A church that needs to create itself anew

Moments earlier they had learned to their horror that their fellow commissioners had voted to allow congregations to appoint gay ministers, a move which the Kirk's spin doctors were keen to portray as "historic" and which the Moderator, Lorna Hood, insisted was "a massive vote for the peace and unity of the Church".

She may think that but how many of those who endured a debate that was remarkable for its pomposity, piety and stolidity shared her sentiments? My impression, as a shameless eavesdropper, was one of weary dissatisfaction, that yet again the Kirk, when faced with making a difficult decision, had found a way to wriggle out of it. Its panjandrums, who inhabit its headquarters, 121 George Street, occasionally described as the Lubyanka, bow to no-one when it comes to sitting on fences, stalling for time and brushing untidy stuff under carpets. Thanks to their enervating guidance the Kirk moves at a glacial pace. Consequently, it's not the 21st century it needs to embrace but any century removed from that in which the authors of the Bible put pen to parchment.

It's now five years and more since Scott Rennie, an "openly gay" minister, was appointed in Aberdeen and four years since the Kirk took a beady interest in him. Since then the Kirk has acted like an escapologist who, after tying himself in knots, finds it impossible to free himself of his bonds.

The tactic it has employed is essentially one of delay. Two years ago it decided not to decide anything and instead appointed a commission to produce a report. Having done so it was expected finally to act but thanks to an intervention by the previous Moderator, Albert Bogle, a fudge was found which, while satisfying no-one, was enough for the moment to keep both sides on the argument – liberal and traditional – sweet.

Thus individual congregations will be allowed to recruit ministers who are gay. Or not as they see fit. In short, the Kirk has devolved responsibility to its parishes, some of whom are so dominated by swivel-eyed loons that there is about as much chance of them appointing a homosexual as there is one who wears a bra.

Not, of course, that anything is about to change imminently. First, a "theological forum" must investigate the whys and wherefores and may yet find that these are insurmountable. And while it does its work the moratorium on the appointment of gay clergy remains in place. So for at least a year everything must stay the same. Who knows what will happen thereafter.

I wish I could say I was surprised by this turn of events. That I am not is confirmation of my long-held suspicion that anonymous residents of the Lubyanka would find the means to ensure that both sides in this fractious debate would emerge from it able to claim they'd gained concessions. As ever proceedings were dominated by ministers, some of whom actually insisted they knew what God was thinking. Their presumption was breathtaking, their arrogance – their windbaggery – a wonder to behold, their tone of voice – unctuous, creepy, synthetically sympathetic – sickening. Who would want to attend a church in which such an individual haunted the pulpit? Who'd be daft enough to listen to a word they say?

Not me. I was once a member of the Church of Scotland, albeit of the pick and mix variety. I liked certain things about it – the emphasis on pastoral care, the Boys' Brigade, the sales of work, the sense of community – and ignored others.

My father was an elder and many of his spare hours were devoted to its service. I recall evenings visiting old folk who kept an impressive supply of shortbread. Their concerns were simple, their faith secure.

But as they move on the Kirk needs badly to regenerate, rather than alienate. And to do that it needs to stop trying to second-guess God and do some hard, modern thinking of its own.