G'day Andrew, John and Bruce (whose posts crossed this) and the Group
It's a worry. I recommend people read the article, EMU members and sympathisers particularly. But make sure you are feeling strong first. Not late at night after a hard day, or on your precious and inadequate time off. For many that will now mean Tuesday.
It's at
http://www.emu.asn.au/downloads/bill_muehlenberg_paper.pdf
and I drop out on the second sentence: "The acceptance of certain doctrines defines who is and who is not a Christian."
No way.
That just isn't true. It's faith. As shown by actions. Beliefs? No way.
As Chesterton's Father Brown once said when telling a phony priest how he'd seen through his disguise, "It's bad theology". There is such a thing. I claim no academic qualifications in theology, but I'm still prepared to take this stuff on, just as I have no qualifications in aeronautics but disagree with my friend who maintains that the Stealth Bomber is a submarine. It is appallingly bad.
And this represents and sets the tone for the whole article. It's appalling in other ways than theology too. I admire your forebearance, Andrew. I needed to count to ten several times.
(And I'm still digesting John's contribution, but I'm impressed. Thank you!)
If EMU succeeds in getting this agenda accepted, they'll be throwing me out too. Except I'll be 'way ahead of them, with much regret and little hesitation.
We've had an apology from ASC, which not everyone agrees with I guess but which I think is a good thing. Well, we will now see whether EMU are big enough to eat their words. This article is a big departure from the stand I have heard from their members and website, and IMO violates the EMU constitution.
More important, it also violates the EMU ethos as I have understood it up until now, which *has* been the same as the ethos of the exciting denomination of which I am *often* very thrilled to be a member.
Never a dull moment, that's our motto... (;->
Yours in Christ
andrew a
At 12:19 PM 30/08/03 +0800, Andrew Watts wrote:
The latest article I have noticed on the emu website seems to comment
further on distinctions between orientation and _expression_ (Muehlenberg
study). My reading of it sees it as repentence being the sticking point.
That is, even if you are a celibate homosexual but not repentent then it is
not acceptable for leadership or even membership. So depending on the
circumstances homosexual orientation itself could be a bar to ordination AND
to membership. The whole article needs to be read but the paragraph below is
near the end and is a bit of a summary. As I say this is my reading/opinion,
but I am interested in others. This is the first time I have heard an EMU
objection to membership directly (I have heard some unpleasant stories from
various congregations but not something that has the status to be on the
official EMU website).
Quoting from the article:-
"The church of course is made up entirely of repentant
sinners. Everyone in the church still sins. But Christians have had a
fundamental change of mind and heart. A genuine Christian will grieve when
he or she falls into sin, and will seek, with God's grace, to gain victory
over besetting sins. The church must accept and embrace such people. But the
church can not and should not embrace, accept into membership, and put into
positions of leadership, those who willfully and deliberately persist in sin
- be it homosexuality, adultery, or any other sin. (Matt.18:15-17)"
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
