's motion was passed, it would change the landscape, because it would have to be voted on by the various presbyteries, effectively giving the grass-roots members a say.

Yesterday, Mr Rennie said he was "humbled that the General Assembly has recognised God's call upon my life" and added that he did not understand the continued talk of schism.

"I'm not sure I understand why people talk of divides – that kind of language doesn't help the Church," he said.

"There are differences on very many matters. There are those, if they were truthful, who would say that they weren't very comfortable with women's ordination, and for 40 years we've managed to live with that difference. So when people talk about divide and schism and that kind of language, you have to wonder what the purpose is of that language."

He said that he did not know if Saturday's decision would persuade other gay ministers to be open about their sexuality but he hoped it would lessen what he saw as "the fear" gay Christians felt in the Kirk.

Mr Rennie said he felt it was "a shame" that the proceedings had taken place under the media's glare, but accepted that had been inevitable.

"I think what we must learn from this is that we need to be having continuing dialogue," he said.

"It is a very difficult subject. I served on the 2007 sexuality task force, a group of people from different theological parts of the Church who came together and we recognised that, even in our differences, we shared much more in common than we had which separated us. I think we grew in our respect and love for one another. I think we need to mirror that process at the grass-roots in our churches. That's what really needs to happen."

The Rev David Randall, of Macduff Church in Banffshire, who has been a vocal opponent Mr Rennie's appointment, said that if he was appointed to Queen's Cross, there would be serious repercussions.

He also insisted it was not a foregone conclusion that Mr Rennie's appointment would take place.

He said there was a complaint pending against Mr Rennie at Angus Presbytery, which had been postponed until the General Assembly hearing, and that this may yet prevent him taking up his ministry in Aberdeen.

"If this man is inducted, then that's a serious matter," Mr Randall said. "I am sure there will be a lot of repercussions for the Church throughout the country.

"The potential damage is very great, but I don't think it's settled that he will be appointed. It will be a question of whether the Presbytery of Angus will carry out the translation of the minister to Aberdeen. If it goes ahead, though, I will be both very sad and indeed angry. I have been minister of this church for 38 years and would feel very angry at the Church departing altogether from its biblical roots."

However, the head of the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Most Rev Dr Idris Jones, said Mr Rennie's appointment was the correct move for the Kirk.

"The decision of the General Assembly will be a great relief to many and confirm what the majority of people in Scotland think is the right thing to happen," he said.

"It has reaffirmed the basic principle of a congregation's right to call its own minister. The General Assembly, by its vote (on Saturday night] has confirmed that it is the true national church of Scotland."

BROADER PRINCIPLE UP FOR DEBATE

THE Kirk will today hold the crucial debate on human sexuality. Having failed to complete Saturday night's business, it will return this morning to consider a motion from the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye that will effectively prevent openly gay people from entering the Kirk's ministry.

This contentious proposal has already caused a great deal of tension within the Assembly, and could lead to a divisive debate.

At least one alternative motion has been mooted that could see the issue shut down by proposing the creation of a commission to study the matter and report back in 2011. During this period the Church as a body would have to remain publicly silent on the matter.

This is something the evangelicals totally oppose. However, it is possible the General Assembly will find a way to manipulate the wording to make it acceptable to both sides. A second counter-motion is also said to be likely, though its content is as yet unclear.

Conceivably, Saturday's decision on Mr Rennie's appointment could be used to scupper the debate on a legal technicality, kicking the issue into the long grass again.

For: A congregation's right to choose is vital

IN UPHOLDING Aberdeen Presbytery's affirmation of Scott Rennie's call to Queen's Cross Church, the church upheld the right of congregations to call their own minister.

The Church of Scotland is a broad church, with a wide variety of theological viewpoints, and so each congregation must chose their minister to reflect its own vision of ministry.

While we are all committed to the authority of Scripture, different individuals and congregations interpret the Bible differently. In respecting Queen's Cross' prayerful and considered decision to call Mr Rennie as their minister, the General Assembly has acknowledged the importance of a congregation's discernment in choosing who God is calling to lead them.

Just as the ordination of women has enriched the Church's ministry, gay and lesbian Christians have and will continue to serve God and their communities.

Up until now their ministries have been overshadowed by fear and the need for pretence. In upholding Mr Rennie's call, the General Assembly has taken an important first step in acknowledging that all are welcomed and valued, irrespective of sexual orientation.

By forcing people to hide their sexual orientation, we force people into situations that are unnatural, while failing to challenge prejudices that exist in the heterosexual majority.

We are often wary of what is beyond our experience. In supporting Aberdeen Presbytery, the General Assembly has begun to create an environment in which open, honest dialogue can take place, and individuals can more easily learn from and understand each other.

Peter Johnston is the convener of OneKirk Group, which campaigns for gay rights within the Kirk.

Against: Jesus expected us to have standards

The wider church was looking for clear guidance on the issue, but even the person who moved the final decision admitted this was not a clear statement.

I think a lot of people in the pews will be disappointed by what they heard on Saturday. We thought this would be a debate that would settle the matter – I think in some ways it has not done that.

The Assembly said this would not set a legal precedent, but I wonder if that will happen in practice.

In a wider sense, it bad for the Kirk because it is stepping out of line with other Christian denominations. There are many ecumenical relations that will break down because of this.

But, fundamentally, I think it is bad for the church because it can never be good for it to depart from something that is so plainly and extensively stated within holy scripture.

There are people on both sides of the debate who have said that this is an argument about the adoption of scripture and the seriousness with which you take the teaching of the Bible. I agree with that.

We are trying to communicate with society, we want to encourage people to faith – but at the same time what are we encouraging them to? Are we commending a Christian life? A lifestyle commended by Jesus himself?

Jesus expected us to have standards for our living and expected us to follow them. That's what we are trying to do. But the standards are not ours, they are given to us by Jesus and the scriptures and that's what we are trying to commend to people today.

Rev Steven Reid is acting convener of the evangelical Forward Together group