G'day Andrew, Tom and the Group
I think I need to reply to this, and writing the reply has helped me to clarify my thinking, so possibly it will help others. I recognise it's covering a lot of old ground too.
At 07:41 PM 14/10/03 +0930, Andrew Prior wrote:
As someone who very nearly didn't survive depression, the article on that is a very accurate article. Because of the church support I was able in one sense to buy my way out of it with access to some very good medical and pastoral support. God alone knows where I would have been with out that support. I am not confident that I would have survived.
And as for the good archbishop; I reckon Jesus would be pissed off with him. The homosexual man who gave me a ride home tonight would be my favoured company any time. I hear that people of ""evangelical"" persuasion are often deeply distressed about gay people in the church. The damage and pain I see them causing leaves me wanting to walk away from the whole deal. None of them are being asked to accept a homosexual minister; simply to allow that others may have a different opinion.
If that is true, then there is light at the end of the tunnel. All we need to do is communicate.
But I don't think it is true.
But I do see light at the end of the tunnel.
Most (not all) of the ''evangelical'' people I meet are determined to welcome homosexual people into the church, and prepared to make considerable sacrifices to do this. The question is, what will the church tell them? In particular, will we say that homosexual practices are equally valid in God's sight to heterosexual practices? Or will we say that Christians differ on this, and that the UCA has no official opinion, which seems to be the current position?
Neither of these positions are acceptable to most evangelicals. Both represent a radical change to the traditional position on homosexuality which, rightly or wrongly, many UCA members believed to be the position of the church to which they belong.
Personally, I have no trouble accepting communion, theological advice or pastoral care from a gay person, whether practising or not, lay or ordained. My main problem with HC in the UCA is our dismal failure to be consistent where it comes to the priesthood of all believers (which we encourage) and lay presidency (which we discourage). But I diverge.
I think there is a great deal of fear among UCA members that they *will* be forced to accept a homosexual minister. I'm very sorry to say that I don't think there has been any meaningful attempt to address this fear.
There have been attempts, certainly, and I've been embarrassed by them. They have just not addressed the issues. I know it is hard. There are no two people I respect more than the current NSW Moderator and the current President. But I must sadly note that I don't think the rubber has hit the road.
IMO the fear could be meaningfully addressed in one of two ways:
1. Regulations could be introduced or clarified so as to make it impossible for anyone to be forced to accept a gay minister. I can't see this happening, and if I'm right about this, this gives credence to the fear. There seems no reason that the regulations should not address this, unless some have the intention that somewhere down the line a gay minister will be forced on parishioners who don't want one, which I think is the case.
2. Serious theological work could be done and communicated to develop up a contemporary theology of sexuality. This of course challenges a taboo, still existing in much of our society and our church, against talking about sex. I can't see that happening either. Part of the problem is that this taboo prevents many people from even admitting that such a taboo exists, let alone discussing it.
I favour option two, as I have said many times before. It needs a miracle. God has many times answered prayers that I have not believed he was big enough to answer. "I do believe, help my unbelief."
I do not regard the various UCA reports into sexuality as a step in this direction, but rather as a step backwards. They seemed to have been written to push a specific agenda, and the research seems to have been conducted and the rationale written after the conclusion was already decided. Whether this is what actually happened is irrelevant. So long as this is the impression the reports give, they are counterproductive however they were produced. The most recent Assembly was a similar failure. Those who came away with the conviction that the Spirit had led them must now wonder why that same Spirit did not give the same answers to the Church as a whole. The answer is not an easy one.
Option two is not an easy option. There is no easy option. Option two is hard on both sides of the debate, and yes I do think there are two identifiable sides.
We need a year of listening. No, make that three years, leading up to next Assembly. I think we have already made a good start on this.
This time, we must listen. I do see signs that we will. It will not be without cost, and I see a new willingness to pay the price, again on both sides. Praise God.
This listening needs to express real Christian love. That means sharing the anguish of those whose views we do not share. Standing beside them. This is something the UCA once did well.
Again, it needs a miracle. I for one will pray for it. And again, this prayer needs to include listening. How many times have I heard someone start a prayer "we know that" and then proceed to recite a personal manifesto of things they and I were both painfully aware some present did not accept?
That's not prayer at all. That's giving God his orders. Not a new idea, and not good.
Yours in Christ
andrew alder
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
