For those Kirk members who feel compelled to leave the Church following today’s vote, the question of where they go is littered with potential problems, both theological and practical. If, as it would seem, it is more likely those in the traditionalist wing of the Church walk, then there are two options.
The first is to splinter entirely and form themselves into an entirely new presbyterian church. Such an outcome would be similar to that of the Disruption in 1843, when the Kirk split over the Church’s relationship with the state, resulting in the formation of the Free Church of Scotland….
The second path would see members of the Kirk moving to the Free Church of Scotland, which holds a staunchly conservative view on homosexuality….
Well, there’s always Rome or the Orthodox Church, amongst other pastures.
#1 – There’s always Ft. Worth.
[blockquote] “According to Kirk sources, though, it is thought that some departing congregations who have invested heavily in their own churches may try to retain their rights over the buildings. Parties on both sides of the debate say that such a move would be both legally difficult and contentious, with some senior Kirk members stating that there is nothing in Church law that would allow them to do it.
The second path would see members of the Kirk moving to the Free Church of Scotland, which holds a staunchly conservative view on homosexuality. According to one Kirk source, theological groundwork has already been done by the Free Church to ease the path for any new members. “The Church recently held a special assembly where they voted that they would sing hymns as well as psalms. …” [/blockquote]
Congregations leaving and taking the property, congregations walking out and leaving the property, etc – None of this would be necessary if the Kirk had not been so foolish. There is a very simple way to avoid such troubles – don’t endorse the ordination or consecration of practicing homosexuals in the first place!