Sir, – To make the case that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) should have relied on its own beliefs to find resources upon which it could change its direction and protect its reputation, Prof Ruth Whelan (Letters, January 12th) quotes from chapter 31 of our church's Confession of Faith: "all synods and councils, since the apostle's times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice but are to be used as a help in both."
The inference being that an admission in our confessional statement that from time to time the councils of our church get it wrong is enough to suggest that we should be a church that maintains “a space for engagement, conversation, and discernment”.
I thoroughly agree.
It’s not quite clear what Prof Whelan wants the church to discuss in this space, though I could hazard a guess from the context that it’s about the Confession of Faith’s chapter 30 on the power of the church to censure the impenitent and especially chapter 24 which has a definition of marriage that delimits it to being between one man and one woman.
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
What your readers might not be aware of is that the PCI has made plenty of space to discuss these issues and with regard to homosexuality our General Assembly has had discussions touching on it somewhat regularly since 1979.
In all of these, it has come to the conclusion that the Bible, and hence God, is condemnatory of homosexual sexual activity.
It’s true the PCI believes that we get it wrong from time to time but simply because we may have erred does not mean that we have erred.
Arguments would need to be put forward that the worldwide historical view and still worldwide majority view within Christianity – and indeed most other religions – is wrong.
But at every meeting the PCI has had on these topics none has been forthcoming that has even come close to convincing the necessary amount of voters at our General Assembly.
Instead I, and it would appear the great majority of ordinary Presbyterians, have found plenty in our discussions and decisions that have been “a help in both” of our faith and practice.
Your editor ("The Irish Times view on the churches and gay rights: the road to irrelevance", January 9th) and others of late in this newspaper have condemned the PCI as being on the road to irrelevance and laid the blame solely at the feet of those who have made the decisions we have.
Perhaps, though, the erring is elsewhere. – Yours, etc,
Rev RICHIE CRONIN,
Trinity Presbyterian
Church,
Cork.
Sir, – Prof Ruth Whelan’s illuminating comments on the current controversy at Christ Church Sandymount (Letters, January 12th) expose a fundamental flaw in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland’s heavy-handed attempt to enforce what it claims to be its “settled position” on same-sex relationships. Such a concept, claiming conclusive and perpetual status, does not conform to the constitutional framework of the church (its “subordinate standards”).
Indeed, many are of the opinion that the resolution passed by the General Assembly in 2018 denying full membership to same-sex couples – the basis of Steven Smyrl’s dismissal as an elder the following year – was unconstitutional as the correct procedures (which would have allowed for adequate prior discussion and discernment) were not observed.
But how can these deficiencies be challenged?
Those at the receiving end have attempted to use PCI’s appeals mechanisms repeatedly to contest what they perceive to be procedural flaws and generally unfair treatment, but have been rebuffed at every turn without adequate explanation or justification.
There is a distinct deficit in accountability which inexorably leads to injustice.
As Prof Whelan observes: “Real evil can be done, by individuals and systemically, under institutional cover.” – Yours, etc,
ROY STANLEY,
Rathgar,
Dublin 6.