|
My
understanding Andrew was that the problem was that he had previously been
sexually active, even though now celibate, and he was not repentant about his
previous sexual activity.
Bev
ASC
82.12 has very similar wording to this UCC decision (6 years before them). EMU
has said they have no objection to people of homosexual orientation in
leadership. It is the involvement in same sex relationships that is the
sticking point for them as far as their interp of scripture is concerned. So
if the UCC had so much grief over what is a relatively conservative position
(even a relatively conservative interp of scripture could accept it) it would
seem we would have lots of *pain* unless we went extremely conservative and
then of course the *pain* would be elsewhere.
This
brings to mind a question I have had on my mind for some time which is a
question I ask seeking to understand a different perspective to my own. It is
regarding the 'almost-but-not-quite' English Anglican Bishop situation. I did
not follow this story closely. All I heard was from the general media, which
of course as we have learnt should be listened to with questioning ears (an
interesting image!?). However, from that media I understood that the man
(can't remember his name) was of homosexual orientation and had chosen to be
celibate. Now, if this is true (I may have misheard, missed some of the
detail or the media may have misreported), my understanding is that EMU
would not have a problem with this man in any position of leadership in the
church (as written in Nick Hawkes article on EMU website). Why then was
there such a storm about it, including from the Sydney Archbishop, and the
appointment did not go ahead? Is there another more conservative position
here? If so, I would like someone to explain it to me and the basis for the
position so that I can be in better dialogue with those around me in the UC
who may hold the same position.
Can
someone help me here please with a bit more information.
Thanks
Andrew Watts
Greetings all.
I was looking through some old material and came across an
article by Lois Wilson. I think from memory she may have been president of
the United Church of Canada. The following is an extract of her article. I
thought the group might find some similarities.
Lois Wilson Uniting Church Studies Vol 4No 2 August
1998
In 1988
my Church faced the
issue of homosexuality. I can't think of any group
of people that are crucified on a more regular basis, by both church and
society, as homosexuals. Gay and lesbian candidates for ministry (and a few
closet homosexuals who had been ordained) raised the ordination of
homosexuals debate. We have been at it ten years, a little longer than you.
We ended up with the resolution that the sexual orientation of people is no
bar to being considered for ordination. That was carefully phrased. No bar
to being considered for ordination. It doesn't mean ordination of alt gay
and lesbian folk. There are other criteria. There is still a great deal of
uneasiness about this. We lost several congregations depending upon the
leadership of the local minister. If the local minister gave a strong lead,
the congregation tended to stay cohesive and strong. If the minister backed
down, then the congregation usually left the United Church along with the
minister. Several congregations left en masse. Some individuals left. Then
they found that the Church they ended up with was too conservative and they
came back. Some discovered, to their amazement, that homosexuals were not
lining up in the basement for ordination after all, and in fact the Right of
Call remains with
the congregation.
Ten years after, our church is nationally known for that stand. Sister
communions are now facing the issue, and come to us to tap into our
experience. For some time, because of indignant reaction of conservative
Christians, our enthusiasm to make other public utterances was dampened. Our
church was crucified along with the gay and lesbian community. Our national
leadership didn't like the criticism, and tended to mute its public
statements. In fact, in terms of congregational life, I would say that now
we are back on an even keel. The stand our church took helped the public
accept the same-sex legislation that the government later brought in to law.
So I wish the Uniting Church well in that debate.
Somebody asked me
while I was in Australia, 'Does the fact that you have accepted gays and
lesbians for ordination affect your ecumenical relationship with the
evangelicals?' My response was, 'It is without doubt one of many factors
affecting our relationship. But we think it is more important to have
holistic relationships with people who are suffering than with anyone else.
And we think that can be defended scripturally.'
Grace and Peace.
Allan
---------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: The information in this message and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error.. To the extent that this email contains information provided to Synod of WA/Wesley Mission Perth by other sources, Synod of WA/Wesley Mission Perth does not warrant that it is accurate or complete. Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of Synod of WA/Wesley Mission Perth.
|
