G'day Lindz and the Group
I think you have hit the issue I was raising right on the head.
At 09:27 AM 17/10/03 +1000, Lindsay Cullen wrote:
Psssst! Did you hear that Andrew Alder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said this:
- 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.
I really fail to see why the second alternative is so problematic.
Exactly. You and many others. That is very well put.
And that is one of the problems I think we need to address.
If somebody feels (strongly I trust) that they should be ordained, then you are very concerned for them. But if somebody else feels, equally strongly, that this is not a suitable person for ordination, you see this as their problem. You know they are in pain, but for some reason you don't seem to care.
Is that a fair summary?
There is anguish on both sides. And so far as both sides are concerned, it's all the other side's fault. I'm sure there are those on the evangelical side (whether in EMU or not) who are equally insensitive to the suffering on the gay side. I don't think any of them have been quite as open about it as you have here.
Either way it's a problem.
There are any number of issues on which the UCA has no official opinion, and this does not stop people from expressing clearly that Christians differ on this and the UCA has no official position but that I/our church/our Presbytery/our Synod feel strongly that x is the case for these reasons... This would seem to me to be a position of great integrity. The truth is of course that what I say to someone newly welcomed into my church will depend vastly on my own theology and will vary enormously from one UCA member, one UCA church, to another. We may say different things to that newcomer about the nature of God, salvation, the church, the sacraments, the Bible etc, etc. Why is it so discomforting then, to imagine that what we say to that newcomer about christian sexual ethics might also be different?
Good questions. Personally I think the UCA could and should be a lot more upfront about the things we take as read. It would, for example, encourage us to be a little more consistent on my favourite hobbyhorse of lay presidency. If we had a creed that talked of the Priesthood of All Believers, which I think is a generally accepted UCA principle, this would be a good start to addressing the issue IMO. If this creed were to be phrased in plain English and used regularly, I think we'd find we had resolved the issue within a year.
I think the widespread acceptance of the Alpha course has helped a great deal to introduce some measure of orthodoxy into the UCA. Again I stress, I don't mean reducing our diversity, I mean recognising our unity on some basic things.
But this was not what Alpha was designed for at all, it's an unintentional consequence of it. I think we should be intentional about it. That's not to say I want us to reduce our diversity, just to express our unity. The main problem with doing this by things such as Alpha is that we have no control over the process, and our diversity, our acceptance and support of those who disagree with us, is then placed under threat.
Let me put this very clearly this is an issue of power and control. Resolution 84 is an invitation to trust my brothers and sisters in other Presbyteries and Congregations to listen to and hear the voice of God as they make decisions regarding candidature and placement. Those who oppose 84 do not trust their sisters and brothers and are determined instead to impose their will on other Christians.
I'm very sorry you have decided this.
I don't think it's that simple or one-sided at all. But some do, on both sides.
And that is a real problem as I see it.
- 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.
I have no idea how you can say that. Certainly every item of official information I have read and passed on to my congregation has made this crystal clear.
Has made *what* crystal clear?
And those in my congregation who oppose 84 are absolutely clear that they are not doing so because of a fear that a homosexual minister will be forced on them. Their concern is that there may be homosexual ministers in other churches. I quote, What if you visit another church on holidays with your grandchildren and there s one of them in the pulpit?
Interesting. And your reply to them is...?
- 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.
These regulations are already in place, as 84 reminds us.
Proposal 84 asks for clarification of these regulations, but leaves it to ASC and others to do it. It will be very interesting to see how this rather vague request is interpretted and implemented, as I said a while back.
If the effect of the current regulations is really as you say, and if 84 had confirmed this rather than merely asking the question, then I don't think EMU and other like minds would have had any problem with it, or even with the rejection of 81 which I have always said is a far more important issue (and which has already been in a sense locally overturned by NSW Synod).
But I suspect you would have resisted this clarification by Assembly had it been proposed. Am I right?
Do we need to individually specify everything possible factor or combination of factors that might lead a congregation to decline a particular individual?! Why pick on gender orientation specifically?
A very good question. I think I have answered it personally, many years ago at the URLs I occasionally mention on this list (most recently earlier this week). That is, I agree we do put undue emphasis on gender orientation, and I don't think we should. One page says in part "I think the church, like me, has some apologies to make."
As for why others are so concerned, have you asked them? What did they tell you? Have you considered that your own strong and articulate views might be a filter to what people are prepared to tell you? How do you allow for this?
To me this would simply confirm the opinion of an agnostic friend of mine that the Church is a bunch of old people who can t have sex so they spend all their time legislating about it!
I think this person is right on the ball. I have similar friends. How do you answer them?
If I were Pope of the UCA, I think I'd have one or two of them address the next Assembly. I'd be really tempted to invite them, really I would. (Maybe two, one homophobic and one gay.) But I don't think God is going to put me into that job, certainly not in the time scale required, and perhaps that's one of many good reasons for this. (;->
- 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 have no problem at all with this.
Great. So, how do we move forward on it?
But in the end, their will be people who will never hear, who will never change their minds, nor acknowledge that someone may come to a different point of view with integrity. I do not wish to stop being prophetic in order to placate those people.
(Sigh) And nor are they going to accomodate you. And do you wonder?
Thanks for an excellent _expression_ of one of the views I was talking about. Hang in there.
Yours in Christ
andrew a
Cheers
Linz
Macintosh -- because they just WORK!
(Sigh... yes... because they are designed just to work, not just to sell software
But isn't it a bit of a worry that so many Mac users swallow the MS bait when it comes to their application software?
Linux --- because it's on your side
Bigger sigh... but for the moment Win98SE... because it's the easiest way to do what I want right now
Biggest sigh... and in a few weeks probably WinXP... because the blighters who wrote the software I want to use don't support anything else, but I may even change my software decisions, blow my budget, and go Mac instead
YiCaa)
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
