Voting; when a bad thing can be a good thing

2015 may well be a ‘Make Your Mind Up’ time for Scotland’s national church. Please God.

While a system of voting should have no place in a company of true Spirit-led believers, a poll can serve the purpose of separating the sheep from the goats; not least in a religious denomination which is an admixture of committed belief and outright rebellion.
 
The Church of Scotland operates a de facto hierarchy (the word actually means ‘rule by priests’) with ultimate authority on denominational matters residing within the General Assembly¹ which convenes in the Spring of each year.
In May 2015, the Kirk will consider the responses from local churches (as represented and passed up by geographical presbyteries²) as to whether or not to affirm the view that ‘freedom of conscience’ should be extended to those clergy, congregations and members who are happy to recognise/conduct same-sex marriages; and to allow practising homosexuals (strictly speaking the word refers to both genders) to serve as ministers.
 
From the information that has thus far released it looks like the majority of presbyteries will support the so-called ‘mixed economy³’ proposal mooted at the close of the 2013 General Assembly whereby, in the ‘de jure’ sense, the Church will maintain its traditional position on monogamous heterosexual marriage while giving freedom to those churches, ministers and members to hold a different view. In effect the denomination would be saying: “This is the corporate position, but those of our number who choose to believe and practise something else are free to do so”. What an hypocrisy and display of double-standards.
 
While the votes from the presbyteries around Scotland are still coming in it would seem that the ‘acceptance’ majority of over 50% will be reached. Most recently Inverness Presbytery has voted against the proposal, and the convenor of the Presbytery’s doctrine and worship committee has said that the “apparently conciliatory” compromise arrangement which is currently being debated has in fact been divisive.
 
For those whose overarching ambition has been to keep the denomination united that may be a bad thing.  However there is an alternative view.

“Lord, I have heard of your fame; I stand in awe of your deeds, O Lord. Renew them in our day, in our time make them known; in wrath remember mercy.” (Hab. 3:2)
 

Footnotes:
1. At the 2014 General Assembly the ‘Overture’ was developed and passed down to local churches. However ultimately it is those who ‘sit’ on Presbytery who deliver the local vote. At the General Assembly each presbytery has one vote irrespective of the number or size of local churches in the area. Complaints continue to be made that past Moderators have far too much say at General Assemblies; and, rather than having the right to attend every year, should be part of the rota system to which others are subject.
 
2. A presbytery is a geographic grouping of local churches. The court is made up of a minister and elder from each congregation along with retired ministers in the local area.
 
3. The ‘mixed economy’ proposal was put forward towards the end of the debate at the 2013 General Assembly. The 11th-hour intervention was made by Rev. Albert Bogle (judged to be an ‘evangelical’) who had just handed over his moderator role to his successor that year. As the incoming moderator Rev. Loran Hood said of the proposal: “This is a massive vote for the peace and unity of the Church”.

4. Since 2011 and there has been a modest but steady flow of ministers and members leaving the Church of Scotland. Some of the congregations which have left have been from the largest evangelical churches. Coupled with the marked decline in church membership and the loss of income from those who have left the Church is struggling financially and in terms of its standing and reputation: not least before God.

NOTICE: - The 'Response' facility on most articles is restricted to CT site members. Site members should login here. Comments/questions from non-site members should be sent to the Editor by e-mail.