At the beginning of this week I promised readers a bilious and bruising assembly. It has not turned out entirely that way.
The bile has been ducted into recording dissent over lottery passions. The throbbing discontent within the board of communication has been contained by a commission of inquiry. But it has not gone away.
Today it may leak out in the nominations report when the acting communications convener (the Rev David MacLeod) and his sidekick (the Rev Alan Sorensen) come up for endorsement. There are moves afoot to express no confidence in them, and another motion already tabled insists that their tenure continues only on an acting basis. It is the stuff of which an eleventh hour drama might be made.
Less dramatic will be the report of the panel on doctrine on the interpretation of scripture, but in my view it is much more symbolic of the real tensions in today's Kirk. The report, in summary, says it does not matter if people take different messages from the same Bible passage. It prefers the process of pilgrimage to a precise destination.
This clearly is not enough for the Rev Peter White, formerly principal of Glasgow Bible College, who wants the Kirk ''''to accept the view of scripture which sees all of it as the written Word of God''. No fudge. No grey areas. Clarity rules OK? Well, not quite OK if you want to try to hold together the spectrum of types and theologies which so evidently make up the Kirk.
This perennial conflict between liberals and conservative evangelicals also surfaced today in two ways.
First, the anger of the conservatives that the fundamentalist-friendly Highland Theological Institute in Moray was smeared by the Kirk's education committee when it described its courses as too narrow to deserve endorsement as part of a university of the Highlands.
Second, the contention of Larbert minister Rev Cliff Rennie that evangelical ministers were suffering stress because doctrine was being watered down. As the shenanigans in the Free Church have proved in recent years, the way in which these tensions are resolved are critical to the unity and peace of a denomination.
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