Just to be clear, there is no moratorium on gay people being ordained or getting new jobs. The moratorium is on those whose manner of life would cause a difficulty. There is a huge difference between those two.

Thank you for your clear (and rapid!) response.

I undertstand the points that you make and bow, again, to the fact that you are closer to the coalface.

Further delay is justified because, as you note, the Assembley was not asked nor was it in a position to deal with the broader implications (including regarding marriage) of any substantive change of mind regarding sexuality and the Christian faith.

My criticism of your post was in the choice of particular words to convey criticism, even if much of that criticism is, itself, justified.

I agree that a blanket gagging order is not a good idea. I agree that any threat of financial sanction is a disgrace.

But when I hold your words up to Paul’s exhortation I still find them wanting. Robust debate (whether public or private) of all these issues is to be encouraged but comments that polarise by setting the “goodies” against the “badies” are unhelpful if my view.

How should Christians debate contentious issues in your view?

What would you have liked to see the Assembley do on these issues right now?

What should have been the next step if you disagree with further delay?

Yours

Steven

Gay clergy are indeed banned from taking up new appointments for two years. Gay people have been banned from being ordained during that time. That is what the Assembly did and it did so knowing clearly what it was doing.

I don’t believe that the Assembly was ever asked to comment on marriage. Presumably it still thinks, as I do, that it is a jolly good thing.

Some evangelicals have threatened to withdraw their funds unless they get their own way. (Some threats were not made in the debate but from pulpits, online and through news organizations and would have been known by some of the commissioners yesterday). That kind of bullying is something that Anglicans have become familiar with.

I’ve friends who already feel constrained by what they can say online.

I note that on the blog of at least one member of the Assembly, the injuction not to comment is already being referred to as a gagging order. The word “silencing” is one that I’ve often applied to what has happened in my own church. I’m saddened to see public debate being stifled, ironically by people calling for a debate.

I watched the debate too, and with great affection for presbyterian friends and a deep respect for the way they do business, stand by what I’ve said.

I found your take on the debate interesting in light of my own comments.

Either I am more objective because of my distance from the debate or you are more accurate because of how close you are. Perhaps a little bit of both…

I am no expert on the substantive issues involved and this is something that you feel very strongly about. As such your sentiments must attract greater weight than my own “objective” take on the debate.

Despite this I do take issue with the way in which you have conveyed your own conclusions in this post. The debate that I heard was sensitive to gay and lesbian people who have a calling to ministry. To force the Kirk to determine the substantive debate at this time would surely have led to a split and this would not have been good. Unity is not the highest virtue but I think we can agree it is one to which we are called.

Is it wrong to seek whatever concensus or compromise that can be reached by taking more time over this issue? It must be remembered that whatever happens, and especially if there is a substantive doctrinal shift, that this will affect many more people than gay clergy. It will have a significant impact on ecumenical relations, the position of marriage within the Church and, of course, the source of authority within the Church and of the Church.

With the greatest of respect to your own views which are both considered and held in good conscience I feel it is unhelpful to “spin” what happened at the General Assembley by using, frankly, inflammatory language such as “bully”, “scapegoat”, “ban” and “silencing”.

We are called to lead a life worthy of our calling with “all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Ephesians 4:2-3, NRSV)

Your own radically inclusive church appears to be a wonderful example of how the love of God embraces all broken people regardless of their sexuality. You should preach what you have so wonderfully put into practice…

Your brother in Christ,

Steven