Church won’t back down on same-sex rule
Ex-Moderator says Presbyterians are prepared to ‘come into conflict with society’ over policy on gay couples’ membership
A FORMER Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland has indicated that it will not be backing down from its controversial new policy that means people in same-sex relationships cannot be full members.
The Church’s ruling body also voted last week to deny baptism to children of samesex parents.
Writing in today’s Belfast Telegraph, the Very Rev Dr Stafford Carson (below) stated that Christians often “conflict with society’s prevailing views”.
He said the Bible “speaks unambiguously” about marriage being “exclusively between one man and one woman”.
“We cannot ignore this clear teaching,” he added.
A FORMER moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland says there will be no backing down from its new policy that means anyone in a same-sex relationship cannot be a full member.
The policy also means that children from same-sex relationships cannot be baptised, although it has been made clear that the new policy does not prevent people in a same-sex relationship attending church.
The Very Rev Dr Stafford Carson, convener of the church’s Doctrine Committee, insisted “we should set aside our own choices and preferences willingly, to live in a way that pleases Him who loves us beyond measure”.
“We are called to honour and love Christ, even if this means we come into conflict with society’s prevailing views on this and other issues,” he said.
And Mr Carson has encouraged Presbyterians to carefully examine what the report from last week’s General Assembly states. “The report was not about preventing anyone from attending worship, coming into church, receiving communion, or having access to pastoral care. Neither was it about being attracted to someone of the same sex,” he said.
“In the context of the Church’s position on biblical marriage, the report was providing guidance to our ministers and Kirk Sessions with particular reference to couples in same-sex relationships.
“A credible profession of faith is something that goes to the heart of Christian disciple- ship. The General Assembly reaffirmed what the Presbyterian Church has always taught, namely that everyone who professes Jesus Christ as Lord are committing themselves to being faithful and obedient followers of Jesus Christ and his teaching.”
Earlier this week, high-profile businesswoman and lifelong Presbyterian Lesley Macaulay — whose daughter is in a longterm same-sex relationship — quit the church over its decision and urged others to rethink their allegiance to it.
“I would love church members to say enough is enough, we’re not supporting this any more. This is definitely the start of a more fundamental approach,” she said.
“Resignation is a big decision. I don’t want to force anyone to do that, but I do want them to examine themselves. Can they support an institution that’s making these sort of decisions and causing this hurt and pain?”
Former Speaker of the Stormont Assembly Lord Alderdice, whose father was a Presbyterian clergyman, also suggested the church was on course to become indistinguishable from the Free Presbyterian Church founded by the late Ian Paisley.
And joining the social media condemnation, Alliance Party leader Naomi Long MLA wrote on Twitter: “As a Presbyterian this grieves me greatly: my heart is broken.”
But Mr Carson said: “Looking on and reading much of what has been said and written it’s not surprising. Since the days of the early church, the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord has often placed Christians at odds with their surrounding culture.
“The Bible makes clear what God’s will is for us as sexual beings, and it speaks unambiguously about the nature and purpose of marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman. We cannot ignore this clear teaching. We should set aside our own choices and preferences willingly.”
Last month, the Church of Scotland took a step towards allowing ministers to conduct same-sex marriages. The head of the Scottish church, which is considered the mother organisation of the Irish Presbyterian Church, will no longer be invited to the annual meeting of the Presbyterian General Assembly in Belfast. And the leader of the Irish church will no longer be sent to the Scottish General Assembly.
Ordinary citizens could be forgiven for scratching their heads and wondering what on Earth their Lordships in the Supreme Court in London had decided in relation to the abortion case brought by our Human Rights Commission. In their decision, the majority of the Supreme Court dismissed the Human Rights Commission case, because, they said, the commission had no standing to bring such an abstract challenge to court.
The commission had decided to proceed to court without producing a victim of our so-called “inhuman law”. They embarked on this legal enterprise with taxpayers’ money, totaling almost a quarter-of-a-million pounds. What the commission asserts, rather audaciously, is that its position has been vindicated despite the fact that its case was dismissed by their Lordships.
The commission asserts that the Supreme Court decided that the current law was incompatible with human rights law, in particular Article 8 of the European Convention. However, there was no binding decision in this respect and no declaration of incompatibility.
Rather, what the court said by majority opinion was that, if they had an opportunity, they would notionally have said that Northern Ireland law was incompatible with Article 8 of the convention in prohibiting abortion on the basis of fatal foetal abnormality and sexual crime. They gave an opinion, not a binding decision.
And, of course, if there was another case, this time with a “victim”, and the specific individual circumstances of that “victim”, the court could change its notional opinion.
This is a new commission and it would be interesting to know if this commission endorsed the views of the majority decision of the previous commission to proceed with this appeal to the Supreme Court.
Remember, the commission’s case in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was thrown out on the basis that Article 8 was not engaged and that the European Convention gave a wide discretion to the Assembly on abortion law. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal did not conclude that there was any breach of human rights law here.
According to law, the commission is supposed to be representative of the community. It is, therefore, strange — given the deep political and religious divisions on abortion within our society — that the commission chose to focus so much time and energy on the dubious project of extending abortion into our law.
It would be interesting to know, for example, whether the new commission members were selected on the basis of whether they were or were not in support of abortion.
The notional opinion advanced by the Supreme Court on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) is an unprecedented and radical departure from the position of the European Court of Human Rights, that has consistently said in its judgments that Article 8 is not engaged in abortion cases.
Article 8 of the convention cannot be used, or interpreted, as conferring a right to access abortion. Perhaps the best way of determining the issue legally is for the matter to go to the European Court in Strasbourg for a definitive judgment.
In their other opinion, on serious foetal abnormality, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the view of the commission that serious foetal abnormality should constitute a valid ground for an abortion consistent with human rights law. The court’s opinion was that a disabled child should be treated as having equal worth in human terms as a non-disabled child.
The commission has from the outset of these proceedings adopted an extreme view on serious foetal abnormality and has rigorously sought, through its various legal proceedings, to have this category established for legal abortion in Northern Ireland. But this was rejected by the High Court and the Court of Appeal in their respective judgments.
It is truly extraordinary that, despite these judicial rebuffs, the commission doggedly persisted in pursuing this extreme view to the Supreme Court. This position is clearly outside the “hard cases” argument around fatal foetal abnormality and sexual crime.
This position is at odds with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (part of our domestic law), which says that you should not discriminate against disabled people.
Which raises the question: why has the commission not fought for the rights of disabled unborn babies under the convention, instead of pursuing an openly anti-disability policy?
The commission should justify its position and show a bit of transparency in its decision-making. It is a public body and should be accountable for its actions.
The result in this case was, indeed, confusing and is by no means conclusive.
There is sufficient in the substance of this judgment for pro-life advocates to take heart and fight on.
This is certainly not the end of the struggle to prevent the inhuman, cruel and violent act of abortion becoming law here.