General Assembly - Saturday morning

Last night was a fantastic night in terms of Youth Rep preparation. We had a really good session looking at how we talk to each other about sexuality and then watched the new film about Youth Assembly, which I hope we can use a chunk of during the Youth Assembly report on Tuesday. That was followed by a really nice evening chatting with people and playing Scrabble. This morning was quite interesting. You could tell that there were a lot of people not in Assembly business, possibly waiting for tonight. We had two of the reports which give visitors to the Assembly a chance to be in the spotlight - Ecumenical Relations and World Mission. I only saw the whole of Ecumenical Relations and thought it was excellent in highlighting some local ecumenical work going on. I also thought that Archbishop Mario Conti was received extremely well and gave one of the best speeches I've heard at an Assembly. It was interesting to see the Church of Scotland greet an important figure from the Catholic Church so warmly!

The big night in terms of media attention is tonight. I have a counter-motion to the Overture lodged so unless the Overture isn't actually taken I will have a chance to say something about it and hopefully help take the debate in a direction which allows gracious discussion of the issues. I will possibly post what I am planning to say here later, whether I get a chance to say it or not.

General Assembly - Thursday and Friday

Due to lack of internet access at our hotel I didn't manage to put up a post about the first day of the General Assembly, but I'll start now by covering the first two days.

I missed the first morning due to my final undergrad exam, but it was basically just all the pomp and ceremony, along with setting out how business would proceed. The one controversial point though was an attempt to alter the order of business on the Saturday night, meaning that the Overture from Lochcarron and Skye Presbytery would be heard before the Judicial case from Aberdeen. However, it was decided (correctly in my opinion) that since the case must be considered according to church law at the time it arose then swapping those orders of business could prejudice it. The afternoon wasn't particularly exciting, again getting a lot of procedural things out of the way. The one thing which came up was a lot of the agro people feel towards the Council of Assembly. Thiis was highlighted in their attempt to sort out the thorny issue of who the charity trustees for the churches councils are, and their suggestion that the non-voting members of the Council of Assembly should take this role was seen by many as a power grab. However, in best Presbyterian tradition a committee was formed to look into the issue further. This seemed to be the order of the day with at least one other committee proposal.

Today we had what are always two highlights of the Assembly for many, Communion and the Church and Society report. For the last two years I have had the honour to help serve Communion but this year wanted to experience it as part of "the body of the Kirk". There is nothing quite so stirring as singing "Ye Gates lift up your heads on high" unaccompanied amid a thousand people! The Church and Society report perhaps provided less controversy than in previous years but it was nonetheless hotly debated at times. I commended the Council on having highlighted so many issues raised by the Youth Assembly. I also thought that Ian Galloway, the convener, did an excellent job in answering all the varied subjects he was required to talk about. As always in this type of debate those with personal experience of issues are warmly received and we heard from the minister in the Scots Kirk in Sri Lanka on this issue. There was also a new motion on Presbyterian Mutual, a building society(?) supported by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland which has suffered in the current economic climate, and their representative filled us on that. It could have major implications for the church there. The last debate (HIV/AIDs) has just finished and I'm now off for dinner before doing prep for tomorrow with the other youth reps and then watching the premiere of the Youth Assembly film!

To finish I'd just like to make a comment on how well Bill Hewett has done as Moderator. Many who knew him from being Business convener of the Assembly might have been surprised at his appointment but he has demonstrated not only a superb grasp of how to control proceedings with grace and humour, but also his other ministry skills that many might not be aware of, particularly in his leading of Communion today. I'm particularly glad of this given that coming up tomorrow night is the media focal point of the week, and all these skills will be called upon in handling that debate.

Church of Scotland General Assembly meets Web 2.0

The Church of Scotland General Assembly starts in two days time and there seems to be an increasing number of technological innovations surrounding it this year.

As for the last few years it will be streamed live online at its website. You can also find short video summaries of each day there (which have been excellent in previous years) and a whole load of papers to download.

There is also a twitter page which I have been told is by the same people who do the online streaming. And a number of other people including myself will be tweeting away during the week, with some of us using the tag GA2009 which means tweets can found easily through Twitter search.

There will also be a few people blogging I'm sure. I will try and post a daily update like I did two years ago on a forum for young people in the Kirk. Again a google search for GA2009 should bring up some blogs but if anyone else is going to blog or knows of people who will be then let me know and I will post a link here.

Klingon Opera and Film Review

Anyone interested in Star Trek may be interested to see this Klingon review of the new film (thanks to Nick for finding this). Anyone who hates Star Trek might enjoy laughing at the cultish behavious surrounding it. I particularly like their attempts at a Scottish accent.



There is also a story about Klingon Opera here. The Klingon Terran Research Ensemble hope to mount the first performance on Earth of "u", the story of Kahless the Unforgettable, which is a cornerstone of Klingon mythology. Apparently "The Klingon have a rich musical culture that until now has been largely overlooked by the musical establishment." I'm sure it couldn't be any more painful to watch than some other contemporary opera, even if it is based on something called "Scream Theory".

Live Streaming of Malko Conducting Competition

I've just spent the morning watching the first round of the Malko Conducting Competition live online. They are streaming the competition for the whole week as it starts off today and tomorrow with thirty young conductors (already narrowed from 300 by video audition) and moves to the final three by the end of the week. It's a great idea to put a live stream up because it's fascinating to watch the different styles of conductors from across the world. This morning I've watched Brazilian, Lithuanian, Italian and English conductors performing Beethoven, Mendelssohn and Shchubert (Note the diverse range of nationalities conducting music by composers all from within the same area). Conducting is a very insular world and so masterclasses and competitions are often the only chance to see large groups of conductors together at once, particularly at this level where there are some of the finest young conductors from across the world competing. You can find the competition website here and there are links to the schedule and the live stream from there.

A blogging backlash?

It seems that I'm not the only one who has problems with the way Lochcarron and Skye Presbytery have gone about their Overture followed by the petition organised by The Fellowship of Confessing Churches. A considerable number of bloggers have been writing about their dismay in the way this has been handled, with most comments about the misrepresentation of facts and positions to the media, the bullying nature of a petition and fears about the implications of any decisions which will be made. It should be noted that there are very few people commenting on their direct opposition to the Overture on grounds of their views alone, but instead a wish to see the broad spectrum of views taken into account. I've posted links to a few of these below along with some particularly good comments. If I've linked to you and you feel I've misrepresented you or that you don't want to be quoted on this page then let me know and I'll take it off - after all, the danger of quoting things out of context is quite relevant here! Equally if there are other comments I've missed please let me know. It's often said that politicians pay far more notice to a letter than to a petition with hundreds or even thousands of signatures, because of the thought and individual expression which goes into it. We can only hope that these voices of moderation will be heard through the barrier of sound the petition is trying to create.

NOTE: It's worth reading comments on these links as well because there are some well expressed views there too.

Stewart Cutler - "Not in My Name - So, no. I won’t be signing your petition. And I hope no-one else does either. Not because I don’t believe in your right to have one. Not that because I don’t think you have the right to hold your opinion. But because I believe that we are called to love one another and to conduct our discussions with love and respect."

John Orr - "GA09 and petitions - Creating online petitions is the entirely wrong way to go about this debate. It simply polarises the issues and creates artificial division. It undermines the authority and purpose of the General Assembly. It says, openly, that the petitioners do not believe that the Assembly can deal with the issue in a balanced, prayerful and gracious manner. It sends the message that they who shout loudest get their way."

Bryan Kerr - "A God of love ... for all - Too often debates about human sexuality become offensive name-calling exercises which display nothing of the love of Christ or the grace that should characterise Christian living. This is especially important for those claiming the title of Evangelical as we should be people who not only preach grace but live graciously." [This is in fact a quote from a former chairman of Forward Together, Gordon Kennedy, which surely emphasises that people from all backgrounds recognise the need for a gracious debate]

Nikki - "the squeeky wheel gets the most oil? - Why do I need to go to church to be told how crap I am?' ..... The press are already circling like vultures, waiting for the church to rip itself apart. The media rarely portray those in the church who are moderate - it doesn't sell papers, doesn't make for a handy sound-bite. And many folks outwith the church think that Fred Phelps and his followers speak for all Christians. It's depressing."

And finally a link to an old article in the Church Times by Giles Fraser which doesn't talk about this issue but has the best quote I've seen to summarise these problems in debates on belief - "Part of the problem is that too many contributors do not recognise that they are being unpleasant be­cause they believe themselves to be justified by some higher cause. This creates a blind spot, which is why the nastiest stuff comes from “believers” with a mission"

NEW POSTS (as of noon, 6th May):

Chris Hoskins - "Where's the Grace? - Whenever this issue, or any other negative publicity for the Church pops up in the media, so many people (often with no Church connection!) jump on the bandwagon and use it as an excuse to dump on the Church. I hate that. Where are these people(media and naysayers) when the Church is doing incredible work? And then theres the people in the Church. The people who feed the negativaty by being horrible about and to each other."

Margaret McLarty - "Where is love? Does it fall from the skies above? - I struggle with church, but one of the reasons I love the Church of Scotland is that it allows for a whole nation to unite and everyone in that nation is held in love and welcomed ..... This is a huge test of all these ideas we hold true as Christians ..... Can we love those who hold different ideals as us and still welcome them as people in our lives and churches?"

Bridging the Gap - "Like a Weaned Child - A particularly dominant voice seemed so caustic, so certain, so loud ..... and I thought to myself, “Is that respect? Really? When it is quite clear that in your mind, your way is the only way?” ..... It will require that we continually go back to the source of all life – Jesus Christ. Not for the perfect answer, not for the resolution to all the tension and uncertainty, not for some triumphant declaration ….. no, we go to Jesus for life."

Logical problems with Lochcarron and Skye Overture

I apologise to those who may occasionally look at this blog for non-Church of Scotland related thoughts (and I'm amazed there's anyone who looks at it at all) but this is the thing that's concerning me most at the moment. It turns out there is slightly more to Lochcarron and Skye Presbytery's Overture than I thought, with three justifications for it given beforehand.

OVERTURE
ANENT MINISTERIAL CONDUCT
From the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye

Whereas:
1. the Church’s historic understanding of the Biblical teaching on homosexual practice has been questioned in recent years.
2. a lengthy period of reflection has elapsed without a resolution of the issue.
3. it is undesirable that the courts of the church should be asked to judge on individual cases in advance of any such resolution.

It is humbly overtured by the Reverend the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye to the Venerable the General Assembly to receive the Overture set out below,

“That this Church shall not accept for training, ordain, admit, re-admit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful marriage between a man and a woman”.

As someone just finishing a degree which involves maths I would consider myself to have a fairly good grasp of logic. So how does "the Church’s historic understanding of the Biblical teaching on homosexual practice has been questioned" lead to a resolution which strongly states one side of the argument? Also I would contend that part 2 is in fact wrong. The church presented a report on sexuality two years ago in which it stated that there was a wide range of opinion and because of this it was impossible to reach a conclusion on issues such as whether a committed homosexual relationship equates to marriage. Just because there wasn't a firm black or white decision doesn't mean it wasn't a decision. The report can be downloaded here and was, perhaps surprisingly, welcomed in the Assembly Hall, with only a small amount of opposition. So, in actual fact the church does have a stance; it's that this issue divides opinion and cannot be decided one way or the other at present. Of course this overture could be seen as looking at whether a decision has been reached, although I'm not convinced that two years is a "lengthy" period of time. However, if the statements which provide the justification for the overture itself aren't credible, and the logic connecting them is flawed, then why should the Overture be considered?

NOTE: I may be wrong on this but there is a question of whether the Overture should even be heard. Standing Order 48 of the General Assembly says that "All Overtures from Presbyteries passed on or before 24 April shall be sent to the Clerks of Assembly not later than that date in each year." The first news report on it was on April 28th so I don't know whether it was transmitted in time or whether I have read the Standing Orders wrongly, but it's another thing to consider.

Implications of Lochcarron and Skye Overture

I was thinking last night that the implications of the Overture Lochcarron and Skye Presbytery are presenting to the General Assembly would have have huge implications, whether you agree with it or not, and this hasn't really been discussed.

“That this Church shall not accept for training, ordain, admit, readmit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and a woman”

(1) Who is going to police this? It seems to me that this is opening the system up to false allegations flying around. For example, I know that some people wouldn't believe it if two men/women were living together and a couple but not in a sexual relationship. Furthermore, what counts as a sexual relationship and who decides this?

(2) Any ministry of the church casts this net very wide. Certainly it means it would include ministers of word and sacrament, deacons, readers and elders. Does it also include musicians, Sunday school teachers, people who organise the flower rota. Does it apply to staff in 121? Everyone has their own ministry in a church and this presumably means that who is included in it will come down to the interpretation of each congregation/presbytery. Whatever happens, those involved in a sexual relationship outside marriage and most homosexuals are going to feel very unwelcome in a church.

(3) Is this to be backdated? What happens to those currently in this situation? Presumably those currently in jobs keep them but if they want to move charge they will be defrocked.

(4) I'm still not convinced that it isn't against the discrimination legislation brought in last year at the General Assembly. If a gay couple took the case to court saying that there was a contradiction between the legislation saying that sexuality cannot be used to discriminate in job applications, yet then had this to contend with there does seem a contradiction in what the church is saying even if not explicit. I know there is an escape route by saying it's not discrimination on sexuality but is on being in a sexual relationship outside marriage, and that you can be gay but not have sex, but it seems like non-discrimination on grounds of sexuality has implications of sexual practice in there, even if it's not explicit.

These are the implications which spring to mind immediately. I can't help but think that even if you agree with the sentiment of the Overture it is an extremely strong piece of legislation to put in place, and given how many people will disagree with it I wouldn't be surprised if this was more likely to cause people to leave the church than Scott Rennie's appointment.

Cringe

If this happened to me I think I would want to cry. Yuri Bashmet (one of the worlds best viola players) takes it really well though. Suppose there's not much you can do.

Free classical downloads - Part 3

This is a follow-up to a few posts I did in March about free downloads for classical music. "On an Overgrown Path" has just posted about the excellent download site at The British Library. They only have Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and Brahms recordings from before 1957 but even that gives a huge variety. For example, a quick browse through Brahms found there are between ten and twenty versions of each Symphony, with performers including Philadelphia, BBC Symphony, NBC Symphony and Concertgebouw Orchestras to name just a few and conductors including Barbirollo, Bernstein, Furtwangler, Karajan and Szell. There is lots to explore although I have exams for the next week so will hopefully manage to put it off until they are done.

Tahiti Trot

I will soon be conducting my last ever concert with my Edinburgh Uni orchestra (EUMS Sinfonia) and this is the last piece I will perform with them. The story goes that Shostakovich was listening to the song "Tea for Two" with conductor Nikolai Malko and they had a bet that after one hearing he couldn't orchestrate it it under an hour. In fact it only took forty minutes for Shostakovich to create what has become one of the best loved short pieces of light music. Here are a few different versions from youtube. The first is a vinyl of the original show tune, then a version of the original done by the Chipmunks(!) and finally the Shostakovich orchestration.

The Kirk and gay ministers - pull the troops back from the front please

Anyone who has been following church news in the past few months will be aware that there is a fight going on over gay ministers. This has been an undiscussed topic in the Church of Scotland for many years. There are many ministers who are openly gay and have served in parishes without controversy, but the issue was brought to a head when a church in Aberdeen decided they would like their new minister to be Scott Rennie, who said that he would live in the manse with his partner as he does in his current charge in Brechin. In the Church of Scotland congregations call their own ministers and this has to be ratified by presbyteries. This duly happened with large majorities in both, but a few of those in the minority in the presbytery vote (with no connection to the congregation) decided they would appeal to the General Assembly. After consideration by the Council of Assembly the issue has been put up for debate in May, and the debate is sure to be one of the most heated in years.

The Kirk has actually been making progress on issues surrounding homosexuality in the last few years where other churches around the world have struggled. Note that by progress I don't mean saying that everyone should think homosexuality is ok, but instead seeking to reconcile those with differing views. Two years ago a report entitled "A Challenge to Unity" was presented to the General Assembly which emphasised the divide among churchgoers over the issue and concluded that wherever you stood the institutional intolerance shown towards those who often struggle with their sexuality in a church environment was a huge problem which had to be addressed. For a church which seeks to be truly national and welcome people with a diverse range of views, this sort of compromise and the gracious attitude with which it was received seemed to me to be progress.

However, this recent debate has been much more acrimonious, with conservative groups starting a campaign through the newspapers and the internet in an attempt to block Scott Rennie's appointment. Lochcarron and Skye presbytery have submitted an overture to the General Assembly seeking to resolve the issue once and for all, asking the Assembly to resolve “That this Church shall not accept for training, ordain, admit, readmit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and a woman”. In the meantime the other side of the debate has been left to columnists, notably Ron Ferguson in the Herald and Life and Work editor Muriel Armstrong. The latter has proved particularly controversial, saying that those who claim to be biblical literalists will always be selective literalists to a degree and that this makes their whole case in this debate questionable.

Now it had seemed to me that this whole debate would go to the General Assembly and then be resolved in favour of the congregation who wanted Scott Rennie as their minister. Certainly that seemed the sensible way forward given that everyone personally involved in the situation was overwhelmingly happy with that (As Ron Ferguson points out, those who are claiming it will be the biggest split in the church since the Disruption have probably not realise the irony that people left then because they wanted the right for congregations to call their own ministers, something that conservatives are now desperately trying to make sure doesn't happen). However, it now seems like the whole issue is going to be hijacked because of those who wish to see homosexuals driven out of the church. While I respect everyone's right to their own individual view on this subject, I have actually been offended by the presumptuousness of ludicrous statements made about how the majority of the Kirk agree with the infallibility of biblical views opposing homosexuality. It is quite clear that there is a huge division in the Kirk over these issues and noone can claim to speak for the whole church unless they say exactly that.

I was also shocked when the conservative group Forward Together were forced into an embarrassing apology to Scott Rennie. This happened after he threatened legal action over their inaccurate claims that he left his wife for a man, when in fact his wife left him and he didn't question his sexuality until after this. When you can't even get simple facts about the case correct it doesn't strike me as caring about the case itself. Instead it shows it for what it really is, another attack on homosexuals in the church, using this case as the latest poster campaign.

There has now been a petition started to get agreement with the Lochcarron and Skye Overture. Presumably it's an attempt to influence the vote at the General Assembly by showing how many people agree with it. If I believed in gambling, I would be willing to bet that a petition stating completely the opposite view could get just as many signatories. Furthermore, the language used in the petition is incredibly strong, and while it will encourage those who feel strongly to sign it, it can only cause further bad feeling with those who couldn't sign it. It is the sort of thing which when you read it will either make you jump for joy or run for the nearest fallout shelter in fear of the war which is surely imminent. I don't believe that such a strongly worded statement is helpful in this debate at all, although the sentiments expressed in it and the desire to stand up boldly for them are laudable in their own way.

To be perfectly honest I really struggle with issues of homosexuality and Christianity. I can see both sides of the arguments and never come down clearly on one side or the other. But the bad blood being spilt on this particular debate will only ever prejudice me against the arguments put forward by those spilling it. I never had one of those wristbands which said WWJD - What would Jesus Do? - because I found the whole thing a bit cheesy. But it's a valid question to ask sometimes. I don't think he would have taken a personal situation and skewed it into a national (rapidly becoming an international) debate which threatens to deeply affect many people's personal situation in the church and their Christian faith. I will fight for people's right to disagree with homosexuality on religious grounds, but not to claim that they speak for everyone when they clearly don't. And when the existence of a divide is clear I will fight to make sure that there is compromise reached, not that one side "wins". There's disagreement over the whole issue and everyone is going to have to live with that, at least in the near future.

Debate on homosexuality seems to be the churches equivalent of nuclear weapons. There is a huge split on whether it's right or wrong and if it ever blows up there is no way back because we will have made the environment we live in irreparable. For the sake of the church as a whole I hope both sides can back down and try and have some reasoned debate and seek to work out a compromise to this rather than going for full on attack. As the title to this post says, pull the troops back from the front please, let the diplomats have a go at a solution. After all of this I think the person who comes out with most credit is Scott Rennie himself. Although I don't know him personally it is apparent that from the start he was open about his situation and willing to allow debate over deeply personal issues in order to resolve what both he and a congregation saw as a calling to serve as their minister. I applaud him for keeping his dignity throughout all of this while those seeking to crucify him are screaming their heads off in the same old, thoroughly unmusical tune.