I don't like fudge. Occasionally I may be tempted by fudge covered in Cadbury's chocolate. Or, on a recent trip across the pond, I enjoyed some Maple and walnut flavoured fudge- but that was more like Scottish tablet which I love.
Anyway, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland today became embroiled in a major fudge. Afforded the opportunity to make a decision on whether or not men and women in same sex relationships may be ordained to the ministry of word and sacrament, the Assembly became embroiled in a huge fudge - with another last minute option being thrown into the mix and accepted as an alternative to deciding one way or the other.
And so the issue rolls on and will come back to a future Assembly, having been further discussed by Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions.
I am trying desperately to find some patience and optimism - to focus on the fact that there has been some movement and that this is going to be a painstaking incremental process. But I am also wondering whether colleagues will feel equally loved and valued and affirmed - or whether this comes across as one rejection too many?
In this Pentecost season, have we embroiled the enigmatic Spirit of God in a sticky gooey mess or have we allowed her gentle wings to unfurl, heralding another step in the process of change? Still we wait....
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Was it simply a fudge though? Not simple. I voted twice for the revisionist position (how I hate these terms 'revisionist' and 'traditionalist'... but better than 'evangelical' and 'liberal') But I do see the outcome as a step (a small one) in the right direction. Interestingly, all the hurt I have picked up so far comes from the traditionalist camp. We will wait and watch with interest what happens next...
ReplyDeleteI have been waiting to see what you thought! I do think it's a fudge... or at least a delay. I know that some feel very abandoned. Opt in or opt out... it's all semantics. Watching online it felt very much like the assembly was being manipulated.
ReplyDeleteOn a positive note - there were some outstanding speeches when things finally got going
but not one - not one person got up and addressed the substance of the report itself... and there were a couple of things in there that needed to be challenged. I am more upset about that than yet another crumb chucked under the table which will be snatched away again next year anyway...
ReplyDeleteProcedure dominated Nikki. There was incredibly little discussion about the substance and content of the report with efforts being focused on "polishing and parking" option on which to vote.
ReplyDeleteNot the first time the assembly has grasped an entry from left field and plunged in without appreciating all the consequences. Perhaps it was too much to hope for. Crumbs do come together - eventually!
Procedure dominated Nikki. There was incredibly little discussion about the substance and content of the report with efforts being focused on "polishing and parking" option on which to vote.
ReplyDeleteNot the first time the assembly has grasped an entry from left field and plunged in without appreciating all the consequences. Perhaps it was too much to hope for. Crumbs do come together - eventually!
I know that it feels like fudge, and nowhere near as nice as Orkney Fudge, but after reflection, I wonder if it part of God's greater plan for our Church. In a strange way, it's told traditionalists that we care about their views and positions, but cannot accept being forced to all believe the same. It is also being reported world-wide in the press as "Church votes to accept gay clergy", whereas I wonder if a vote for 2a would have resulted in "Church schism likely as traditionalists rejected". Perhaps with hindsight we'll see something greater emerge. In the meantime, we have a challenge to show the world what affirming congregations are like and stand up for what we believe to be biblical truth and mercy. :-)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking its too soon to write this off, frustrating though it obviously is for those who were hoping for a clearer vote on the revisionist position. My parents are in a "traditionalist" church but since this whole debate has started have moved slowly from "its just wrong and if the church compromises at all we will leave" to "maybe the church needs to move with the times". Indicating, as some "traditionalist" ministers did in the debate, that they could live with the compromise (which presumably means being prepared to sit down at presbytery with a minister called to a neighbouring charge regardless of her/his domestic arrangements) may actually be a bigger deal that it seems at the moment.
ReplyDelete