| Holding Together |
| Sunday, 09 August 2009 22:06 | |||
|
So far there are 35 churches who have signed a 'covenant' (a credal statement in all but name) to uphold the orthodoxy of the Christian faith. This might surprise you but I really don't have a problem with this! I would uphold the right for every congregation to publicly profess what they desire, be it orthodoxy or not, that is the right of our congregations. And boy is there enough room for all within the Church of Scotland. I know there are certain churches where I would not be advised to apply for a position and the same would go for my orthodox colleagues. Congregations have long had the debate about where they stand on issues of faith and they have an understanding of where they stand theologically. So once again I say, I have no problem with congregations adopting a covenant saying whatever they want. However, where my alarm grows is when congregations,... (there's more, click the button below to read it) ... who are part of the Church of Scotland, and publicly say that being a part of the 'Fellowship' does not mean they are a breakaway faction, state by signing their statement that they 'reject the authority of those who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed.' I had a look back at the vows I took upon my ordination and my subsequent induction. I, and every minister of our denomination, said 'I do' to the following: 'Do you acknowledge the Presbyterian government of this Church to be agreeable to the Word of God; and do you promise to be subject in the Lord to this Presbytery and to the General Assembly of this Church,and to take your due part in the administration of its affairs?' When an elder is ordained into the office within a congregation he or she says 'I do' to this: 'Do you believe the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith; do you promise to seek the unity and peace of this Church; to uphold its doctrine, worship, government and discipline; and to take your due part in the administration of its affairs?' In other words, as ministers and elders we are subject to the Presbytery and General Assembly and its decisions and to publicly state that they 'reject' the authority of members who make up these courts is just plain wrong! How can you in good conscience be a part of a denomination that you made solemn promises to and then reject its authority? Surely it questions what now happens within presbyteries to these ministers who see themselves as 'above the law' of the kirk? If Presbytery make a decision they don't like are they able just to ignore it and do their own thing because they reject its authority? There have to surely be questions asked? Many churches in the past have split and the Church of Scotland is no different. But with schism comes fighting and trouble. Only this week the Free Church (Continuing) lost the battle with one of their churches that they had assumed ownership of when they split from the Free Church. In a ruling this week, Lord Uist concluded that the new church had entirely separated themselves from the Free Church "... and have no right under the trust to the use and occupation of property intended for the benefit of the Free Church ." He went on to say that if the Free Church (Continuing) was successful [in its bid to keep the churches] "...the result would be astonishing and lead to chaos". There is no need for schism. The kirk is big enough for us all. We surely have to learn to respect each others views, disagree when we have to, but stay united in the peace of Christ. There is so much more that brings us together, let us start to celebrate that rather than looking for the fights. I, for one, would respect the right of a congregation to be orthodox, or liberal, but lets try to get on ... and stay within the law of the church. Surely that is not too much to ask?
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 784 Comments (0)
 Write comment
|
I have been watching the situation with the 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
