At 07:26 AM 5/09/03 +1000, John Maynard wrote:
EMU is in the process of calling a National Summit of evangelical/orthodox people who are representative of the different groupings in the UCA to meet from 22-24th September 2003. Those attending will include theologians, lawyers, UAICC representatives, members of migrant ethnic churchs, Fellowship for Revival members, ministers, lay people etc. In short the representation will be as broad ranging as possible.
So they are aiming for broad ranging representation, but with the pre-condition of an evangelical/orthodox identity.
This is a reversal of what R84 asks - that we keep up the dialogue across the various angles in the debate.
But more to the point, what is it that EMU actually want now? They have expressed disappointment at ASC, but have not directed any further/repeated requests to ASC as I read it - ASC may have expected that the process would involve an extended dialogue. But none of the things they seem to want will have any substantial effect:
a if assembly is recalled, it is very unlikely that R84 would be reversed, IMHO.
b if a recalled assembly does reverse R84, then we are left with the previous status quo, which is effectively the same.
c if a recalled assembly (or ASC) decides to refer the matter to other councils, that won't have any real effect either - presbyteries, congregations and synods don't need permission to discuss it.
d if they want assembly to consider a cisafim type statement, then where is the draft proposal, where was it in July?
e if they want assembly restructured, where are the proposals?
So I find it hard to see a basis for splitting from the UCA. On the other hand, it may well be that if they got any or all of a, b, c, and e they would still split. Am I being too cynical to suggest that a split was the intent all along:
* when EMU demanded sexuality be on the assembly agenda
* when R84 was put to the vote rather than deferred, when consensus options were exhausted.
Or is it that Mary et al have painted themselves into a corner, and they only apparent way out is with an axe? If so, is there anything we can do to offer them a face-saving but reconciling option?
Kind regards, Lindsay Brash.
------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
