Presbyterian Church Of Scotland OK's Gay Ministers

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huffington Post

[DC Al Fine]

I'm on the other side of this debate, but if you accept that there is nothing immoral about homosexual acts, it is foolish to ban ministers, bishops etc if they do it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm on the other side of this debate, but if you accept that there is nothing immoral about homosexual acts, it is foolish to ban ministers, bishops etc if they do it.

Even if you do think so, it is somewhat foolish, since none of us are without sin.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm on the other side of this debate, but if you accept that there is nothing immoral about homosexual acts, it is foolish to ban ministers, bishops etc if they do it.

Even if you do think so, it is somewhat foolish, since none of us are without sin.

The issue there is not whether the person is sinning, but whether the person is denying the action sin. There was an issue in my presbytery a few years ago where a minister was caught cheating on his wife. He repented and wasn't defrocked. If he had turned around and started preaching that what he was doing was ok, there's no way he wouldn't have been tossed. The same goes for homosexual clergy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Question.  How many of the 48 regional presbyteries need to approve for this to pass?

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm on the other side of this debate, but if you accept that there is nothing immoral about homosexual acts, it is foolish to ban ministers, bishops etc if they do it.

Even if you do think so, it is somewhat foolish, since none of us are without sin.

The issue there is not whether the person is sinning, but whether the person is denying the action sin. There was an issue in my presbytery a few years ago where a minister was caught cheating on his wife. He repented and wasn't defrocked. If he had turned around and started preaching that what he was doing was ok, there's no way he wouldn't have been tossed. The same goes for homosexual clergy.

Are you Presbyterian? Don't get me started on Canadian Presbyterians...

[DC Al Fine]

I'm on the other side of this debate, but if you accept that there is nothing immoral about homosexual acts, it is foolish to ban ministers, bishops etc if they do it.

Even if you do think so, it is somewhat foolish, since none of us are without sin.

The issue there is not whether the person is sinning, but whether the person is denying the action sin. There was an issue in my presbytery a few years ago where a minister was caught cheating on his wife. He repented and wasn't defrocked. If he had turned around and started preaching that what he was doing was ok, there's no way he wouldn't have been tossed. The same goes for homosexual clergy.

Are you Presbyterian? Don't get me started on Canadian Presbyterians...

PM'd ya

[H. Ross Peron]

I'm on the other side of this debate, but if you accept that there is nothing immoral about homosexual acts, it is foolish to ban ministers, bishops etc if they do it.

I have to agree. Same with approving women to be bishops in the Anglican Church-if they can be ordained, why not just make them bishops at once?

[afleitch]

In short the policy allows liberal kirks to opt out of the policy rather than change the policy. It’s a compromise. I’m not sure how many presbyteries have to vote in favour for it to pass in 2015 but there are still a minority who will vote no and it may still scupper it. Liberal presbyteries are unsiprisingly more tolerant and open to compromise and as with the CofE often end up with nothing.

Ironically those who will vote no are the same sort of presbyteries that usually petition the Assembly for the same sort of compromise on other matters. They don't usually like centralised decisions. They threaten to leave but really don’t have the money or the clout to do so. The most vocal kirk St George’s Tron in Glasgow, which in the end became nothing more than a personal vehicle for it’s own minister, left last year. They tried to take the multi million pound recently refurbished (with public money) Georgian church with them but the Church of Scotland said it was their property. A new minister was placed in the kirk and it continues. The attendance at the breakaway church has subsequently dwindled. The Church of Scotland had only 25 applications to minister in 2012. Only 16 were accepted which is below the replacement rate for those minsters who are close to retirement.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Personally, I have no problem with having homosexual ministers, at least as long as they don't push their lifestyle on me or others or try to legitimize it when the Bible is pretty clear in both the Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is a sin.

[All Along The Watchtower]

at least as long as they don't push their lifestyle on me or others

What does that even mean? I hear this all the time, and I've never understood why it's a concern.

[politicus]

at least as long as they don't push their lifestyle on me or others

What does that even mean? I hear this all the time, and I've never understood why it's a concern.

The lifestyle of a typical gay priest would be "square academic middle class" which can be pretty contagious.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

at least as long as they don't push their lifestyle on me or others

What does that even mean? I hear this all the time, and I've never understood why it's a concern.

I mean that I don't want them telling me that I should be homosexual or that homosexuality is morally acceptable, when some may consider it to be immoral.

[Peter the Lefty]

at least as long as they don't push their lifestyle on me or others

What does that even mean? I hear this all the time, and I've never understood why it's a concern.

I mean that I don't want them telling me that I should be homosexual or that homosexuality is morally acceptable, when some may consider it to be immoral.

*Facepalm* Questions of its "morality" aside, what the f--k is the motivation behind the idea that we're always out and about trying to convince straight people to become gay?

[afleitch]

at least as long as they don't push their lifestyle on me or others

What does that even mean? I hear this all the time, and I've never understood why it's a concern.

I mean that I don't want them telling me that I should be homosexual or that homosexuality is morally acceptable, when some may consider it to be immoral.

*Facepalm* Questions of its "morality" aside, what the f--k is the motivation behind the idea that we're always out and about trying to convince straight people to become gay?

It seems to be a fear ugly men have more than attractive men

[TJ in Oregon]

Personally, I have no problem with having homosexual ministers, at least as long as they don't push their lifestyle on me or others or try to legitimize it when the Bible is pretty clear in both the Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is a sin.

I don't understand this comment at all, Oldies. Isn't a minister supposed to push their morality on their church? Isn't that kind of the whole point?