Talk:Church of Scotland

message: Every Christian Church recognises Jesus Christ as its Supreme Head. If this is mentioned in the Church of Scotland, I expect it to have it mentioned in the article about every single Christian denomination. Lacrimosus 22:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference is specific to England and Scotland.  At the reformation Henry VIII declared himself Supreme Head, later Supreme Governor was used because that title did not challenge of the position of Jesus Christ garryq 01:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, that makes sense. Lacrimosus 12:19, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I think I edited myself too much.  Something about Henry VIII could go into the main article. garryq 13:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: We know that. They were talking about the Church of England. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Supreme Head

message: The article Act of Settlement disambiguates between half a dozen of that name.  The Act of Settlement 1690 established the Church of Scotland.  This red link is to provoke someone into writing it!   --Red King 19:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So would someone care to care to write Act of Settlement 1690?  (and maybe correct the disambiguation line in Act of Settlement where it says that the 1690 Act "established" the C of S.  Should it say "recognised"?  Better still, it should use (if possible) the wording of the Act. --Red King 11:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Act of Settlement 1690

message: Can I encourage you all not to overuse the word "Kirk" as a "name" for the Church of Scotland?  You do hear it affectionately, especially in the press, but you also hear it used patronisingly, especially by High Anglicans, some of whom will perform cartwheels to avoid giving the Church of Scotland its proper name.  Not that I want to purge this word entirely; it has a nice homely ring to it, and it IS used in the proper name of many church buildings (High Kirk of Edinburgh).  But with reference to the whole of the national church, people within the church are more likely to use the abbreviation CofS (even in speech!) or - when the context is clear - just "the Church".  (If in doubt, see the website of the CofS for the language used there.) --Doric Loon 2 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)
:I take your point, Loon, however I'm not too worried about what High Anglicans think as they are generally pretty out of touch with reality in my opinion. My Doric speaking relatives, Presbyterians all, generally refer to the Kirk rather than the Church whether they are talking about the building or the institution. Of course they also talk about the "English Kirk" when the conversation turns to the Scottish Episcopal Church or the Church of England, so I would say that the Kirk/Church difference is just as much a linguistic marker as a political one. The best way to fight patronising use of a word is to use it seriously and unashamedly in its proper context. Avoiding its use means that the only use it will see is in the mouths of the patronising and that cannot be a good thing. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Life and Work probably should be mentioned in the article. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 22:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not clear who you are disagreeing with nor what you are disagreeing about. Could you clarify that ? -- Derek Ross |  Talk 20:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kirk

message: I notice User:Padrea's useful contribution to the history section. I think that the history section should probably be kept quite brief - a simple skeleton overview. If not it has the potential to swamp the article with info that is not terribly illuminating on the modern CofS. I have wondered for a while whether a separate History of the Church in Scotland might be useful - does anyone have any thoughts? Would you be interested in helping with that?  
The description of Knox's superintendence system as a 'modified for of episcopacy' is one I would question - as episcopacy = oversight, I suppose technically you are correct. But theologically it was miles from Episcopalianism and nothing like the Anglican model - perhaps we need language that is a little less definitive. --Doc (?) 11:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The CoS has an "action-packed" history and I think that a separate article would be a great idea. Go for it! -- Derek Ross |  Talk 15:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, episcopacy is not at all the same thing as Episcopalianism, so I think there is no ambiguity there.  As I understand it, Knox did want to keep bishops, but give them a different rôle in the Church's structure.  And indeed the CofS does still have bishops today: a parish minister who is given oversight of a theology student or minister on probation is referred to as his or her bishop.  I'm not sure that most lay members of the Church know that, though.  (I still remember MY first bishop - his only piece of advice was "marry a rich woman".  I didn't!) --Doric Loon 18:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Out of interest, I notice that there is no longer any reference to the "Wee frees" in this section, why not? I came looking for an explanation of the term (I'd run across it in a book: the excelent stargazing, memories of a young lighthouse keeper) and could only find it on one of those obnoxious sites that just recycle wikipedia content.--stib 12:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because they are a different denomination.  They have their own article, but to make it easier, I have just created a redirect: Wee Frees.--Doric Loon 12:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I originally looked for Wee frees, but all that turned up was something about a science fiction book in a seies called Discworld (..?). One of wikipedia's big weaknesses is that it is groaning with trivia about subjects of interest only to geeks, while thin on stuff that normal people might be looking for. I guess that's the nature of an encyclopaedia that anyone.. erm.. anyone with access to a computer and time on their hands can edit-stib 23:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wee Frees

message: While I'm no fan of category clutter, I think this article does merit inclusion in the :Category:Scotland. The CofS is the largest religious denomination and the national church. It seems crazy that to find it from the Scotland Category one needs to navigate :Category:Religion in Scotland :Category:Presbyterianism in Scotland to :Category:Church of Scotland to the aticle itself. I'm happy enough not to have the article in Presbyterianism (since the category is there). --Doc ask? 11:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: (prior to the Anglo-Scottish Union known formally as the Kirk of Scotland}
:I've removed this from the intro - it is important, but an article on the church which deals with the church today and its history doesn't want tis level of detail in the introductory sentence. My intention had been to put it into history section, and I'm happy to do that. But two questions first. 1) Can we verify that this was the formal name? 2) Does the 'anglo-scottish union' refer to the union of the crowns (1606) or parliaments (1707)? Can we check both before reinseting. As I say, if clarified and verified, this should be included in the history section, perhaps in its lead sentence. --Doc ask? 13:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far I was aware the nomenclature was "Established Church" or "Established Kirk", known informally after 1846 as the Auld Kirk.  "Kirk of Scotland" could very well have been the formal name and following the Union of 1707 the name could have been Anglicised. Davidkinnen 14:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is also mentioned / discussed at kirk; maybe that's enough?  --Doric Loon 02:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature  

message: Are there any members of the Church of Scotland reading these pages; or, more to the point, are there any who know the real facts behind the history of the church in Scotland?  Anyway, the section on the history of the church here is a complete muddle, the result, I imagine of multiple (and uninformed) editing.
Here are the changes I've made to correct the wholesale confusion this piece managed to convey.
First and foremost, it is important to understand that there is no conflict between Calvinism-a theological doctrine-and Episcopacy-a form of church government.  The Church of Scotland, before 1638 and after 1661, was both Calvinist and Episcopalian, different in every way from High Church Anglicanism.  
The Reformation Parliament of 1560 abolished papal jurisdiction and adopted Calvin's Confession of faith; but it most definately did not adopt the 'polity' set out the First Book of Discipline, which wanted to see all of the assets of the old church pass to the new.  The acts of the Reformation Parliament remained unratified throughout the reign of Queen Mary.  The office of bishop, moreover, did not disappear.  Knox, himself, had no clear views on this question, suggesting that these individuals be renamed as 'superintendats', but still retaining much of their traditional powers.  
The situation remained unclear for some years.  It was only in 1572, during the minority of King James, that the 1560 acts were finally approved.  At the same time the Concordat of Leith allowed the crown to appoint bishops with the approval of the church.  It was only now that a specifically Presbyterian party began to emerge, headed by Andrew Melville, the author of the Second Book of Discipline, who argued that bishops were 'unscriptural.'  
In the sew-saw struggle that followed the Presbyterian party enjoyed some temporary successes, particularly in the Golden act of 1592.  But the alliance between reformers and the nobility, so crucial for revolution of 1560, was steadily weakened by James; and the Presbyterian riots in Edinburgh in 1596 collapsed because the Melvillians had no powerful allies.  
From the beginning of the seventeenth century, James steadily reintroduced bishops at a parliamentary and then a diocesan level.  General Assemblies were deliberately managed, meeting only in the more conservative parts of the country, to ensure that royal policy was sucessfully implemented.  By the end of his reign all the ancient diocese of Scotland had bishops, including the archdiocese of Glasgow and St. Andrews.
The Scottish church at the outset of Charles I's reign was therefore Calvinist and Episcopal.  James had himself attempted some High Church innovations, most notably in the Five Articles of Perth, but backed down from full implementation when faced with resistance.  It was to be otherwise for his son.  
It was Charles's desire to create a national 'British' church by elevating and beautifying the plain Scottish practice in a more fitting Anglican way.  The Prayer Book of 1637 was the chief milestone along this road.  This book was compiled by a panel of Scottish bishops, including Archbishop Spottiswood of St. Andrews; but the secrecy insisted on by the king led to rumours that it was even more 'papist' than its English cousin.  
The National Covenant of 1638 says not a word about bishops.  This document was drawn up to focus opposition to Charles' untested reforms, and insisted that all such innovations be subject to scrutiny and approval by free parliaments and assemblies of the church.  The Bishops, as suspect agents of the king, were finally expelled from the church at the meeting of the Glasgow General Assembly in November 1638.  Then, and only then, was the Church of Scotland established on a full Presbyterian basis; and so the situation remained until the Restoration, when bishops made a reapperance.
Rcpaterson 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for tackling this; for some time I've been suggesting the need for the reformation in Scotland to be the subject of at least a section in Protestant Reformation, and preferably a new article, and this could form the basis of such an article. I'm glad to see your emphasis of the differences between the Kirk and C of E: this is an area to clarify if possible. I've seen it said that the more Calvinist factions in the Kirk gradually developed a preference for extempore prayer, which fuelled the reaction against imposition of the prayer book. The idea of superintendents seems to have been significantly different from bishops, in that they did not have the sacramental functions and were subject to the authority of the general assembly of the Kirk and elected rather than being under pope or king, but Michael Lynch describes the idea as being subverted from the outset when three bishops converted to Protestantism and were allowed to keep their positions. The more I look into this the more complex it looks, and getting the emphasis right will be welcome, ..dave souza, talk 23:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I know how you feel, but don't paint too black a picture.  There are Wiki editors with agendas - the radical Scottish Nationalist agenda and the extremer reaction to it will be two which will crop up on the pages you work on, but there will be others too, religious and political.  And there are people with a bee in their bonnet without much philosophy behind it.  And there are the purile idiots who just want to make a mockery or spread obscenities.  But the VAST majority of people working here are serious about the pursuit of objectivity and understanding. And very many are erudite people with important contributions to make.  If you make improvements where you see them needed, you will generally be met with gratitude and respect, especially if you explain your changes as thoroughly as you have been doing recently.  You do have to live with the fact that your texts will be changed, and be patient with the fact that not every change will seem to you like an improvement.  But Wikipedia is improving by the day (compare just about any major article with what was there two years ago!) and the community has proved itself worthy of a little patience.  So don't be discouraged.  Your contributions are greatly needed.  --Doric Loon 15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doric Loon's covered this better than I might have, however I will add that Wikipedia is a tremendous opportunity to improve access to knowledge, but can be a bit rough on experts. The basic policies, particularly perhaps WP:V, are well hammered out to value fact above opinion, but that also means that expert opinion is subject to the same need for published verification. I've had a look at the Auld Alliance, and should be able to stop that from getting any worse than you left it. It's easier for me as I'm interested in a lot of things I'm no expert in, but the danger is that my contribution to articles won't rise above the level of mediocrity set by my interpretation of my limited sources. However there's impressive work being done, and hope you'll be able to help to improve the standard which more bureaucracy minded souls like myself can strive to defend against the inevitable nuisances, using the procedures which have been well set up for that purpose. ..dave souza, talk 08:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scots, Bishops and Kings 

message: The article contradicts itself with regard to the recruitment of new clergy. (Version )
# The section current reform, in its first paragraph, reads "... However, the number of candidates (for the priesthood) has increased in recent years... ".
# The section current issues, in its second paragraph, reads "The Kirk is also facing a dramatic decline in vocations, with its leading theological training college scarcely viable ... (as of 2008)"
Now, it could be that the number of men being called to the priesthood fell, recovered in the early 2000's, but fell again after around 2005. However, I'm not sure of what is going on. CS Miller (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  Looking at the Herald article I wonder if the improvement in felt shortages is because the baseline has changed (full time posts reduced to 1000 from 1200 (or maybe 1400)) ... and if the increase in candidates is in those applying for part time unpaid posts.  Possibly the number of candidates has increased from a critically low number to a not-quite-so-critically low number.  I have tried an edit to improve things, but I may simply be papering over a real contradiction in the sources.  Springnuts (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: In 2011, Church of Scotland voted at its 2011 General Assembly to allow open gay and lesbian ministers, who live in civil unions. 
* Guardian:Church of Scotland votes to allow gay and lesbian ministers 92.252.126.195 (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not quite accurate. The Assembly voted to create a theological commission to report in 2013, with a view to allowing homosexual people to be ordained as ministers. The final decision will rest with the General Assembly of 2013. Meanwhile, ministers ordained before 2009 who are homosexual may continue in their posts without fear of sanction. (Drumhollistan (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right. It is not Wikipedia's job to take sides here. This side-swipe against the liberals is inappropriate. The same criticism could be levelled against some Evangelicals, but my impression is that for the most part both sides are listening to the other with a great deal of compassion - at any rate the assmebly debates suggested this. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also felt these sentences perhaps went against NPOV policy. I have tagged it with a . If this sentence is the stated point of a church leader or of a certain group representative of members of a more Evangelical or 'Auld Licht' perspective then it is perhaps admissible. However, if this is the case, this should be cited appropriately and should perhaps also be balanced with a counter-argument. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with the above that the debate seems to be an open and grown-up dialogue, thus it is perhaps unhelpful to describe it in such factional terms, and maybe better to just remove the sentance altogether? Benson85 (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your responses.  In the absence of any citation for such a sweeping statement, I have now deleted the final sentence.  Hopefully Benson's  will lead someone to provide a credible source supporting the other two. BruceBanbury (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordination of open LGBT clergy 

message: I removed a part of the entry concerning euthanasia because it was unsourced and seemed biased for me. Current views on the issue could be more adequately adressed in the "Current Issues" section. There are no given references for the polls and many Presbyterians could argue that John Cameron is by no means representative of the Church of Scotland since his views can be easily seen as materialistic and un-Christian. It would be like to claim that Jesus should have commited euthanasia the night before his crucifixion to avoid the extreme pain of it.81.193.189.2 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euthanasia 

message: There is a discussion at the United Kingdom's talk page about recent edits to United Kingdom which say that the Church of Scotland is the state religion of Scotland.  If anyone following this article has any insights, they would be appreciated. Connolly15 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sure. It's not. Furthermore its members spent a large part of its history fighting for it not to be a state religion. Victory was finally declared in the 1920s when HMG backed down and promised to stop interfering. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A minister I knew used to say that the church was not "established" but was "national". I wonder how much of this is to do with a definition of "state religion"? Springnuts (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing. It is established, but not the state religion. See  and . Rob984 (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can believers of the Church of Scotland become Kind/Queen of the UK?Sporting Musasi (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is an old comment, but as anyone who paid attention to the succession last year will know: the British monarch is a member of the Church of Scotland while in Scotland, and the first oath that the monarch takes on succession to defend the Church of Scotland. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Religion? 

message: Someone upload Flag again please: http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTp3yv7U02knMUe7QODBRF80mO4RvEuvvBVCUcilbw8co7nSW-Oem8J9I6v / http://u.jimdo.com/www21/o/sf8baaaab279158e5/img/i0d5401725dfd8d98/1307415267/orig/image.gif - It's the only one missed in the List of British Flags.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.140.93 (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Bishops in the Church of Scotland has been a stub for some time now, and the information found there could be incorporated into this article. To facilitate development of both pages, and provide context for the source page, I recommend a merge. --JFHutson (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is a bit larger than a stub. While there's no doubt that it could be merged with this one, I don't see a strong reason to do so. But I don't see a strong rationale against doing so either. Both articles have developed to the point where people don't feel the need to do anything more than tweaks. So merge if you want. However I think that adding references to the Bishops in the Church of Scotland article would probably be a more useful action then merging the two articles. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: This sentence in the History section makes no sense to me: "...after the Glorious Revolution the majority of Scottish bishops were non-jurors, and in response Presbyterian government was guaranteed by law..." Who exactly did what in response to what? What law or whose law guaranteed Presbyterian government? What does "Presbyterian government" even mean in this context? Also, "non-jurors" should be explained rather than just linked, as it is not a familiar word to anyone other than early modern British historians.  86.41.45.109 (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you  for the edit. It is much clearer now. I did a further tweak, because I think it is more comprehensible if you explain "non-juror" in terms of what the person did not swear rather than what he did.  86.41.35.255 (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. It all looks good now. And thanks for the original feedback. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: Substituted at 11:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Church of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707002938/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandChurch.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandChurch/QueenandChurch.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/02/20757/53570
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Church of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scojec.org/news/2013/13v_cos/cos.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/06/2067-the-end-of-british-christianity/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517183047/http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/churchwithoutwalls/index.htm to http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/churchwithoutwalls/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Church of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928105058/http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/abortion.htm to http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/abortion.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415084933/http://scottishchristian.com/churches/church-of-scotland/ to http://scottishchristian.com/churches/church-of-scotland/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Church of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160609230037/http://www.queenscrosschurch.org.uk/get-involved/our-partners/detail/affirmation-scotland/ to http://www.queenscrosschurch.org.uk/get-involved/our-partners/detail/affirmation-scotland/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why aren't we discussing this? --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any indication that this is widespread or institutionalised, that there was a cover-up or that clergy, elders or Kirk governing bodies were complicit? Are there related cases, whether in the courts or not? If so, it is more likely to be worthy of inclusion. If not, appalling as the individual case is, I'd be unsure. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child abuse 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* CofSBurningBushLogo.JPG
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion