Monday was a momentous day at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the results have been everywhere on the news this evening. The BBC ran with "Church of Scotland General Assembly votes to allow gay ministers" as their article title and also as the rolling headline on their TV news service ticker. The Scotsman has something similar, as does The Herald.
Between home commitments, I tried to watch as much of the debate as I could today. As I knew would be the case, and this I lament, nearly the full day was taken up with procedural discussions, while the debate over the substance of the options was condensed into less than two hours at the end of a long day. The result was that a last-minute option written by Rev Alan Hamilton (convenor of the Legal Questions Committee) and presented by Very Rev Albert Bogle, the Moderator until two days ago when Lorna Hood took over. In an aside, I thought Lorna moderated this debate extremely well and deserves credit and thanks for the way in which the proceedings took place. The communion service at the start of the day set the tone for the rest of the day. When everyone, as she had pointed out during that act of worship, has looked each other in the eye and shared the bread and wine with each other, it inevitably opens up a spirit of grace towards one another.
Without rehearsing the events of the day in their entirety, the net result was that neither of the proposals suggested by the Theological Commission were accepted despite the amendments made to them in the preceding hours. The option moved by Very Rev John Cairns was, as I thought it would be, withdrawn after a passionate speech by John about full equality. I am glad it was said, for what John spoke to was what many of us feel. However, like him, we also recognise that there must be space in an inclusive church for those who have a more 'traditionalist' view. This space was provided by the Theological Commission only in the 'revisionist' proposal which allowed for what became known as the 'mixed economy' where congregations could choose to opt out from accepting a minister living in a Civil Partnership. The premise of this proposal, however, was a 'revisionist' understanding for the Kirk. The traditionalist proposal from the Theological Commission afforded no such space, sadly, and thus it was perhaps inevitable that an alternative proposal from the 'traditionalists' within the Kirk that allowed space for difference would prove attractive to the General Assembly. This is where, despite all that hard work, the Theological Commission failed in fulfilling its remit to the General Assembly for they had not been able to find a 'mixed economy' that worked for all the members of the Commission.