# Questions arising from the Kirk's Assembly decision (1)



## JennyG (Jul 22, 2011)

Like many other people in the Church of Scotland, I'm still trying to discern what follows from the General Assembly's decision to go with ordination of practising homosexuals. I have a series of questions I would be grateful for input on. Thank you in advance (and please bear with me, if I ask anything that seems stupid). 
This is the first:

Is it scriptural to think of a local C of S church as able to remain a faithful Gospel church , independently of the C of S as a whole?


----------



## Rufus (Jul 22, 2011)

Do you know if any churches within the CofS are leaving to join any of the other denominations in Scotland?


----------



## JennyG (Jul 22, 2011)

One or two congregations definitely leaving (and more still considering) but I'm not certain where to. Some ministers leaving without their congregations of course, and many single members too. I hear of people leaving, but not where they're heading

---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

I should think the Free Church would be an obvious destination for most.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jul 22, 2011)

Jenny, without wishing to be offensive, I believe that bible believing churches in the CoS should have left long ago. This is the grossest abuse of scripture yet, but there have been many before. If it was not clear before, I am sure that it is absolutely clear now - there is no option but to seperate absolutely from this ungodliness. Life is complicated, I know, and all sorts of questions come to mind, but I now see this in black and white.


----------



## JennyG (Jul 22, 2011)

JonathanHunt said:


> Jenny, without wishing to be offensive, I believe that bible believing churches in the CoS should have left long ago. This is the grossest abuse of scripture yet, but there have been many before. If it was not clear before, I am sure that it is absolutely clear now - there is no option but to seperate absolutely from this ungodliness. Life is complicated, I know, and all sorts of questions come to mind, but I now see this in black and white.


You aren't offensive, I think you're right. But many people seem to think differently. It's only natural for them to cling to the church of their hearts and their history, when they themselves haven't changed, only the leadership has. The thing is, what exactly is the nature of the link between the local churches and the Assembly? Isn't the local church just the sum of the local believers, whether they call themselves Kirk or Free Kirk? It's often been pointed out that the NT seems to know nothing of denominations. I'm just trying to get this all clear in my head, because I'm going to have to act on it

---------- Post added at 07:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ----------




> I believe that bible believing churches in the CoS should have left long ago.


It must be simpler if congreagtion, Session and minister are all of one mind, but I don't know that that's the case in many places


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 22, 2011)

For an outsider's perspective, this might be helpful in understanding:

The GA Junkie: The General Assembly Of The Church Of Scotland Chooses Their Trajectory


----------



## uberkermit (Jul 22, 2011)

JennyG said:


> You aren't offensive, I think you're right. But many people seem to think differently. It's only natural for them to cling to the church of their hearts and their history, when they themselves haven't changed, only the leadership has.



Often, when a church enters into apostasy, the blame is laid upon the leadership. The denomination's seminary is also blamed. It is true that the elders of the church are to be on the lookout (e.g., Acts 20:28-31). But a good part of the blame ought to be laid at the feet of the members as well. There is a reason why the Berean Christians (I know there are some reformed brethren who sneer at the idea of "biblicism" - I do not lay much weight to their ideas) are commended as being noble and, ostensibly, put forth as examples to be followed. It did not matter to them that it was the Apostle teaching them - they were checking to see if what they were being taught squared with the word of God. Even Paul himself expected that what he taught should be put to the test:

[BIBLE]Galatians 1:6-10[/BIBLE]

All teaching must be put to the test. If it fails, appropriate action must be taken.



JennyG said:


> The thing is, what exactly is the nature of the link between the local churches and the Assembly? Isn't the local church just the sum of the local believers, whether they call themselves Kirk or Free Kirk? It's often been pointed out that the NT seems to know nothing of denominations. I'm just trying to get this all clear in my head, because I'm going to have to act on it



The local church is subject to the larger church (presbytery), which in turn is subject to the larger church (GA, Synod). At presbytery, we see our church leaders who are sent as representatives of the congregation. Of course they also represent Christ. Certainly, the representatives at GA have no authority outside that which Christ has given them in their calling. Therefore, if they are "legislating" things such as ordaining homosexuals (the authority of elders does not include making laws for the church; the law of the church is the word of God, and going beyond that is not lawful.) they have gone beyond the authority of Christ, and are not to be submitted to. In an ideal situation, a congregation, as well as its leadership, should recognise this, and take action. In reality it seems it is never so easy, as some in the congregation will want to hang on for various reasons, while others will want to move on.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jul 22, 2011)

I meant to edit my reply earlier, to add that no CoS church can be 'independent' - because it is presbyterian by definition. What a sad mess.


----------



## JennyG (Jul 23, 2011)

> I meant to edit my reply earlier, to add that no CoS church can be 'independent' - because it is presbyterian by definition. What a sad mess.


Jonathan, please can I ask how the Evangelical Free Church functions when it comes to such matters?

---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 AM ----------

...so, being presbyterian by definition automatically rules out any possibility of a local church's standing as an independent entity?
I see that, but I don't see what in practice prevents it from declaring a version of "no confidence" in the higher courts of the church, and going it alone. Is it partly pragmatic, financial considerations that prevent that?


----------



## Tim (Jul 23, 2011)

May not a presbyterian church remain independent for the time that it takes to seek another faithful presbytery?


----------



## JennyG (Jul 23, 2011)

Tim said:


> May not a presbyterian church remain independent for the time that it takes to seek another faithful presbytery?


I would have thought perhaps yes, except that everything in the Kirk's structures is geographical and I've never heard of a local church looking to another presbytery for oversight. The Church of England did manage to work an arrangement of the sort, with a "flying bishop" overseeing parishes which objected to female priests, even though they were all over the country and in different dioceses.

But I'm still not sure what the answer to my first question is.
Can a local congregation be considered potentially as a faithful church, in principle not simply between times, and even though its denomination as a whole is apostate?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jul 23, 2011)

JennyG said:


> > I meant to edit my reply earlier, to add that no CoS church can be 'independent' - because it is presbyterian by definition. What a sad mess.
> 
> 
> Jonathan, please can I ask how the Evangelical Free Church functions when it comes to such matters?
> ...



Hi Jenny. Reading this back it looks like I am calling presbyterianism 'a sad mess'. I meant rather the current malaise in the Church of Scotland, of course.

In answer to your question 'the Evangelical Free Church' is not a denomination in the UK, only in the USA. So many independent local churches (as ours) use the descriptor 'Evangelical Free'. Many such sprung up in the 60s and 70s on new build estates etc. Our church took the name in 1977. It was named 'Walker Memorial Church' before that, after its founder, who from 1877-1911 ran it as a Church of Scotland congregation, but that link died with him. It seems that he DID run it as a sort of independent 'CoS' because there was no presbytery, etc. An interesting loop back to the current discussion.

Our church is totally independent - not even in any association or grouping. We have close ties with other likeminded (Bible believing) churches, of course.


----------



## Philip (Jul 23, 2011)

Jenny, if your congregation is individually faithful, then stay with it. Whether it should join the FCoS or some other body is up to the session of the church. I understand and respect people like the late John H. Gerstner, who refused to leave the liberal PCUSA until it was clear that the denomination would not let him stay and keep his conscience.


----------



## JennyG (Jul 23, 2011)

Thank you Jonathan, I'm very interested, because for a lot of Scottish congregations the only real problem is the chain fastening them to "The Church of Scotland" - but you aren't fastened to anything. If only Cheltenham was near enough your congregation would be up by one 

Philip, thanks for your judgment. I want to get all this straight because I have people trying to bring me round to their point of view. It does seem to be a tenable position that a local church is justified in holding to its own faithful course without regard to what the Assembly says or does. Lots of Biblical believers in Scotland think so I know, though others disagree. 

I think I'll start a new thread for a new question in case nobody sees it.


----------

