Kate Forbes misses out the liberalism of same-sex marriage legislation

 So Kate Forbes, who at the time of writing this, is running in the leadership election of the Scottish National Party has said she would have voted against same-sex marriage legislation at the time, if she had been elected to Holyrood. She is also accusing others of being illiberal who speak out against her views.

The irony is that same-sex marriage was from the time was written as policy the whole way up to legislation shows how liberal you can be, while not excluding other. You see same-sex marriage legislation could have forced faith groups to carry out such marriages. However, nobody in a same sex relationship wants to celebrate or have that recognised in somewhere they don't feel welcome. That is why in my opinion one of the key phrases in same sex marriage legislation is "allow faith groups that wish to do so". 

You see prior to SSM legislation nobody could carry out a same sex marriage, not in civil law, in a faith setting or in Scotland by a humanist celebrate. At this point I'll ignore the fact that at Lib Dem Federal level the policy for Same Sex Marriage had to be amended to allow humanist celebrants to carry out mixed sex mrriages (which had only been possible in Scotland up until then). You see when drafting the policy in Scotland it was clear that nobody would be forced to carry out same-sex marriages. 

But I hear you say what about making registrars carry out same-sex marriages. Those who raise an argument about this based on their religious perspective seem to leave their religious views at the door when they marry divorced couples or even couples who Kate Forbes would say were wrong already had children.

You see SSM is a legislation that enables faith groups to come to their own decisions. With the exception of the Church of England and Church in Wales that some people thought it would be better to legislation against those churches solely making a decision on their own, and thus amended to exclude them from the enabling to carry out such marriage if they wanted to.

But it is something I have faced through the 13 years that there has actually been a Lib Dem policy in place for SSM. Something that I am proud to have had a hand in When people in faith groups accuse it of impinging on them when n fact the only thing impinging on them is their own views. It is ironicly something that I still struggle with coming from my own church The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, although I do feel excuded from there because of the judgement those in high places put on people from the LGBT+ community. In a strange way Covid actually makes my church accessible to me once more even though I haven't set foot in it for years.

The irony is that today a spokesperson for the Free Church of Scotland, of which  Kate Forbes is a member said:

"It is lamentable that Kate's honest adherence to simple traditional values would, for some, disqualify her from contributing to the public good of Scotland.

"Kate Forbes is standing on the basis of her policies - the fact that she is being criticised for her Christian convictions shows a level of bigotry that has no place in a pluralistic and diverse society." 

As I have pointed out above the views themselves are actually protected in the legislation she is opposed to. But the Free Church like one or two others likes to play the victim in all this.

It was faith that made homosexuality illegal in the first place and every step of the way LGBT+ people have had to slowly move towards equality, not getting there in one step like banning did, but incrementally. At every step we are told that people of faith don't agree with loosening the hod they have over our civil lives, while some of our are also in dialogue with them in relation to our faith lives. Kate Forbes has put this front and fore of her campaign during her launch, yet apparently we are not to take her stances as a step towards leading a Government as a possible move to restrict freedoms. If we speak up against it we are the illiberal ones, despite constantly bending over backwards to get small change after small change to not upset those with certain faith views to object to everything.

Is Irish Presbyterianism resolute against theological look at homosexuality?

Did I say two years, I clearly meant two weeks so Andrew Page was right when he tweeted to me that I'd probably be revisiting the issue of gay clergy in the Presbyterian Church sooner.

Idaho sticker with the PCI's Union College in background

Of course this week is the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI), the denomination that I currently attend though am not a member of, because of my sexuality. However, tensions have arisen from the fact that the outgoing Moderator the Very Reverend Dr Norman Hamilton reported to the General Assembly of the PCI in Belfast about his visit to the mother church's General Assembly in Edinburgh. He said that there is a widespread view that the traditionalist position in Scotland on the ordination of those who are gay or lesbian was rejected for what was described as the "revisionist" position. Before going on to say:

"Those who are advocating this latter position included one minister who spoke warmly of the contribution that bisexuals and those who are transgendered can make to Christian ministry, whilst another spoke of how the Bible had been shown up to be wrong in the past and that we now know better.


 "The traditionalist view was articulated by many in The Kirk, and by every visiting delegate who spoke, myself included, and there is no doubt that many of those who hold this position in the Church of Scotland seemed seriously demoralised and deeply apprehensive about future developments."

As one of those whose contribution to Christian Ministry* is welcomed in the PCI, but even my confession of faith nor willingness to contribute to church funds in not enough to be a full communicant member. People have from a young age thought that I should go into the Ministry apply to Union College (pictured) and see where God would lead me. Of course from my teen years I had my own struggle with myself and my own view (or was that my churches imposed view) of my own sexuality. It was a struggle that I've blogged about before that took me over a decade.

So while of course there may not be a clamour within Irish Presbyterianism I doubt that I am the only LGBT Presbyterian who has been excluded from full membership as a result of the pastoral guidelines of the PCI published in 2007. Those guidelines did point out 7 keys recommendations, the final four are key:

4. continue to encourage our congregations to 'Create an environment of love, acceptance, patience, forgiveness and grace.'
5. ask that the BSW to investigate the possibility of creating 'a safe space' for people struggling with their sexuality and that funding be sought to create such a safe space.
6. ask the BSW and Board of Youth and Children’s Ministries to cooperate in updating the Loving in the Real World youth resource to include more instructive material on the area of same-sex attraction.
7. encourage the possibility of the establishment of parents' support group/s to help parents who are struggling with the issues surrounding children who have 'come out'.

Today a resolution that is highly critical of the Church of Scotland looking at the theology of same sex attraction is being by the Very Rev Dr John Lockington (Moderator in 1999), and Lurgan minister the Rev Nigel J McCullough. The Church of Scotland having decided to have theologians look into the issue such a resolution if passed is merely not even going to let the subject be spoken about.

Does such a stance show love, acceptance, patience, forgiveness and grace?

Read also Former Moderator Very Rev. Stafford Carson's blogpost on the Church of Scotland General Assembly.

* Currently playing bass for services, in the past as a Bible Class Leader, BB Officer, Holiday Bible Club leader and sent out to work on summer and year long missions.

Kirk to look theologically into homosexual clergy

It's been two years since the Church of Scotland's General Assembly upheld the calling of openly gay minister Scott Rennie to be minister at Queen's Cross, Aberdeen. However, it was followed by a two moratorium on any other openly gay people applying to join the ministry in the Kirk.

This week the General Assembly were finally going to decide on the commission that was set up to look at the issue of sexuality and being in a pastoral position over a congregation. As I blogged earlier this month there were two options on the table. The first of which was to implement a ban on homosexuals training to be ministers — despite such discrimination being illegal — while the second was to allow people in a same-sex relationship to train for the ministry but set up a theological commission to come up with a definitive answer in 2013.

Earlier today the General Assembly in Edinburgh decided to set up the theological commission to look into this issue and give a definitive answer by 2013. They also voted to accept gay and lesbian clergy provided they had declared their sexuality and were ordained before 2009.

At least the barn door is still open, as I blogged 2 years ago I don't expect the Church to totally come to terms with things overnight.So to continue to look into it is certainly a step in the right direction. They cannot ignore the fact that there are some of us out there who are Christian and LGB, some of that group also have the leadership and pastoral skills that are essential to be a Kirk minister. Some of those people feel called to serve as a minister, not only to a LGB community but to the community as a whole. No minister will ever experience every experience that his congregation goes through, because not all ministers are called to have the live of Job, but they learn from the word and from their own experience what is required in each circumstance.

No doubt I'll be returning to this subject again in two years time.

Why I Need to Still Go to Church - Two Years On

It doesn't seem like almost two years since I stood on the Mound in Edinburgh outside the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to show my support for my friend Rev. Scott Rennie. However, although the vote that day went in favour of Scott's calling to Queen's Cross in Aberdeen there was a later discussion that put a moritorium on openly gay trainees for the ministry and appointing openly gay ministers. News today that the Special Commission on Same Sex Relationships and the Ministry* is to report to next month's Assembly signals an end of that process and a period when those within the church weren't to discuss this further.

What the commission has come up with in its recommendations are two trajectories.The first of which is to implement a ban on homosexuals training to be ministers — despite such discrimination being illegal — while the second is to allow people in a same-sex relationship to train for the ministry but set up a theological commission to come up with a definitive answer in 2013. Therefore one is a full stop to any progress, the other is to allow another 2 years of thinking time.

I've written in the past that my own personal journey and struggle to reconcile my faith with my sexuality took over a decade, "so I don't expect the Church to totally come to terms with things overnight. Although they have had 2000 or so years to get to grips with these issues." Therefore I'm wondering why the need for another two year commission to look at the theological questions. When the commision was established it knew it was facing a two-year moritorium on the issue, they would know that people would expectantly waiting to hear their findings, not only within the church but further afield. So the fact that one trajectory is a clear no and the other is a cloudy maybe is not good enough.

One thing the commission did say is that the church needs to acknowledge that homophobia is a sin, that the church should not be hostile to homosexuality. Also it should not deny those who are homosexual by orientation from being members or taking up positions of leadership.

Why is that a big deal you may ask? As my friend Caron wrote two years ago about her days at University:

"It was clear that [my gay friends] weren't welcome [within the Christian Union] just on the basis of their sexuality. That seemed fundamentally unfair to me and I ultimately decided that if you had to be like that to be in the Church, then I wasn't going to bother, thank you very much."

It was something I myself faced up to earlier this year.Whilst the church I grew up in and am attending again is happy that I play bass in the praise band (and I often get complimented for the sympathetic way that I do after services) I'm not a full member. Despite having become a member there in my teens on my profession of faith, that is no longer good enough. When I went for my membership interview, I was told that my blog had been read, and I was asked as question one, would I consider myself to be homosexual. Of course I would, I see part of what I have to do now as to help those young (and not so young) people who struggle with faith and sexuality issues, sometimes to the point of suicide, or contemplating it. 

At the ned of that interview it seemed to me that it would be far easier as a gay Christian to lie to yourself and to others. To bear false witness and pass all the comments about girlfriends or future wives off as not yet. Rather that allowing me the chance to carry on being happy accepting me as who I am rather than the misery that came with hiding my feelings for so long through my teens and twenties. I'm just glad that the place I was at in my forties enabled me to deal with such rejection, a teenage me might not have still been around after such rejection from the Church family that he had known all his life.

I wait to see what the Church of Scotland decide next month. There is a maybe option, and that is an option of hope for people like me within the Church who Christian and Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual.

* I note that the name of the commission has changed in the two years from one on Human Sexuality an inclusive title to only looking at Same-Sex relationships and the Ministry (lessening the scope).

Scott Rennie Calling Upheld By General Assembly

Today has been an busy and varied day for me starting from a train full of Leinster fans, doing some European election campaigning to turning up to campaign in favour of Scott Rennie outside the general assembly.

I have just returned home to see that the General Assembly have voted 326 votes to 267 to uphold the appointment of Scott Rennie as the new minister of Queen's Cross Congregation Aberdeen. Earlier today there were two protests outside the Assembly building in Edinburgh one which it looks like Westboro Baptist Church didn't appear to turn up at had a max of 20 protesters when Zion Baptist church turned up. (the max when we were there pictured behind the barriers.



The other organised my Liberal Youth Scotland* (LYS) which other groups joined unto had over 100 people turning up for and more dog collars and possibly more Christians, some of us gay, supporting. This on six days notice was quite an acheivement.





Scott himself came along to say thank you to those of us supporting him. Ruaraidh Dobson President of LYS did a magnificent job in dealing with the press. Scott called in a statement read out on his behalf by Brian Kerr is the the "Kirk should continue to journey together" following this decision.

Personally this gay, Presbyterian Church of Ireland raised, Christian, son and grandson of a three kirk elders, former missionary, friend of Scott is glad that the vote of the Kirk in Aberdeen, and the ratification of the Presbytery has been upheld. Though I guess this may not despite Scott's pleas be the end of things. But a vote has been made as far as the Church of Scotland is concerned.

*Though there were a number of Liberal Democrats who cannot be called youth, but maybe youthful in the ranks (including myself).

Apparently I'm a Nazi

I'm quite used to Neil Craig using that word about me and my Lib Dem colleagues, but apparently from a pulpit at Kirkmuirhill Kirk in Lanark I was branded one on Sunday. Rev Ian Watson used his sermon to combine those who support Scott Rennie with the power behind the Third Reich. He said:

"[Hitler] guessed correctly that the French had no stomach for a fight. If
only they had, then the tragedy of a Second World War might have been
avoided.

"To claim that the homosexual lifestyle is worthy of a child of God; to
demand that a same-sex partnership be recognised as on a footing with marriage;
to commend such a lifestyle to others is to deny that Jesus Christ is our only
Sovereign and Lord. It is to turn the grace of God into a licence for
immorality.

"Such people will not inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor.6:10)*. And
therefore they must be resisted . . . Let me assure you, neither I nor
like-minded minsters enjoy conflict . . . But have we learned nothing from
history?

"Remember Hitler and the retaking of the Rhineland. He got away with
it. No one stopped him. So next it was Austria, then Czechoslovakia, and then
Poland and only then world war."

Now from my 20th Century History it was those that were deemed unworthy of being part of the Aryan race that the Nazis sought to cast out of eye shot, persecute, hide away, ignore and eventually try an extinguish. If Rev Watson is going to cite history let him not forget that the Jews, disabled and homosexuals were three major groups that were deemed unworthy of being children of God, and look were that got the World.

The comparison between the two can therefore hardly have been more poorly drawn.

*Possibly a misprint as verse 10 refers to the thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers. Which though equally topical is a whole other debate. Although in verse 9 why Paul did not use the word paiderasste (the popular word in texts at the time to cover homosexual practise) but rather arsenokoitai which is the stem man (arsen) and beds (kotai) is an interesting debate. Coming as it does in a list after male prostitutes may relate to the Temple male prostitutes who lay on beds in Temple precincts in the first century.

Petition in Support of Scott Rennie

I've just stumbled across a petition in Support of Scott Rennie it is in it's embryotic stages. So please sign and encourage your firneds to sign.

Dave Thompson A Question

Dave Thompson the SNP list MSP for the Highlands and Islands region has made his position clear on the Scott Rennie position says in the Sunday Herald:

"I have no problem with people who have different beliefs or a different lifestyle.


"I do believe, however, that once someone declares himself as a Christian that they should comply with the teaching of the Bible and that active homosexuality is incompatible with that teaching."

As Bernard Salmon points out on his blog:

"Well, if we're talking about textual purity, I'm interested to see how Mr Thompson squares his beliefs with the following passage from the SNP's Holyrood manifesto in 2007: "the SNP will not promote or support legislation or policies which discriminate on the grounds of race, disability, age, gender, faith or religion, social background or sexual orientation."

"Some might say that once someone declares himself as a Nationalist MSP, he should comply with the provisions of the manifesto and that active bigotry is incompatible with that manifesto. Or is this yet another part of their manifesto that's not meant
to be taken seriously?"

I couldn't have put it better myself, hoisted by his own petard is Mr Thompson.

Of course Mr. Thompson would be aware that nobody really declares themselve a Christian, that declaration comes from God upon the confession of sin from an indivudual; if I were to be really pedantic. Now of course when that declaration as in my case comes at the age of 10 before I was sexually aware let alone active the problem comes when I find out just what my sexual preference is after that point. Put if I'm keeping to teaching of the bible I'll be heading down to the slave market tomorrow so I can be a good master. I'd also say the moderator elected at the 2007 General Assembly the Very Rev. Dr. Sheilagh Kesting should have covered her head in church and not been allowed to speak in let alone lead the church. Of course if I did so Mr Thompson would probably accuse me of being selective in which parts of the bible are still applicable today.

Why I Need to Still Go To Church

Yesterday I was reminiscing about myself on the day after the last Westminster General Election. Well with news coverage over recent days I've also been reminiscing about a different day from 2005, the day of my Parliamentary Candidates Development Day.



Looking at that group of four potential approved candidates now they included the PPC for the target West Coast seat Katy Gordon PPC for Glasgow North, the 'go to' Lib Dem blogger for many in the MacBloggosphere in myself and the minister of the moment Rev Scott Rennie. The group of four on that day was a group not backward in coming forward, some would think quite a feisty bunch, but the least 'feisty' of the lot would probably have been Scott.*



Basically a eruption of criticism has blown up about Scott's sexuality which has been known publicly for some years because he has been called democratically, and that decision upheld democratically, to a new charge, Queen's Cross Church, in Aberdeen. Let's get the democracy of the decision clear Presbyterians require a 2/3rds majority of the communicant voting members of a church to call a new minister to become their pastor; Scott comfortably acquired 86%. The Aberdeenshire Presbytery which is the group of all Ministers in that area then ratified that decision in January by 60 votes to 24. In both cases to have such levels of support any politician would be happy. So why is the issue still up in the air and unclear?



I know that Caron, Lallands Peat Warrior and MacNumpty have all written excellent pieces from different standpoints and I recommend once you get to the end of this piece to go and read them all. But I feel able to add a little something different to the story because apart from that day I share a lot in common with Scott.



Like him I was raised in what was at the time a conservative Presbyterian Church, indeed my father was an Elder and Boys Brigade Captain. Like him after coming to my own faith and being settled in it I had to come to terms with my own sexuality. Like him I also had major struggles coming to terms with that while in a very active role of serving God, him during his pastoral role in Brechin me during my stint as a missionary. However, unlike Scott my victory in personally finally overcoming that struggle hasn't led afterwards to such media glare when I later moved to a different job in the same 'industry'.


Caron in her post pointed out that Scott said that gay Christians could feel isolated from both communities -sometimes the Church couldn't handle people being gay, but also some elements of the gay community couldn't handle Christianity. This is not only true of the community but often of the inner struggle within the Christian themselves. I know I struggled with that issue myself from my mid teens through to my late 20s over a decade, so I don't expect the Church to totally come to terms with things overnight. Although they have had 2000 or so years to get to grips with these issues. Caron mentioned her friends in the Christian Union at University changing her attitudes because of their attitudes to her gay friends. Of the over 6 years I spent on committees in my first three years of University it was the CU I spent most time on committee, so you can imagine the struggle I was having.

All of these people saw a certain element of me. Each new committee had to write encouraging things they found about each other in a sort of Chinese whisper sheet, my were always very deeply thought out and far from twee or predictable and I hold a lot of their comments dear. But very few got to see or hear of the full struggle. Indeed I don't think I would have expressed it to them or other close Christian friends with quite this amount of candour back then. When I finally came out to my parents which I thought would be all the harder because of all the Christian faith and experience between the three of us I was dreading the day. In the end the words passed my lip in a matter of fact sort of way and after one maybe two questions there was acceptance, love and understanding in just the Christian way that Jesus himself would I'm certain have shown.

Those Christians who believe in predestination believe that our paths are mapped out by God before we are even born: whether we become a Christian and how we will live are predetermined. These people are possibly some of the most literal believers of the bible and most homophobic element of the church. Yet by their very adherence to that stance they are found wanting on the issue of gay Christians. They cannot judge on someone's personal confession and salvation through grace. Indeed the fact that it is grace by which we are saved is a whole other theological ball game.

On the other hand you have those who believe our salvation is through free will. Good sound liberal bunch. Yet even they acknowledge that someone cannot chose their sexuality. One of the churches I worked with employed an open gay, though celibate, man. Others have youth leaders who have had sex before marriage, elders who have cheated on their wives etc. One thing does hold dear, all Christians should be accepted as an sinner saved by grace. And who are we to judge which Levitican abomination is allowed to be done away with over another.

Pass me the prawn cocktail in your polyester/cotton Sunday best over your cotton and lycra underwear even if you and your wife haven't maintained your proscribed time apart sexually following her period and let Scott Rennie, his partner David, his ex-wife and daughter get on with their life.

Don't be Pharisees when it comes to ranking the laws as you see fit.

The only way for gay Christians to gain acceptance in the Church is to keep turning up and in the gay community to not deny our faith. Let's get one thing clear Scott Rennie is an excellent Pastor the people of Queen's Cross congregation don't care about anything much beyond that, just like his church in Brechin before that. People like him show that Christ accepts us as we are, time for the Church to be a little more Christ like.

My dear friend Caron called her post on this subject "Why I no longer go to church" I hope I have put out at least part of the counterpoint from an insider's perspective.

Update: There is now a Facebook group in Support of Scott Rennie, please join it.
Update 2: I have just read the comments about this story on the Pink News article. Sadly it confirms the paradox that gay Christian's face. I've posted this response there.

It was very said reading some of the comments on here as a gay community we have fought for inclusion for so long. However, someone from our community who is different in this case a Christian, and a minister to boot, who has come to terms with that position and is 'proud' to be both is getting knocked back by some.

For Scott, like myself, it is a paradox that as a gay Christian we are often not accepted by the Church and also not accepted by the gay community. Those who are out as gay Christians have if my experience is anything to go on come through a lot of hard times not just from the respective communities but from ourselves.

If anyone in any other profession was in danger of being dismissed because of his sexuality we would all be united and up in arms standing with them. But even though he is one of us in an organistaion that in many ways needs to change its view of us we don't give the same support. The church needs changing on its views on sexuality the best way for that to be done is from the inside.

*For the record all four were approved, though the one who now is seen as a little bit of new media expert in certain fields in the Scottish Party was told he needed a little bit more media training. (Best not tell Clifton Terrace or Cowley Street I might lose some street cred and/or access)