G'day Andrew, G'day Peter
(I'm a bit perplexed as to why the headers say this came from Stephen Webb, it seems to be from Andrew Watts)
At 12:02 PM 16/10/03 +1000, Stephen Webb wrote:
Peter
Yeah, I'll put my hand up to get on with real life stuff. Half my work is
with a NRCC (Northern regional council of congress) congregation.
Technically I am also a member of NRCC though I am not an Aboriginal person.
I did not agree with their statement but it was not my place to be
expressing my opinion. It is a statement seeking to voice an Aboriginal
perspective. The members of the congregation I work with who were at that
meeting agreed with that statement. I have talked with them and other NRCC
members specifically asking if they are still happy with me working in NRCC
and particularly this congregation even though I have a different view to
them and they have no problems with that. To explain further their position
would be out of turn for me because I start to represent their views to
others and they need to speak for themselves not have others speaking on
their behalf, that was one of the key points of making a statement - to have
their voice heard.
Back to your comments, Peter, when we all returned home from the presbytery
and synod meetings the real life stuff soon hits you in the face. The week
of the meetings in Darwin there was an Aboriginal death in custody in Derby.
The average life expectancy for males in the Kimberley is about 50. Last
week at church a little five year old girl talked (as if it was not an
unusual thing) of her mother attempting to hang herself. A grandmother has
been left with the responsibility of all her grandchildren because her
children have either died or due to substance abuse are incapable or
unwilling to care for their kids, though they will not let her have the kids
family allowance money. She lives on an aged pension. There is a lot of
tension and confusion about native title and land rights due to a history of
massive dislocation through grandparents and older generations (yes, that
recent) having been shot or forcibly moved off traditional lands and into
missions or reserves, children having been removed and so on. Such
dislocation has strained the cultural heritage and memory to the limit and
in many cases broken it. Introduce legislation designed in Canberra with
minimal Aboriginal input and you have lots of headaches. A young Aboriginal
woman wants to cook some chocolate crackles to raise some money to buy a
reem of photocopy paper and some pencils so she can start a Sunday School
class.(Good on her, I say, and restrain myself from saying there is money
available to help you becasue she has thought of it herself and wants to do
it - others may disagree with my approach, thats OK, I am learning). However
my blood still boils when I contrast that with UCA congregations in Sydney
doing $2 million extensions and UCA schools wanting sponsors at $3000 per
seat for a new drama/performance theatre. (Is this poverty week or something
like that???).
These little scenarios come from one week back at home. Speaking for myself,
there seems to be a lot more important things to worry about. I do not want
to have to waste time and energy on trying to stop whoever from throwing
babies out with the bath water. If EMU/Reforming alliance/whatever and
others want to spend lots of time and energy on institutional musical chairs
and playing power games by all means go ahead but at least allow the rest of
us the freedom and the resources to get real and get on with real issues.
That's a very valid point and I support it, but it's equally applicable to those who are agitating in support of the ordination of gay people. My very first website said on its "wrangles" page:
"God is much more concerned about social justice issues than about sexual issues, but we prefer to talk about the sexual ones because they don't call for personal sacrifice."
That page is still on the Web at
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa/aja5.htm
and I still stand by it.
What about the people hurting so much over res 84? I am probably going to
hurt someone here, but I am trying to be careful. Maybe its like Elle
Macpherson's depression (someone gave a link to that story in the SMH). It
is certainl help. From all the hooplah over res 84 it seems clear that there is plenty
of support for those hurting from res 84 because of a more conservative
perspective. There is plenty of support for those in leadership having a
hard time trying to find a way through. I do not know about the gay and
lesbian community. Amongst some there is good support networks but there are
others who are much more alone. Certainly let us look to care for those
without any support. In the meantime there is a whole world out there who
are also hurting deeply and most of them have bugger all support from
anyone.
regards
Andrew Watts
That last paragraph made me sit up and take notice. I'd assumed it was the other way around, that the gay networks were pretty well organised and that those who were uncomfortable with their proposals were playing catch-up. That's how it has appeared to me. And then I thought, woe is me, I don't have either of those support networks.
And then I thought, no, I do have support, lots of it, but it's from both sides of this debate. And then I thought, I don't think that's very typical at all. I think most (not all) of the people I know can be identified as having support networks primarily on one side or the other, matching their own views.
And you're right, the networks aren't perfect. But perhaps the main problem with them is this polarisation. It can't be good.
Food for thought?
Peter Elliott wrote:
Is it possible that most of the discussion about UCA Assembley Res 84 is
about saving the church rather than following Jesus?
To be honest, I don't give a damn about the saving the church as it is,
but I do care about saving the world from falling into despair and self
destruction. It seems to me that such issues as third-world debt, trade
injustices, environmental polution, slavery (yes, it still exists and
there are now estimated to be more people in slavery than there were in
the seventeenth century) and all those other issues where some people
use and abuse others for their own satisfaction. It does seem that
Jesus' concern was for the poor and oppressed, not Judaism - and as for
the idea that He started Christianity, let's get real, eh!
If some people in the church don't believe they can stay in a church
that accepts gays and lesbians into leadership positions in the Uniting
Church, OK, I'll go with that. Do they want to leave or do they want me
to leave because I hold a different position to them? Perhaps Ross
Kingham has a point.
I think I've lost interest in the debate because it's only a very small
part of the big picture. Are there others out there who want to focus
on the real issue - helping to set free the oppressed and downtrodden,
helping the blind to see?
Peter
Peter & Jan Elliott
26 Crowe Place
Cootamundra NSW 2590
Phone: 02 6942 1212
Both these views seem to be suggesting that we get back to the main game, but that it's only the Evangelical pole that needs to give way to do this.
That doesn't sound like a way forward to me. It sounds like a recipe for stalemate and further polarisation.
We need to acknowledge both the pain and the goodwill on both sides. It's all there. Let's not let it get drowned out by other stuff.
Yours in Christ
andrew a
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
