A couple of responses Tom
"They" would be peeved because "the changes made have not changed the intent of Proposal 84" and for some people it is their interpretation of that intent which has got them all up in arms. All ready on of my fellow ministry team (one church council) members has expressed GREAT disappointment with the fact that the original intent of the Proposal, which in their minds is to allow the ordination of practising homosexual people, hasn't been addressed in the amendments made. I agree with what Andrew Watts wrote about the fact that one of the positives to come out of this uproar is the fact that the average pew sitter has suddenly realised they don't know much about the way the UCA is structured, and operates and that they have never even read the BOU. Casuarina has been through a process and come up with a position statement at the first meeting when the Synod Secretary came along to share about what happened at Assembly some 50-60 people turned up and when asked who had read the BOU less than 10 put up their hands, and of those only some 5 where members of the Ministry Team which has about 20 people on it. Another thought which I have made to some of the EMU supportive people in our Congregation is that Proposal 84 requires us to trust that other unknown members of the church in another Presbytery will after prayerful consideration and seeking God's will, determine the appropriateness of an individual to be ordained. The trust comes in that they will have heard from God, even though their decision may be different to the one we would have made. The lack of trust that is evident is because we find it difficult to trust strangers and the fear that these strangers don't have the same understanding of God and that calls into question our own journey and experience of God. cya Andrew Swenson -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tom Stuart Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2003 8:20 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED] com. au' Subject: RE: Amended Resolution 84 Why would they be peeved? The idea is not to change the meaning of the resolution but to make alterations which speak more clearly the intended meaning of the resolution. Tom At 11:00 PM 25-08-03 +1000, Ellis wrote: >Anyway, I'm glad that the ASC has straightened everything out. No-one need >be upset any more. > >Peter Don't count on it, Peter. If I were a member of Assembly, I'd be peeved. And I'm not sure that EMU or Uniting Network would be very happy still. Then again ... we might all rejoice .... The ASC has acted. God's His heaven -- All's right with the world! ** John M. --------------------------- (** by Robert Browning in 'Song, from Pippa Passes') ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/lists.htm ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/lists.htm ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/lists.htm ------------------------------------------------------
