Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Scotland: Glasgow kirk splits from Church of Scotland over gay clergy

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. A fantastic example of what churches mean by brotherly love and loving their neighbour – stigmatising others due to their orientation.

  2. Kornelijus Norvidas 14 Jun 2012, 10:50pm

    Big step in wrong direction. Good luck and good night!

  3. I hope they don’t get the Tron church property. Mind you, if Glasgow is like anywhere else, it will be full of redundant churches, they can have their pick.

  4. Please forgive this ignorant American. Would someone please define “kirk?”

    1. Its Scots for a church

    2. Originally the Scottish word for church, it now refers to the Church of Scotland specifically.

      1. Although some people still use it as the word for a church building.

        1. Yes, it can still be used in that sense, but only for a Church of Scotland building (I’m not sure about it’s offshoots). A catholic church building would never be called a kirk. I was trying to explain how the Church of Scotland as an organisation is referred to as the Kirk, probably the most common usage of the word.

          1. Yes it would be a protestant building eg CoS – possibly offshoots … not RC or probably Methodist etc

          2. But I think that before the reformation it simply meant a church building – catholic, obviously.

          3. Now, youve got me – I have no idea what happened pre reformation!

          4. I’m not 100% sure myself, but I think that’s right!

          5. New Aussie 15 Jun 2012, 5:21am

            Prereformation they were all kirks, as in St Giles Kirk etc etc. Kirk is just the scots word for a church building (derived from scandinavian/germanic) as distinct from The Kirk with a definite article, which is the church of scotland.

          6. Paul Halsall 15 Jun 2012, 11:57am

            When I lived in Scotland 25 years ago the question “Kirck of chapel?” meant “Are you protestant of Catholic?”

    3. It is in fact the old Anglian word for ‘Church’ – the latter is the Saxon form of the same word. Since the Angles dominated the East and North after the Anglo-Saxons arrived in the 5th & 6th centuries, some of their vocabulary persists there and had a big influence on Scots English. ‘Kirk’ is still also seen in parts of the North of England. The Saxon form ‘Church’ became normative because of the evolution of ‘standard’ English in the South of the island.

  5. So sad but sounds like a strong biased congregation any ways this is probably an excuse to go off on their own

  6. The Church of Scotland should seek to retain the premises

    1. Accodring to a statement to the BBC by the Church of Scotland yesterday they said that no decisions had yet been reached about the building or the financial amounts owed to the CoS but that the CoS were determined to maintain a presence in Glasgow city centre. Sounds to me like they are thinking about keeping the building – and so they should!

  7. I would assume, that, like most other kirks, this one allows remarriage after divorce. If this is the case, the St George’s Tron Kirk is demonstrating its hypocrisy. The NT prohibits this. Jesus never said anything against homosexuality, it was left up to his henchman, the late comer Paul. And what do his teachings tell us? The specific passage, often translated as “homosexual” uses the word “arsenokoton” (in it’s various usages). Supporters of that word meaning “homosexual” claim Paul had to invent a word as there wasn’t word back then meaning homosexual. This is false. In “Wasps”, Aristophanes used the word “kataphugon”, which then meant what we would describe nowadays as a gay man. In looking at the other words used by Paul, It is clear what he is condemning is sex as a method of worship (i.e., pornoi, etc), and therefore arsenokoitai has nothing to do with homosexuality as we now understand it.

    1. Furthermore, in that passage in Romans, where Paul talks about men turning away from men, it is *beyond their nature*, not against (i.e., straight men turning gay). The Greek word used is “paraphysin”, the word “para” meaning beyond, If he had truly meant “against nature”, he would have used “kataphysin” (as he does elsewhere in the bible), “kata” meaning against. So once again, fundamentalists at tripped by the mistranslations of their own sacred book, their own vox deus, or voice of god. Using the bible as an excuse for anything, is the vos deus excuse “because god says so”, yet what they do not realise, is that the vox deus excuse is about as useful as as the deus ex machina.

      1. Thanks for that, Calum – very interesting.

  8. Since this is a Scottish story…! I got an e-mail from my SNP constituency MSP saying’s she’s undecided on marriage equality, which is strange since she sent me a letter months ago saying she was in favour of it and would vote for it. I wonder why she’s now undecided and if other MSPs who have stated their support could do the same.

    1. I am still convinced it will happen in Scotland, BennieM

      Out of interest, why did you ask a second time?

      1. I didn’t, I e-mailed her to ask her to sign the Equal Marriage Pledge, which was still under the majority at the time. They went over it 4 days later. I thought as she’d already told me she’d vote for it then she’d sign it no bother. I just got her reply back today. I find it really strange that an MSP with pro-equality views should suddenly now be unsure.

        1. Yes I think it probably will still happen, but I’m very curious as to her change of heart. It’s unusual for someone to go from liberal views to conservative views, it’s usually the other way around. Is she scared of losing her seat if she votes for it? Is there some kind of pressure being put on SNP members not to vote for it? Who knows.

          1. I hope its just your worrying … but the backlash of them backing down on this would be something they can not even begin to imagine

          2. And in her e-mail she went out of her way to say she supports civil partnerships but is “undecided on the marriage part” – the fact she’s talking about CPs in that way makes me think she’s saying they’re enough. Coming from someone who told me just a few months ago in no uncertain terms that she was in favour of same sex marriage and would vote for it has set the alarm bells ringing!

          3. I hope it’s nothing to worry about to. It could just be this one MSP who’s changed her mind like this, and she hasn’t said she won’t vote for. But it’s still very strange to go from strongly in favour of it to undecided. Not long to go now, we should hear in a few days if the Scot Gov are going ahead with it, and I’m 99% certain they will.

  9. New Aussie 15 Jun 2012, 5:17am

    The Rev William Phillip, or Willie, was one of my closest friends at school when I was younger. We fell out of touch until I saw his name heading up the campaign against Scott Rennie.

    We had both been very religious at school but while he carried on into the ministry, I came out and became a Quaker .

    I wrote to him in indignation and met hip with him at our school reunion in Edinburgh in the summer of 2010. He maintains that he is not homophobic and has gay friends, myself included, but that he cannot accept that gay men or women can serve in the ministry of the church. Needless to say I disagreed.

    I am very sad that he has persisted in this idiocy. He is an otherwise charming man and I hope that one day he regrets and repents.

  10. Equality Network 15 Jun 2012, 7:50am

    Our survey doesn’t “suggest” that a majority of MSPs support equal marriage; it puts it completely beyond doubt.

    Only counting MSPs who have said publicly, or in writing to us or to constituents, that they support marriage equality, there are now 72 (out of 129 MSPs total) in support, with only 9 opposed.

    See:
    http://www.equalmarriage.org.uk/support

    1. Equality Network 15 Jun 2012, 7:54am

      Incidentlly, BennieM, I believe you said that your constituency MSP was Margaret Burgess, and that she had previously told you she’s in favour? She’s not included in our count of 72 in favour because we were unable to confirm with her that she is currently taking a position in favour.

      1. Yes, I’ve left a few comments above about how she has gone from telling she was in favour and that she would vote for equal marriage a few months ago to now saying she’s undecided. I know it makes no difference to your list as she hadn’t declared, but if one MSP can do this, is it possible others could too? That’s my worry. I know you only have my word on her change, but it’s true. I’ve asked her to clarify it, btw.

  11. Equality Network 15 Jun 2012, 8:33am

    The Equality Network’s survey does not just suggest that there’s a majority of MSPs in favour; it puts it beyond doubt.

    72 MSPs (out of 129 total) have so far said publicly, or in writing to to us or to constituents, that they support equal marriage; and only 9 that they oppose it.

    BennieM, we could not confirm with your constituency MSP that she supports equality, so she is not included in the 72.

    See:
    http://www.equalmarriage.org.uk/support

    1. Equality Network 15 Jun 2012, 8:34am

      Oops, really sorry for the duplication – my previous comments took so long to appear that I thought I hadn’t posted them right!

    2. I think PN probably used the word “suggested” because there’s no guarantee every single MSP who signed the pledge will vote for it in the end. That’s unlikely in my opinion, I think most if not all will vote for it, but you have to remember that the Lib Dem betrayal over the tuitions fees pledge is still fresh in peoples minds. In saying that, the situation is different as this isn’t an election pledge, for example so there should be no reason for an MSP in favour of marriage equality to change their mind, whereas the Lib Dems got into government by doing so. But until it actually gets to the vote in the Scottish Parliament, we don’t know exactly who’ll vote for it, whatever they say at the moment.

  12. And thus they shall wither away now that they have cut themselves from the vine.
    Good riddance.

  13. It’ll end up as a new disco.

  14. Fantastic news.

    Any time I read a story about infighting in religious cults, it makes me smile.

    A divided church is a less powerful church.

    Bring it on.

  15. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2012, 10:52am

    Good riddance then!

    Who wants bigots in their group. I’m sure twice the amount will join up, than those leaving.

    1. William is not actually a bigot and it troubles me that he felt the need to do this. I am sad more than angry

      1. New Aussie

        I appreciate that he is your friend. I appreciate you know him better than probably any other poster on here. I appreciate that you may even be able to give highly praiseworthy accounts of his support for LGBT people in some situations.

        However, his conduct in this matter is dogmatic, unprincipled and, yes, bigoted.

        I understand why you would be sad that a friend would act like this despite your attempts to reason with him.

      2. If this was about black people then he’d be called a racist, no question about it. Would you still defend him then? So why make excuses for him when it’s about his bigoted and homophobic attitude towards gay people?

        1. New Aussie 16 Jun 2012, 1:10am

          It is hard to explain. Willie believes that everything he does must be tested against scripture. The ordaining of individuals in civil partnerships has no justification in scripture so he opposes it. It is rather different from hating gay people or what they do. He has stayed a friend to me and to others who are gay and for all my misgivings about the stupidity of this move I cannot find it I’m myself to lambast him as a two dimensional cartoon bigot.

          1. It difficult to see someone who is a good friend behave in a bigoted way

            Its possible to be nice to people but also not believe they are equal, or entitled to equal rights.

            That appears to be what your friend is suggesting.

            I would also suggest his understanding of Scripture is false – where does he love a neighbour by treating people with less value than others because of how they are born? Its a fatuous manner of behaving towards people – not based on pact, logic or reason – and does nto demonstrate love, care or honour – even if, the cosmetic appearance is that they do.

          2. New Aussie

            I supose it’s easy for me to label him a bigot. On the other hand, you personally know him and don’t think this label applies.

            You’re saying he doesn’t discriminate against gay people in general, only on the specific point of them being church ministers, is that right?

            Even taking that into account, I still think it’s bigoted to discriminate against people for any reason under any circumstances.

  16. Boohoo.

  17. Isobel Mc Cabe 28 May 2013, 6:46pm

    Where does it say in the bible that John will marry James and Mary marry Ruth.
    What a total embarrassment you as are as a church to us members.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all