Response to the Theological Forum
Covenant Fellowship Scotland have produced an excellent response to the Report of the Theological Forum on Human Sexuality, which will be discussed next week at the Church of Scotland General Assembly:
Here is a response that is scriptural, logical and reasonable. However, the problem may be that it presupposes that theological and ethical disputes are to be settled in the church by an appeal to Scripture, and the use of reason. If this was accepted, their case would be unanswerable.
But that is the very heart of the problem. The Church of Scotland no longer wishes to listen to Scripture; it is governed by sentiment and emotion and not by reason. Without a common basis, Scripture, there can be no consensus on either theological or ethical issues.
I will watch with interest the debate at G.A. My prayers are with those who will argue a biblical basis for marriage as between one man and one woman. But, I will also watch with interest to see their response if the G.A. extends its recognition of homosexual marriage. Will they be willing to embrace the doctrine of “constrained difference” and continue to recognise those who embrace, encourage and promote homosexual marriage?
It is worth considering the argument of Dr. Denny Burk, who in essence is commenting on the “reconciled diversity” or “ constrained differences” approach:
“[This] approach is functionally no different from an “affirming” approach. Here’s the bottom line. A church either will or will not accept members who are practicing homosexual immorality. A church either will or will not discipline members for homosexual immorality. A church either will or will not ordain clergy who are practicing homosexuals. There is no middle ground between these practical polarities. If you are in a church that allows both points of view (Side A/Side B), then functionally your church is no different from a fully “affirming” congregation. You accept members and clergy who are practicing homosexual immorality. Again, there is no middle ground between the polarities of these two positions. Those who attempt middle ground will eventually have to move to one side or the other.”
See his excellent article at: