Church of Scotland approve gay minister

Yésterday the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland voted to approve the appointment of openly gay minister, Scott Rennie, as the minister of Queens Cross Church in Aberdeen


Backstory: the Church of Scotland is the original Presbyterian church with ministers elected by members of the congregation and the ministers of surrounding parishes. At the end of last year the parishioners of Queens Cross Church in Aberdeen, after hearing a succession of circuit ministers and in full knowledge that Rennie waqs in a long term relationship with another man, voted for Rennie top be their minister. This was subsequentrly confirmed by the local Presbytery (ministers an elders of local churches in Aberdeen) and in the noirmal scheme of things, as per church government rules, Rennie should have taken office. However, a petition was drawn up by a small group of other Church of Scotland ministers (organised by one of my closest schoolfriends, ironically!!!) and signed by 12,000 people round the world (including Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists and people from about 20 other nations but as far as I can make out comparatively few from the CofS) so it was decided to refer Scott Rennie's appointment to the General Assembly, which is effect the democratic government of the Church of Scotland. Yesterday after 4 hours of debate the General Assembly voted by 326 to 267 to support his appointment to Queens' Cross. Rennie had actually been a minister at Brechin Cathedral before and there are now and always have been a whole lot of gay ministers in the CofS. However, this is the first time a minister has been approved for a congregation while being open and honest about his or her gayness.

As I think many of you will appreciate, this is a landmark case for the Church of Scotland and for the wider church in the slow progression away from the persecution of gay people.

At least they picked an appropriately named church for him.

Where in scripture does God say it's OK for homosexual ministers? This is nothing short of heresy.

in Matthew 22:29

can you point to any scripture that says a gay man in a monogamous homosexual relationship cannot be a minister?

i think you are being extremely prejudiced against gay men who are not in a monogamous relationship. Shame on you, BTC!

I used the words carefully because the Bible actually has nothing at all to say about monogamous gay relationships.

Leviticus clearly states that homoness is an abomination. God declared it, therefore it goes without saying that a person who is entrusted to spread the good word, actually adheres to it too.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...&version=47


I am not an expert, but verse 10 seems to say that it is a Sin, and homosexuality is condemned.


also http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...p;context=verse


But I am not into all this.
so please don't discuss with me. I am not an expert.

I only did a google search.

Leviticus also states that you can't eat pork yet I've seem many a Christian, gay and straight, noshing down on a bacon butty.

It never ceases to amaze me that homosexuals would want to be a part of a religion that clearly calls them an "abomination" - and in this case, not just be a part of the religion, but be a person actively promoting it.

Religion makes people do weird shit...

My favourite is the mixed fibres bit.

How many christians adhere to that one? God must be pretty mad because a lot of people recklessly wear suits made of wool and polyester and don't even realise how wrong and evil that is...

We can't eat Pork???

Thankfully I am not religious!

@Hazza - I guess depending on the mix, it could give a man a nasty nipple rash - just the thing you would hate walking across a hot desert.

Also, if I cannot eat mixed fibre I would have to drink that actimel crap.

the point is, Leviticus is Jewish law not Christian. Nothing stated in Leviticus is binding to Christians.

Besides, Jesus was homosexual himself, apparetnly, so it must be ok.

Leviticus has nothing to say about the gay identity or monopgamous relationships.

It does however condemn sex between two men as does Deuteronomy. They condemn a lot of other things in similar terms though such as forbidding men from touching women during menses, the eating of pork or shellfish, the wearing of cloth from mixed thread etc. Most scholars therefore see these passages of 'purity law' as being specific to a travelling desert people of 3000 year ago. If you want a biblical reason to disregard the purity laws of the Pentateuch see Acts 11:4-10.

So what does that leave us with?

The New Testament? You know it is remarkable that for all the sound and fury around this issue for the church, Jesus is not reported in the Gospels as having said a single word on the subject.

No, that was left to Paul in his episcles to the early church. Or was it? The language the writer used to describe what has been translated as "homosexual" in various passages actually refers to either catamites, transvestites or homosexual rapists. So it is unclear what, if any, relevbance, that has to do with the modern gay identity.