Asterisk

Wonderful news coming from the Church of Scotland tonight. The General Assembly has rejected an objection, allowing an Aberdeen church to appoint Rev. Scott Rennie, a gay minister in a committed relationship.

The Church of Scotland last night [Scotland time] backed the appointment of an openly gay minister.

Commissioners voted 326 to 267 in favour of appointing the Rev Scott Rennie, 37, currently at Brechin Cathedral, who had the support of the majority of the congregation at Queen’s Cross in Aberdeen and the presbytery.

But the move sparked strong protest from traditionalist members which rippled across the world, with more than 12000 Christians from as far afield as Africa and the US signing an online petition against the appointment.

There had been concern that the vote could cause a split in the Church. Much of the four-hour debate was hemmed in by detailed legal discussion of Church procedural law amid claims from the floor of “a fudge”.

The gathered commissioners at the supreme court meeting of the Church of Scotland heard how left handed people were once considered “not normal”, how in Roman times faithful homosexual relationships were accepted, and how the Kirk had previously changed its mind over controversial issues such as its stance on female ministers.

Scott Rennie, new Minister at Queen's Cross in Aberdeen

Mr Rennie said last night: “The same talk was about when women were ordained and I think that argument suits those that don’t want any change.”

He said there are “many” gay ministers in the Church and rejected claims that his sexuality contradicts bible teachings.

“We don’t stone women, we don’t stone adulterers, we’ve moved on from that,” he said. “The living word is Jesus and I think the question is, what would Jesus have done?”

Mr Rennie, who was married and has a child, was appointed minister of Brechin in Angus 10 years ago. The controversy erupted after 12 members from Aberdeen presbytery, none of whom are members of Queen’s Cross, raised complaints over the appointment.

This is not the end of the debate at this year’s General Assembly. Debate is set to begin Monday as the Assembly considers an “Overture” that states: “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”.

Given tonight’s vote and the limited coverage I could find of the Overture, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be hopeful. But for tonight, congratulations to the congregation at Queen’s Cross and their new minister, Scott Rennie. Most of all, thanks and congratulations to the Church of Scotland for taking a major step in this long and winding struggle.

Another minister has taken on UMC Amendment One, this time Rev. Eric Folkerth of Northaven UMC of Dallas, Texas (North Texas Annual Conference).

Rev. Folkerth gave this sermon on February 8, 2009. Give special attention beginning around 9:00 for background on the amendment and why it’s necessary. The scripture used is from Paul’s first letter to the Church in Corinth.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (NASB) For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

By the way, Rev. Folkerth‘s wife is a Texas District Judge. (You’ll figure out why you need to know that when you get there.)

This amendment was approved by a clear 2/3 majority of the General Conference. If you are a pastor or other representative at an Annual Conference, I encourage you to allow the United Methodist Church to welcome all people, not just some. Vote for Amendment One.

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland will be voting on the continued ministry of Rev. Scott Rennie tomorrow, May 23rd. Debate is being scheduled, but it sounds like the vote will definitely come before the sun sets.

In preparation for the vote and in support of Rev. Rennie, a group of evangelicals has submitted the following letter to The Herald (Glasgow). (Kirk=Church)

Faithful same-sex relationships do not preclude a relationship with God

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is faced with a difficult subject: homosexuality in the church. We want to assure the Kirk of our prayers. We are evangelicals who believe that Scripture does not condemn homosexual relationships. We are made up of heterosexual and homosexual Christians.

These are, of course, deeply personal questions. As a result of the traditional view on homosexuality, it has been our experience that many gay and lesbian Christians have been forced down a path of self-hatred, which all too often leads to loss of faith, breakdown or even suicide.

After much wrestling, prayer and heartache, we have come to understand that God affirms loving, faithful same-sex relationships.

As evangelicals, we believe in the authority and supremacy of Scripture, and wholeheartedly affirm “the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience” (Westminster Larger Catechism 3) without question. We understand the various positions within the church and believe it is a difference of interpretation, not biblical authority, that characterises our debate.

We stand with the historic orthodox Christian teaching of “justification through faith alone” – that a person is made right with God because of the work of Jesus Christ and it is faith in Him that brings us into relationship with God.

This is the heart of the good news that Scotland and the rest of the world, whether gay or straight, needs to hear from the church.

No-one is excluded from a relationship with God (or service for Him) because they are in a relationship with someone of the same gender.

We affirm the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul that all the law is summed up in love for God and love for our neighbour (Mark 12; Romans 13). We can see nothing in Scripture or our calling as God’s people – both gay and straight – where a loving, monogamous same-sex relationship is inconsistent with this summary of the requirements to live a holy life. We pray that the General Assembly will follow the example of Jesus, who reached out to the marginalised, the suffering, the oppressed and those on the fringes, and who continues to do so today.

We are not just “out there”. There are thousands of faithful people sitting in pews, standing in pulpits, working in Kirk Sessions who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered.

We urge the assembly to embrace the message of transformational grace and inclusion, to stand for justice and mercy and signal the openness of God’s compassionate love to his children, straight and gay. A vast and growing number of evangelicals and others across the world do not exclude homosexuals but understand that the church has erred in its rejection of them. Will the assembly send a clear message of God’s love and welcome, or one of rejection and fear?

Dr Ralph Blair, Davis Mac-Iyalla, Martin Stears-Handscomb and Sarah Hill, Rev Colin Coward, Rev Benny Hazlehurst, Cindy McCarron, Jeremy Marks and Rev Ruairidh MacRae, 37 Annette Street, Glasgow.

(Representing 10 evangelical organisations.)

Whatever comes of this, here’s the part the Church most needs to hear: “There are thousands of faithful people sitting in pews, standing in pulpits, working in Kirk Sessions who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered.”

This isn’t a matter of keeping a certain kind of person out of the Church; we’re already there and we aren’t going away. This is a matter of allowing us to live open, honest lives as part of the Body of Christ.

The California Supreme Court announced today that their ruling on the legality of last November’s Prop 8 will be released on May 26, 2009 at 10:00 (PDT)/ 1:00 (EDT).

The California Supreme Court has announced that it will issue an opinion in three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 2009. (Strauss v. Horton, S168047; Tyler v. State of California, S168066; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078.) Tuesday at 10 a.m., the opinion will be available on the California Courts Web site at this link: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/.

I firmly believe the Court will rule against us. Not because of right vs. wrong (I honestly don’t see how they could vote against us on those grounds, based on the new precedent set in last May’s decision and the way unconstitutional way Prop 8 was put on the ballot), but because pragmatically it’s safer to vote in our opponent’s favor.

We’re a known quantity. They know how we’ll react if they uphold it (see:November 2008), and they know it won’t last. They also know it’ll surely be a smaller response than they’ll get if the overturn it and have to face the unknown response that the Religious Right would whip up. Let’s face it, their audience is larger than our whole community, and a court overturning a popular vote is easily spinnable.

Here’s another case where I really hope I’m wrong, but I’m not counting on it.

The countdown to disappointment has begun.

I’d planned to post this last night, but found myself without an internet connection. Better late than never…

Thirty years ago yesterday, the verdict for the murderer of Mayor George Moscone and Harvey Milk was announced. Dan White, former policeman and San Fransisco Supervisor alongside Milk, would serve the shortest sentence in prison possible.

The riot that came after the verdict would become known as the White Night riot. This bit of newscast video is from that night.

Harry Britt, Milk’s appointed successor: If you remember the violence that started all this, it was Dan White’s violence. I feel that the jury was violent this afternoon by treating Dan White in a way that nobody’s every going to believe they would have treated a black person or a gay person or someone who did not fit Dan White’s image. They were saying that the spirit of Dan White, with all of its pettiness, all of its meanness, and all of its violence right below the surface, is okay. And in so doing were very violently attacking the memory of George Moscone and Harvey Milk. We’re reacting with anger because we are angry.

The following day, reporters went looking for someone to apologize for the riots. Randy Shilts gives the reaction in his book The Mayor of Castro Street: the Life & Times of Harvey Milk

They came up empty. Harry Britt told them, “”Harvey Milk’s people do not have anything to apologize for. Now the society is going to have to deal with us not as nice little fairies who have hairdressing salons, but as people capable of violence. We’re not going to put up with Dan Whites anymore.” The reporters were shocked that a public official would condone violence. Britt was shocked that they would expect anything else. The journalists asked if such a riot would not set back the gay movement. “No one has ever accepted us,” Britt snapped. “What sets a movement back is not violence. What sets us back is Uncle Toms.”

Newspeople scurried to try to find a gay leader who would apologize. They had a tough time. “Political and cultural leaders haven’t apologized for creating a jury where Dan White is a hero and for creating a jury where Dan White can be found a moral man incapable of cold-blooded murder,” snorted Bill Draus, the new president of the Harvey Milk Club. “They have a lot more to apologize for than we do.”

I found a detailed account of the riot from Leland Frances here. You should also read the account of Fred Rogers (not that one), the owner of the Elephant Walk, the target for police brutality during the riot.