“And we need to be clear, too, that while the gospel of the grace of God in Jesus Christ is certainly for us, it is equally certainly not about us: a failure to recognize that distinction is a mistake we often make. The gospel is not about our finding fulfillment, but about our honoring God: not about our gratification, but about that which makes for the glory of God. Is not that, after all, our ‘chief end’ according to the catechism?”

During the 2014 General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Legal Questions Committee presented its Report, in which the Committee asked the General Assembly to approve the Ministers and Deacons in Civil Partnerships Overture. The Reverend Jerry Middleton, minister of Davidson’s Mains Parish Church, in Edinburgh, urged the Assembly to reject the Overture. His speech was widely regarded as the high point of the Assembly, a model of grace and wisdom.

Here is what the Assembly heard:

I’d like to take the opportunity, first, to thank Alan Hamilton and his Legal Questions Committee, and Iain Torrance and the Theological Forum, for all their work on this matter. I appreciate greatly not only the huge amount of time and effort that has been put in by them, but also the manner in which they have sought to go about their work, with great care and extensive consultation. We are indebted to them for their work.

And I am bound to agree with the conclusion of the report of the Legal Questions Committee (3.8.1) when they say that – We believe that, in spirit and letter, the Overture does what the 2013 Assembly asked us to do. They have, indeed, done an excellent job.

Since they have simply followed through on the instruction of last year’s General Assembly, and have done exactly what they were told to do, you may well wonder why I presume to bring a counter-motion against these sections of their deliverance.

The reason is just this – that though they have done an excellent job, they were set, I believe, what was really an impossible task.

The motion which gave rise to the preparation of this Overture was rather sprung on the General Assembly last year. Commissioners had little time to reflect on the proposal which was presented to them: and on first sight it seemed really very attractive. The motive was noble, the spirit generous, the tone conciliatory, the argument persuasive, the purpose unifying, and the mover was … well, it was Albert – wise, warm and always so very winsome.

On first sight it was very appealing.

The Overture

But we’ve had a year now to reflect more fully on it; a year to try and translate it into an appropriate legal form. So let me try and explain why I’ve brought my counter-motion over against these sections of the deliverance, and why I believe this Overture should not be agreed.

1 The Overture is full of risk.

That much is acknowledged by the LQC in their conclusion (3.8.2) – The introduction of a mixed economy in relation to ministers and deacons in civil partnerships is not without risk.

You do not need to be a political scientist to recognise that legislation which is essentially permissive very easily falls foul of, and will tend to be ‘trumped by’, current legislation on discrimination.

I put myself, for instance, in the position of a person in a civil partnership who applies, and is selected, as a candidate for ministry within the Church; I am welcomed by the Church, trained by the Church, encouraged, supported and prayed for by the Church.

Having been welcomed as a candidate, just as I am, in an act done in the name of the whole Church, and having invested no small amount of money in pursuing that candidature, to find subsequently that my opportunity to serve the Church is severely restricted at the discretion of a single Kirk Session – that surely looks like, sounds like, and feels like discrimination.

The LQC state that this Overture is ‘not without risk’: and the Procurator has spoken of ‘legal uncertainty’. In other words, it is not legally watertight.

If I am setting sail on and journeying out into the deep, I want to know that the boat on which I’m sailing is thoroughly watertight. I need something more than the assurance that it’s ‘probably OK’: because if it’s not entirely watertight I’m in deep water.

So that’s the first reason why the Overture should not be agreed. It is fraught with risk. But alongside that,

2 The Overture is full of loose ends.

Necessarily the Overture has to cover a lot of bases and meet a range of criteria, some of which are mutually contradictory: as a result there are inevitably many ‘loose ends’, aspects of the Overture which do not hold together that well.

There are too many of these loose ends for me to run through them all in the time I’m allowed: but let me point up a few as illustrative of the problems there are with this Overture.

Think, for instance, of the Panel of Assessors. How comfortable are we with a situation where an assessor can’t reject a candidate in a civil partnership on that count, even though in so doing the assessor would only be upholding the doctrine of the Church? Is there not something odd and uncomfortable about that?

How comfortable are we when a presbyter has to resort to a ‘conscience clause’ to avoid compromising her convictions, when those convictions are actually affirming the doctrine of the Church?

How comfortable are we with a scenario where, at least potentially, recourse has to be had to something akin to ‘rent-a-Presbytery’? [See the provision in 5(6)]

And what sort of position does this put a Presbytery Clerk in?

That’s just a sample of the ‘loose ends’ that there are with this Overture – there are any number of others.

So, it’s risky, it’s ragged: and, with respect…

3 The Overture is wrong.

It’s wrong, first of all, because it’s illogical. It sees the Church affirm a doctrine which prohibits such conduct, and simultaneously permits a procedure which affirms such conduct.

But it’s wrong, more significantly, because it’s unbiblical. It’s not consistent with the clear teaching of the Scriptures, as successive Assemblies have been reminded.

Here is my difficulty. Indeed, here is the nub of the difficulty which the Church has in relation to this whole matter.

The difficulty lies in the fact that this is not simply a matter on which there is room for disagreement, what’s described as a ‘constrained difference’: this is a matter where those who affirm the Church’s historic and current position are bound to view as a sin to be repented of what others commend as a blessing to be rejoiced in. No amount of fine-sounding phrases like ‘constrained diversity’ can paper over that huge gulf.

The counter-motion

For all these reasons the Overture is unsatisfactory: and it’s over against that that I bring this counter-motion. The aim of the counter-motion is simple. It is to bring some clarity to a confused and uncertain situation.

The central issue

I want to clarify, first of all, what the central issue really is. The issue is not really about our sexuality, so much as about our sexual relationships (whether heterosexual or homosexual). That’s why the reference in the title of the proposed Declaratory Act is specifically to ‘sexual relationships’.

The Scriptures address this issue, namely our sexual relations, far more than they do our sexuality: they deal with our conduct and activity rather than our orientation: because it is our conduct which is significant.

And we need to be clear, too, that while the gospel of the grace of God in Jesus Christ is certainly for us, it is equally certainly not about us: a failure to recognise that distinction is a mistake we often make. The gospel is not about our finding fulfilment, but about our honouring God: not about our gratification, but about that which makes for the glory of God. Is not that, after all, our ‘chief end’ according to the catechism?

Our discipleship of Jesus, our relationships with others, our conduct and manner of living – all alike are geared to this one end, that God may be glorified. And we honour God through conducting ourselves in a way that corresponds to what He Himself has set out for us as the way we are to live.

The church’s position

This counter-motion, moreover, seeks to clarify what the Church’s position actually is. Although reference is made to our affirming the historic and current doctrine and practice of the Church, nowhere is it spelled out in the Overture what that doctrine and practice is.

This is no mere secondary issue. Our sexual relations are a core part of our humanity and an integral part of the gospel. And the teaching of the Scriptures is very clear and very consistent.

Hence the statement in section (1) of the counter-motion, and in clause (1) of the proposed Declaratory Act, that “The Church’s historic and current position is that, according to God’s revealed will in Scripture, marriage between one man and one woman is the only right and proper context for sexual relations.”

That’s what the Scriptures teach. That’s what our confessional statement affirms. There should be and need be no dubiety about it. And my counter-motion seeks simply to make this quite clear.

The pastoral commitment

I’m concerned also to acknowledge and make clear our pastoral commitment to one another, the responsibility we have to support and help one another in the struggles we all have in this area as we seek to live out our lives under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and in obedience to His Word. That’s never easy and often costly.

Sections (2) and (3) of the counter-motion spell this out. I want it to be quite clear that there is no exclusion of, and no slight on, those whose orientation is of a homosexual nature. I want it to be quite clear that there is no bar to membership, ministry, or even moderatorial office, on account of a person’s sexuality. And I want it to be quite clear that we all recognise that mutual commitment to one another in providing the support and help which we all need in the particular struggles we face.

The practical consequences

There’s one final point which needs to be made clear. It shouldn’t really require any clarification, but in our present situation it has to be underlined.

Our convictions must inform and determine our conduct. If this is the doctrine we affirm, then it’s vital that we apply it, and apply it consistently. Stating it most simply, we must practice what we preach. That’s the import of the second clause in the proposed Declaratory Act.

“This statement of the Church’s historic and current position should inform and direct all aspects of the government, worship and practice of the Church including, without limitation, admission to office and pastoral discipline.”

This is the doctrine which the Scriptures teach. This is the doctrine we affirm. Let this, then, be the sort of discipleship we display; and let this be the discipline we exercise.

We are called to be consistent. We need to make clear to our people, our land and nation what it is our church believes and why we behave in the way we do. That is the reason for setting it out in a simple, straightforward Declaratory Act.

It is not, of course, exclusive of principles of natural justice: they, too, must inform and direct all aspects of the discipline we exercise. And the phrase “..without limitation” serves only to underline that the list which follows the word “including” is illustrative rather than exhaustive: it in no sense precludes the application of principles of natural justice.

The Declaratory Act sets out what we believe and how, therefore, on that basis we conduct our life as Christ’s people. It’s principled in nature, pastoral in scope, and thoroughly practical in its application.

And for all these reasons I thus move this counter-motion.

Towards the conclusion of the debate on the Overture, Jerry Middleton was given the right of Reply:

I’m grateful, Moderator, for your patience – and grateful for the patience of my fellow-commissioners through what has been a long and demanding day. I’m grateful, also for the honesty and grace with which all who have contributed have spoken, which has helped ensure that the debate has been conducted in what is surely an appropriate manner.

In concluding matters now, I’d like to set out for the General Assembly very briefly the reasons why this counter-motion should surely commend itself to you.

Simplicity

First, on account of its simplicity.

There’s a verse in the book of Ecclesiastes which the Good News Version translates like this –“This is all that I have learned: God made us plain and simple, but we have made ourselves very complicated.” [Eccles.7.²⁹ GNB]

If ever there was an illustration of that, this Overture is surely it! Both the length of the Overture itself – acknowledged to be risky and demonstrably ‘ragged’ – and the volume of questions which it has prompted, highlight just how complicated we have managed to make things here.

And needlessly so: for God’s way of doing things is ‘plain and simple’: not easy, by any means, but clear and simple, able to be expressed in a couple of short sentences in the proposed Declaratory Act.

Clarity

The second reason for commending this counter-motion to you is on account of its clarity. Our present situation is confused, confusing and uncertain, and far from satisfactory: I think we’d all acknowledge that.

But there’s a reason why we got ourselves in this situation: and that’s because five years ago we confirmed a process before and without clarifying the principle. As a consequence, two years later we were obliged to make exceptions: and two years further down the line we found ourselves obliged to start granting permissions.

The confusion originated in our failure to clarify the principle: and it’s to address that basic issue that this counter-motion is directed, clarifying through a Declaratory Act what those principles are.

Is not this the doctrine we affirm? Will we not practice what we preach, and match how we behave to what we believe?

integrity

Then finally this is to do with our integrity. The proposed Declaratory Act comprising two short sentences is simple, clear and marked by an inherent consistency. How important that is in a people for whom truth is so very central.

This is about our convictions being true to the Scriptures; and it’s about our conduct being true to our convictions. That sort of basic integrity.

Two short sentences. It may not be comfortable, for any of us: but it’s not complicated, it’s not confusing, and it shouldn’t really be contentious at all.

For on this matter, the teaching of Scripture is very clear and entirely consistent. That’s acknowledged by all.

And while I am as committed as any to an approach of ‘respectful dialogue’, with the greatest respect in the world I am bound to say … we do not dialogue with God.

We listen to what He has said: we hear what He says, we don’t simply listen out for the bits we like. We hear what He says: and then we do it.

So when in a few moments you press one of two buttons, I want you to think very carefully about which button you press and what you are doing when you press it.

For the real risk is not really that of potential legal action being taken against us; it’s not really the risk of the financial costs which may be involved in such claims. The real risk is that of stepping outside of the clearly revealed will of God in the Scriptures and turning away from His Word.

At three successive General Assemblies, it has been acknowledged by all that whenever the Scriptures speak on this matter it is always to say that such conduct is sin.

In 2011 the Special Commission made it clear that to adopt any other line would represent “a radical shift” (9.1): in 2012 the report on ‘Believing in Marriage’ spoke of this representing “a fundamental shift” (Mission & Discipleship, Appendix 1, 6.11): and last year’s Theological Commission spoke in very similar terms.

It’s been made clear to us now three years in a row that to take any other line than that enshrined in the proposed Declaratory Act is to depart from, to turn away from the teaching of Scripture and the tradition of the church.

Do you remember the Scripture with which this General Assembly began? Right at the very outset, first thing on Saturday morning, before anyone else had had the chance to say anything, the Scripture was read from Hosea 11.

God’s Word, spoken into this General Assembly, on the back of all that the previous years have brought. And what was that word?

“My people are determined to turn from me. Even though they call me God Most High, I will by no means exalt them.”

Do you hear that word? That’s what this is about. In the face of that, therefore, and with a heavy heart, I solemnly urge you to support this counter-motion.

Here is the text of the Counter-Motion and associated Declaratory Act that Jerry moved on that occasion:

COUNTER MOTION TO BE TAKEN AGAINST SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 5 OF THE LEGAL QUESTIONS COMMITTEE DELIVERANCE 

1. Affirm the Church’s historic and current position that, according to God’s revealed will in Scripture, marriage between one man and one woman is the only right and proper context for sexual relations.

2. Reaffirm the duty of the Church to minister to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, recognising in particular the burden felt by those who struggle with same-sex attraction while striving to maintain a celibate life.

3. Recognise that same-sex attraction is not, in itself, a barrier to leadership in the Church, including, without limitation, the ministry of Word and Sacrament, the diaconate and the eldership.

4. Pass the Declaratory Act re the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of Scotland with respect to Sexual Relationships in the terms set out in Appendix A.

 APPENDIX A

DECLARATORY ACT RE THE DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND WITH RESPECT TO SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS

Edinburgh, __ May 2014, Session __

The General Assembly declare as follows:

1. The Church’s historic and current position is that, according to God’s revealed will in Scripture, marriage between one man and one woman is the only right and proper context for sexual relations.

2. This statement of the Church’s historic and current position should inform and direct all aspects of the government, worship and practice of the Church including, without limitation, admission to office and pastoral discipline.

Source

[Editor’s note: One or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]