The assembly's decision to keep open a conversation about human sexuality is not a victory for any one ecclesiastical faction, but a victory for the Kirk itself. OK, it's a temporary victory, one which buys time before big decisions have to be made, but its significance should not be underestimated.
The Anglican communion seems to be keen on tearing itself apart on the issue of same-sex relationships. Archbishop Rowan Williams must look over the border with envy. Yesterday's wise decision recognises that the Church of Scotland is divided on this matter, and is not ready to move to judgment without further study.
A cop-out? Not really. It's not a disgrace to acknowledge ignorance. There are many people who have not (knowingly) had a conversation with a gay or lesbian. The heartfelt story of Kirk elder James Simpson, whose life was turned into turmoil when his son announced that he was gay, moved the assembly deeply.
Robert Runcie, a previous incumbent of the see of Canterbury, was criticised when he encouraged the Church of England to delay a decision on the then contentious issue of the ordination of women.
He was ridiculed for "nailing his colours to the fence". A decade of study later, The C of E voted overwhelmingly for women's ordination; the predicted exodus from the church never materialised.
On a personal basis, I'd have preferred to have a strong vote supporting the blessing of civil partnerships, but I believe the assembly made the right decision. It's my conviction that as long as the Kirk listens to the actual experience of Christians in civil partnerships, it will take its colours from the fence and nail them to the mast of the theology of a generous God.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article