Q: What has happend so far? A: In June 2008, Rev Robert F Brown, retired from Queen's Cross. In accordance with church procedure, the church appointed a nominating committee.On January 6 the presbytery voted in favour of the call. Some 86% of the church's congregation and more than two-thirds of the presbytery voted for Mr Rennie. Twelve Kirk members protested. None of the 12 appellants are members of Queen's Cross Church but are members of the presbytery.
Q: What did the appellants say? A: Complaints included that members were not told immediately Mr Rennie was gay and would live with his partner and added: "The ordination and induction of homosexuals has never been the accepted practice of the Church of Scotland or the Church catholic, except where there has first been a clear debate and decision to ordain active homosexuals." They also claimed the appointment was contrary to the commitment of "prayerful dialogue" urged by the General Assembly.
Q: What parties are called? A: First, the complainers introduce themselves and then the defenders introduce themselves. The convener of the earlier Investigating Committee has the chance to speak. Also present will be Kirk's Working Party on Human Sexuality. Parties will be heard and make oral pleadings. Questions may come from the floor of nearly 1000 commissioners. Parties leave the room, the motion - which may by that time have ben amended - is called and the private electronic vote made.
Q: Is there any mandate to vote or is it indivudual? A: Voting is individual.
Q: How many people are allowed to vote? A: All commissioners, including ministers, deacons and elders.
Q: What next? A: If it is decided against his appointment at Queen's Cross, Mr Rennie will theoretically remain at Brechin, but he had also previously applied for a post in Jerusalem. If he is appointed, however, there is still the possibility of a moratorium which could mean further examination of existing and new gay ministers within the Church for up to a year, which could potentially affect his role.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article