An update on that which i referred you to in this previous thread:

The Church of Scotland's General Assembly, which ultimately makes all decisions regarding this denomination, is currently underway this week. As part of their programme, they intend to discuss this issue and decide a)whether or not the minister in question should be appointed to his new role and, separately, b) what the church's official stance on homosexual clergy should be.


From earlier today
A gay minister whose appointment is being discussed by Church of Scotland leaders says he hopes "justice is done" for all gay ministers in Scotland.

The Rev Scott Rennie, 37, said there were "many" gay ministers in the Church and rejected claims his sexuality contradicted Bible teachings.

He is backed by a majority of his congregation at Queen's Cross Church, Aberdeen, and the local presbytery.

About 20 people protested against the appointment at the General Assembly.

The demonstration at The Mound in Edinburgh was led by Pastor Jack Bell of the Zion Baptist Church in Glasgow.

"We are protesting against the very real possibility of Scott Rennie having a majority tonight," he said.

"We are absolutely opposed to that on the basis of what God has to say about homosexuality in the Bible."

Mr Rennie, a divorced father-of-one, was previously a minister at Brechin Cathedral and has said he was open with the congregation at Queen's Cross about being gay and living with his male partner.

Arriving at the assembly earlier, he said: "There are many gay ministers in the Church of Scotland and I hope that justice is done for them tonight."

He also dismissed claims the issue would divide the Church.

"The same talk was about when women were ordained and I think that argument suits those that don't want any change," he said.

He added: "We don't stone women, we don't stone adulterers, we've moved on from that."

However, more than 400 Kirk ministers and almost 5,000 Church of Scotland members are said to have signed an online petition opposing the appointment.

One of those ministers, the Rev David Randall, said he believed that "a minister is somebody who ought to live by the Bible".

He said: "We believe that the Bible's teaching is quite clear in this matter - that marriage is the right and only context for sexual relationships.

"After all, if a minister sought to move in with a man, with a woman, to whom he was not married, that would obviously be unacceptable - how much more so when we're talking about a homosexual."

But the Rev Ewen Gilchrist, caretaker minister at Queen's Cross, said there should be more acceptance.

"Sexuality is something that the church doesn't have a good track record about", he said.

"We constantly lock it up and frown about it. Here's an opportunity to welcome it, to acknowledge the diversity of human sexuality and to bring that richness into our life and worship."

The Rev Lindsay Biddle, of Affirmation Scotland, a group which supports gay and lesbian clergy, said she hoped Mr Rennie would be accepted into the church.

"We are praying that the General Assembly will affirm the call process tonight and allow Scott into the church," she added.

"There are many gay ministers in the Church of Scotland, there always have been and there will continue to be.

"The only difference is that people now know there is an openly gay minister in the church."

She added: "Scripture does not address homosexuality, much less condemn it."

The Church of Scotland decided on a "period of reflection" when it considered the viability of gay relationships two years ago.

The Kirk's editorially-independent in-house magazine Life and Work last month called on believers to come to terms with gay relationships.

The Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, which has previously staged protests at the funerals of soldiers and Aids victims, had threatened to picket the General Assembly over the row.

Its leader, Fred Phelps, has been banned from entering the UK.
[BBC news]



Update from 5minutes ago
The General Assembly's meeting tonight focussed on the case of Mr Rennie, deciding whether or not to uphold his appointment as minister in Aberdeen. After 4 hours of discussion ...they voted YES! He gets to take on the position!
[Read more here.]


The Assembly will meet again on Monday to discuss the wider issue.

Interesting how people only choose to preach and to acknowledge the parts of the Bible that suit them and there cause.

On both sides of the argument, i'm sure.

quote:

Originally posted by ~♥Jamie♥~:
Interesting how people only choose to preach and to acknowledge the parts of the Bible that suit them and there cause.

And finally they pick what supports good and not ..yeah whatever...

YES!!!!

Only problem is that if you truly believe in God then you believe in ALL of God's word not just the parts you like.

But...the interpretations sometimes..are defunct, due to language etcetcetc ,everything else everyone always fights about. I stopped before cause I didnt want to cause a stir. I don't know as anyone likes..parts over others..I think anyone whom debates anything, will arm themselves with what they can and what makes sense to their cause..no matter the issue.

Yeah.. i don't think it's as much a question of picking & choosing as it is of working together to understand their meaning in light of the Gospel as a whole.

^^^ that.

Sorry but I am reffering to her statement: "Scripture does not address homosexuality, much less condemn it."

That is an outright lie unless she is reading a different Holy Bible than I am.

Or..just in another language,context, interpretation, those do exist...

quote:

Originally posted by ~♥Jamie♥~:
Sorry but I am reffering to her statement: "Scripture does not address homosexuality, much less condemn it."

That is an outright lie unless she is reading a different Holy Bible than I am.

Agrees **

quote:

Originally posted by ~♥Jamie♥~:
Sorry but I am reffering to her statement: "Scripture does not address homosexuality, much less condemn it."

That is an outright lie unless she is reading a different Holy Bible than I am.

i must admit to raising my own eyebrows at that statement. i can empathise with her suggestion that it may not condemn it, but i don't think we can say it doesn't ever address it.

i'd hope, however, that her statement was more about the Bible addressing the issue within our current cultural context, rather than the Bible addressing it at all ..though i can't, obviously, validate this.

For anyone who may be interested, the wider discussion around the church's stance on ministers within relationships (of any kind) outwith marriage is currently underway at the General Assembly and can be watched live here.