Something happened on Monday at the General Assembly the Church of Scotland \u2014 they appear to have become Anglicans. No \u2014 they didn\u2019t change from a Presbyterian to Episcopal form of church government. They did something more Anglican than combining bishops with Calvinism. \u00a0They\u2019ve accepted the sacred \u201cyes\/but\u201d \u00a0Anglican doctrine of deliberate confusion, \u00a0and have adopted a policy on gay clergy that no one quite seems to understand.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s compare headlines and ledes from the Guardian<\/em>, the Press Association and the Associated Press to see what they think happened.<\/p>\n The Guardian<\/em> saw Monday\u2019s vote as a victory for the liberal faction in the church that is seeking to change church teaching on homosexuality. Under the headline \u201cChurch of Scotland<\/a> votes to allow gay ministers\u201d it reported: (seems I\u2019ve heard that before \u2014 but don\u2019t let me distract you.)<\/p>\n The Church of\u00a0Scotland, the country\u2019s largest Protestant church, has narrowly voted to admit gay and lesbian ministers after traditionalists agreed to compromise after four years of division. \u00a0The church\u2019s ruling general assembly voted to allow congregations to admit gay ministers but only if they specifically elect to do so, in a radical departure from more than 450 years of orthodoxy set in train by the protestant reformer John Knox.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Press Association was less sanguine.\u00a0It\u00a0took a \u201ctwo steps forward one step back\u201d approach to the story. The headline used by the Huffington Post<\/em> with the PA story gave the liberals the win \u2014 \u00a0\u201cChurch of Scotland votes for openly gay ministers\u201d \u2014\u00a0but the lede did not back it up:<\/p>\n The Church of Scotland has voted in favour of allowing openly gay men and women to become ministers \u2013 whilst maintaining a traditionalist standpoint. The General Assembly backed a motion affirming the Church\u2019s \u201ccurrent doctrine and practice in relation to human sexuality\u201d, but permitting liberal congregations to depart from that approach if they wish to do so.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Associated Press report was even more cautious\u00a0than the PA and filed a \u201cyes, but\u201d story implying the decision was a draw. The headline that topped the AP story as printed on the FOXNews<\/em> website stated: \u201cChurch of Scotland<\/a> votes to allow gay ministers, but only if congregations choose to do so\u201d.<\/p>\n Senior members of the Church of Scotland have voted to let some congregations have openly gay ministers, a compromise first step that could lead to the church allowing gay clergy. The church\u2019s General Assembly backed a motion affirming a traditional conservative view on homosexuality, but permitted liberal congregations to \u201copt out\u201d if they wish to ordain gay men or women. The assembly vote would require the approval of next year\u2019s General Assembly as well as votes by the church\u2019s regional presbyteries to become law. The process is expected to take at least two years.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n You can see this diversity of interpretation in the British press as well as and blogs that follow church issues. So what did happen on Monday?<\/p>\n The always excellent Law & Religion UK blog summarized<\/a> the day as follows:<\/p>\n Yesterday the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland\u00a0voted<\/a>\u00a0in principle<\/em>\u00a0to allow men and women in civil partnerships to be ordained to the ministry and\/or inducted as parish ministers. There were various options before the Assembly:<\/p>\n In short, the Kirk voted for the compromise resolution which affirmed the church\u2019s traditional theological stance against \u00a0gay clergy, but nevertheless\u00a0allowed \u00a0individual congregations to opt out and engage gay clergy \u2014 an outcome the British delight in calling a \u201cfudge\u201d.<\/p>\n Each of the newspapers reported that there will be no immediate change as the bill must now go to a legal committee to be submitted to the 2014 General Assembly. \u00a0If adopted, it \u00a0will be sent to the presbyteries under the Barrier Act 1697 because the issue touches upon \u201cdoctrine or worship or discipline\u201d. Only if a majority of presbyteries approved the bill and the General Assembly confirms it in 2015, will it become law.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n None of the articles I\u2019ve cited above are incorrect. But they are lacking in historical context and failed to tell the full story. This is actually a defeat for the liberals. The 2011 General Assembly<\/a> was presented with two options: affirm the traditionalist position and keep the ban in place on gay clergy, or endorse the progressive position which asked the assembly to consider lifting the ban on clergy in same-sex relationships and to instruct the church\u2019s theological commission to prepare a report for the 2013 General Assembly on the relevant issues.<\/p>\n The 2011 assembly backed the progressive option and the theological commission released its report<\/a> last month that summarized the revisionist and traditionalist arguments for and against same-sex relationships. But the commission was unable to reach an agreement over which one it should recommend to the General Assembly for adoption. This week\u2019s vote represented a setback for the left in that the trajectory of the Church of Scotland had been that conservatives would be allowed to \u201copt out\u201d on gay clergy. The bill passed on Monday instead offered an \u201copt in\u201d for liberals on gay clergy.<\/p>\n In its 2011 report on the General Assembly the Guardian<\/em> used the same headline as it did on Monday. \u201cChurch of Scotland<\/a> votes to allow gay ministers\u201d its article of 23 May 2011. The lede that day was:<\/p>\n Scotland\u2019s largest protestant church has voted to allow gay men and lesbians to become ministers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is a bit awkward for the Guardian<\/em> to publish the same story on the same issue two years apart.<\/p>\n The second bit of context that would\u2019ve helped was the report in the theological commissions paper that stated that only 35% of members of presbyteries supported the ordination of persons in a same-sex relationships. For the the bill to pass in 2015 the liberals must move support for gay clergy\u00a0from 35% to 51%.<\/p>\n\n