Bruce You wrote:-
While there are many positions it is not enough just to
acknowledge that. The "Third Way" is to make a conscious and
definite
decision not to decide for any particular ethical position *at this
point
in time*, but it's more than that.
It is not just a "cop out" of saying we can't decide, of course we
can (but
the consequences would probably be disastrous for our church). Nor
is it
simply to acknowledge that there are a range of positions. It is a
commitment to keep working on it. It is a commitment to actually DO
something - to struggle with what it means to be a Uniting Church
and to
dialogue with those with whom we may agree on some things and
disagree on
others.
It is a commitment to be actively working towards finding the common
ground
rather than just feeling that the polarity is inevitable and there
is no
point in doing any more work on it.
My response:-
Simply for a bit more info from Assembly (I can't recall whether or not you
were there). There was actually an amendment proposed to the original
proposal 54 (84's ancestor) which was suggesting the adding of some words
which encouraged the church to continue the dialogue. The intent behind this
amendment was to prevent what occurred after the 2000 Assembly where many
assumed (though there was no actual minute saying so) that there should be a
halt to the dialogue for the time being. The proposers of this amendment
wanted some explicit wording encouraging the continuing of dialogue. I don't
believe the wording was as strong as you are suggesting about a "commitment
to keep working on it". This amendment along with other such minor
amendments to the main proposal were put before the small working groups.
However the facilitation group indicated that the small working groups had
only given very patchy support to this amendment and most of the others. The
only amendment that got through was the addition of the words "on some
issues" in the bit about being mutually exclusive positions so that it read
"people of faith have ... on some issues come to mutually exclusive
positions".
Why this did not get support we obviously do not know. My guess is people
were scared of anything that might derail the main proposal but that is just
my opinion and probably only one of many reasons.
Just some more info behind the scenes. Thanks for the clarification Bruce
and again I agree. Some might say we have been dialoguing for years, why
more. My experience locally has been that res 84 has actually woken some
people up to the current situation who have happily ignored it along with
most things 'Uniting' and have suddenly got a rude shock (from their
perspective). They have even said that even though they disagree with what
res 84 clarifies they appreciate that it at least has started them talking
about the issue more earnestly with each other. Even though I represented a
completely different perspective to them they appreciated learning more of
the history and the poking and prodding I was doing to get them to be more
specific about their own position rather than just say 'we disagree with
what the Assembly has done'. So you never know Bruce, res 84 (after the hype
has hopefully died down) may actually contribute to your third way by
stirring everybody to talk more about it. A hindsight thought - I nearly
deleted that last paranthetical remark. The hype is energy. Unfortunately
some of it is negative and downright nasty or simply crap (is that too
strong a word?), however the positive energy in the hype is actually
required to give your third way momentum.
regards
Andrew Watts
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
