The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) meets this week in Belfast. For the first time since 1858, members of the Presbyterian congregation in Sandymount will not be entitled to representation. Why? Because the Presbyterian-Methodist Alternating Ministry Scheme has been dissolved (because it has proved incompatible with requirements set by the Charities Regulator according to the church), and Christ Church Sandymount has been placed under exclusively Methodist governance.
For the congregation, the severing of links with its Presbyterian heritage (which also led to the early retirement of its incumbent Presbyterian minister) is a matter of much regret. No doubt some will be relieved that this year’s general assembly may pass without need to confront the controversy over same-sex marriage which has been such a live issue over the past three years, particularly in the Dublin and Munster Presbytery. But it would be a great mistake to think that, having rid itself of its most “troublesome” congregation, this controversy is now gone.
The church’s handling of this case has caused it enormous reputational damage and has left a legacy of widespread disquiet. Some members have left in disgust; many who remain are deeply embarrassed and disillusioned. There are many facets which need to be examined and reflected upon humbly and honestly, ranging across church doctrine, pastoral care, human rights, constitutional law, privacy, fair process, transparency and accountability.
The issue of same-sex relationships came to the fore in the PCI in 2018 when the assembly adopted a report from the Doctrine Committee which stated baldly: “In light of our understanding of Scripture and the Church’s understanding of a credible profession of faith it is clear that same-sex couples are not eligible for communicant membership . . . We believe that their outward conduct and lifestyle is at variance with a life of obedience to Christ.”
Car hire firms have their financial fingers burned by electric vehicles
Who is JD Vance? Rhetorical bomb-thrower, Trumpian conservative, symbol of the American dream
An Irish flight attendant on the top five most annoying things passengers do
Ciarán Murphy: Mass hysteria in store even if Clare don’t drink Cork’s milkshake
Such a far-reaching and sensitive report would normally have been first noted by the assembly, sent out to local presbyteries for consultation and feedback, and a revised version returned to the assembly a year later for further discussion or final approval. But in 2018, with little notice or opportunity for informed debate, the assembly was forced into an immediate open vote. Acceptance was of course a fait accompli.
A significant minority registered formal dissent from the decision, and shortly afterwards over 200 ministers and elders signed an open letter titled “A cry from the heart”, publicly expressing their “profound sense of hurt, dismay and anger” – among them the minister and elders of Christ Church Sandymount.
The church soon set about putting its newly adopted policy into action and, although the Doctrine Committee’s report stated that “these decisions are to be made with charity”, in practice a heavy-handed and oppressive line was followed. I have bitter personal experience of this as, although I have never been a member of PCI, my husband Steven Smyrl was an elder in Sandymount and was ultimately dismissed because of our same-sex marriage – the policy’s first “test case”.
The Doctrine Committee never specifically defined the phrase “outward conduct and lifestyle”, although elsewhere they stated that “homosexual activity is not consistent with Christian discipleship”. But, short of installing cameras in bedrooms, how can such a judgment be safely and definitively made? The minister who instigated proceedings against Steven submitted as evidence screenshots taken surreptitiously from our social media accounts, but these were essentially nothing more than holiday snaps – hardly definitive evidence of “homosexual activity”.
Church authorities later castigated the minister and church council of Christ Church Sandymount for failing to “challenge” us about our relationship. But to do so would have directly breached our legal right to privacy in family life under both the Irish Constitution (as confirmed by the Supreme Court ruling in the 1973 McGee case) and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The reality is that there are numerous reasons why people (particularly those in middle age), gay or straight, enter into civil marriages. Beyond the most obvious – companionship – these include: mutual support and caring, security, inheritance, and next-of-kin rights and responsibilities. Sexual activity of any kind cannot be assumed.
When challenged again on this recently, church authorities issued an extraordinary statement: “such [same-sex] relationships, whether or not they involve sexual relations, are not compatible with ordained leadership within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.”
If “sexual relations” are irrelevant, what precisely are the characteristics and behaviours that disqualify gay people from positions of leadership? No matter how hard PCI might try to dress it up in supposed scriptural authority, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that with this statement the mask has finally slipped, revealing that policy on this issue is rooted in straightforward homophobic prejudice.
As its leaders meet this week, PCI would do well to reflect on the many lessons to be learned from the Smyrl/Sandymount controversy – not least, that in all its actions the church must pay due attention to human rights and privacy laws, and above all must treat all its members equally, with appropriate dignity and respect.