I write to express a contrary view to parts of Iain A D Mann's letter about the General Assembly and gay clergy (Letters, April 26).
Technically, as a member of the Church of Scotland’s Mission and Discipleship Council, I was excused from that moratorium although I haven’t felt the need to exercise that privilege.
I was also a commissioner at the 2009 General Assembly and supported the moratorium.
I did not, and do not, feel that the moratorium stifled debate within the Kirk but rather prevented high-profile personalities conducting a debate in the public arena that was more properly a matter for discussion within the church.
At the Kirk session and presbytery meetings I attended, elders and presbyters were able to express their views.
In some congregations the DVD produced by the commission was shown for all members who were interested and the interim report of the commission was in the public domain.
Church members could, if they wished, submit their views in writing to their kirk session and ask for them to be forwarded to the commission or write directly to the commission.
As an elder, Iain Mann will know that church members can, and do, discuss this sort of matter with their elder and the elder could append their views to the kirk session response.
Finally, becoming an elder, while not involving signing the Official Secrets Act, does involve making promises and signing the formula which includes a clause to the effect: “I acknowledge the Presbyterian government of this church to be agreeable to the word of God, and promise that I will submit thereto and concur therewith.”
The Presbyterian form of governance used by the Church of Scotland to determine the will of God (which is not necessarily the same as the will of the people) involves the three courts of the Church – Kirk session, presbytery and General Assembly – and this has been consistent with the approach which has been taken by the commission.
Dr David Lewis,
Elder,
Alloway Parish Church of Scotland,
Alloway,
Ayr.
