G'day Jonathan and the Group
At 10:17 PM 25/08/03 -0400, Jonathan Arthur wrote:
<snip>
[back to Andrew]
<that's me>
>I think you'll find that if you use these definitions, then as a
>consequence EMU will have no objection to the ordination of homosexuals (as
>*you* define them).
You have lost me here. This certainly does not seem to be happening :-)
That is the perception, that it is not happening. But I think that EMU have been very clear that by "homosexual" they mean *practice*, not orientation. So it *is* happening. It's just being ignored.
Andrew Watts said "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." That's as I understand it too. I can't find the actual quotes from EMU offhand but could look further if you feel they would be helpful.
Can you explain a little further?
Does that help?
In relation to this, I have heard others say that because one does not cease to be homosexual or heterosexual when celibate, there should be no issue with the requirement that homosexual people remain celibate in order to be ordained.
Hmmm. I don't follow that argument either. I think it's a big issue.
However, the issue is really about ensuring the same standards apply to both homosexual and heterosexual ministers.
Hmmm... The standard I would expect of ministers is the same regardless of whether they are married, single, straight, gay or otherwise... no sex outside of marriage! I would expect it of members too, but the consequences are different. They don't have the same responsibilities.
I think you are assuming that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are equally good. But that is the whole question at the centre of this. IMO, a lot of the pain we are undergoing at present is because neither side is prepared to ask it honestly, let alone to answer it.
For example, if members of EMU support the ordination of *celibate*, homosexual people, I think they would find a lot more traction with those of a different view point if they supported the line that *all* people (homosexual and heterosexual specifically) need to be celibate in order to be ordained.
Hmmmm. Maybe. I suspect that is so fair that nobody at all will vote for it. And I'm not convinced it's the way to go anyway.
I find it interesting that the Bible doesn't actually say whether or not Jesus was married. Some argue strongly either way, and both sides seem to think that they represent the majority opinion (a bit like the issue of homosexual ordination, isn't it?). My theory is that we don't know, and that the reason for this is that God doesn't want us to know. That thought doesn't seem to be very popular at all. Perhaps people like to believe that they are omniscient. I find no evidence at all to support this particular belief. (;->
(Of course, that would set up a whole other debate on the pros/cons of requiring ministers to be ordained, but let's not go there.... )
I think that would be an excellent place to go. Why not?
YiCaa
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
