As the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland opened its doors for business yesterday, its delegates will have been well aware that for the duration of the following week all eyes will be upon them. One of the longest-standing and most respected institutions in Scotland, the General Assembly has a noble, if querulous tradition of examining the Kirk's attitudes to matters within and beyond its walls. This year the issue that seems likely to raise temperatures is that of civil partnership blessings.

At last year's General Assembly it was agreed this matter should be left to the individual conscience of the minister concerned. However, when referred back to presbyteries, that decision was overruled, with a large majority voting against the proposal that "a minister or deacon who conducts any service marking a civil partnership does not commit a disciplinary offence". Thus, the situation remains ambivalent, and will remain so until a minister tests the outcome of making such a blessing. In view of such uncertainty, when the Kirk's report on human sexuality is debated next week concerns over this situation will no doubt be raised as ministers seek clarification.

This is a highly emotive debate because at its root is not only the issue of attitudes towards homosexuality but towards the authority of the Bible and the way it should be interpreted. As such, it represents the crucible of Christian belief. It is hoped that the Church will debate this sensitive area with maturity and restraint and not precipitate any rupture or stand-off between evangelicals and liberals, which would only serve further to entrench their positions and weaken significantly the Church's authority in the eyes of the public. Instead, it must surely be in everyone's best interests to reach a conclusion advocating tolerance towards those who choose to make these blessings, while wholeheartedly accepting the stance of those for whom this ministerial act is inconceivable.

Over the centuries, the Church of Scotland has earned international respect for its uniquely democratic nature. Indeed, the term "broad church" might have been coined with the Kirk in mind. This inherent flexibility has allowed ministers to act in accordance with their personal principles, meaning, for instance, that some willingly will marry or baptise those with only a tenuous connection with the Church, while others can refuse to do so. It could be argued that, despite the declining membership that afflicts all denominations, one of the reasons the Church of Scotland is surviving and in some places flourishing is the generous diversity of theological and spiritual views it accommodates. It has also distinguished itself by being willing to consider institutional change in line with evolving social and scientific advances. The issue of blessing civil partnerships falls into an area of pastoral care that reflects changing social mores and practice. While no-one would ever advocate the Kirk abandon its doctrinal integrity, it must navigate carefully through this scriptural and political minefield without tripping any wires. Archbishop Robert Runcie was famously described as being very good at nailing his colours firmly to the fence. If it wishes to retain its standing as a Church of exceptional inclusiveness, the Kirk would do well to follow his wise and compassionate outlook.