G'day Peter
Brilliant contribution. Thank you.
At 06:53 AM 20/10/03 +1000, Peter Elliott wrote:
Hi all,
I found your last email confusing Andrew. I'm not sure what you are trying
to get at.
Sorry to be confusing. Perhaps some of the following will help. I'm happy to try.
However, let me see if I can make myself a little more explicit.
What do people mean when they say they are hurting about UCA Assembly
resolution 84? Nothing has changed, so why are people claiming to hurt?
Hmmm... why say "claiming", when below you seem to accept that this hurt is quite real?
Many have said like you "nothing has changed". This may be true concerning the legal position with respect to the regulations. But in other areas much has changed, a little of it by passing resolution 84, a lot more by the decision to vote on 84 as it was eventually worded, but most of all by the rejection of 81, which was about 84. So the observation that "nothing has changed" is at best rather lacking in insight IMO.
What *is* true, again IMO, is that many *hoped* and *intended* that nothing at all would be changed by 84, but this ill-advised attempt was a complete failure. I suggest we move on. But to do this we need to accept both that 84 did change things, whatever its intentions might have been, and that much of that change has been regrettable. We can't begin to deal with the damage while we continue to deny that it even exists. I have no wish to rub this in, I think the message is getting through. On that basis, let's move on.
Nor do I want to blame anyone. In hindsight I think this particular Assembly was doomed long before it met. The people I know who were there are wonderful Christian people, and I thank God for their faith and wisdom and commitment, and I hate to criticise so severely something so close to their hearts. But something went badly wrong. It's not necessarily anyone's fault, and even if it were, that's not important to this discussion.
It
has to be from within that they are hurting. What is the nature of their
hurt? Is it the sort of hurt that comes from not getting your own way in
things?
I think that is part of it. But I think there are lots of other issues too. Many are sincerely convinced that the UCA is doing the wrong thing. If that's what you mean by "from within", then what sort of hurt is not "from within"?
I confess, I am not hurting. My mind is active and seeking to find
a way through the division that has surfaced consequent to this resolution
being made public.
Great. Just a little point here. As I said above, IMO it wasn't the *resolution* that was the main problem. The far bigger problem was the *rejected* proposal 81, which therefore didn't become a resolution. I think I know exactly what you mean, so that's not a problem for the moment. But these technicalities will matter when it comes to actually doing something, in particular at next Assembly.
I suspect that for some the hurt is internal and comes from the perception
of being associated with a church that does not take the Bible literally.
What if the Bible isn't the authority that I have imagined it to be? Where
does that leave me? But what if they are wrong and I am associated with
such a church; what will others think of me?
Yes. I think those are all real issues, and good points, with one qualification.
I don't think that "literally" is the issue, at least not in the linguistic sense. The literal interpretation of the KJV was once mainstream in some circles but it is now a fringe belief at best, and perhaps even a lunatic fringe one. Those who wish to promote a literal interpretation generally now refer to the "original texts", but there are obvious problems here too which I can spell out if anyone is interested. More relevant I think, most of these people then blow their credibility by quoting the NIV, seemingly unaware that it's not a very literal translation at all.
The CEV is increasingly popular (rightly so in my opinion, although I still don't know why they unpack the concept of "census") but it's an extremely dynamic translation. To suggest a literal interpretation of it would be nonsense. Again, that's in a linguistic sense.
I think we need to unpack what is popularly meant by a "literal" interpretation, that is not in the linguistic sense, and that as we do so we'll find the problems melt away as people realise they have no clear idea what it means anyway. Historically I'm afraid I think it has meant "ignorant", I don't think there are many defenders of this view left but there will always be some. I'd like to kill the words "inerrant" and "infallible" too. Or at least let's define them in some way that can be understood and discussed. Let's redefine "inerrant" as not approved for use by a knight, and "infallible" as too long to read right through during the US autumn. (;->
For some it will surely be the feelings of hurt that arise when we feel we
have been excluded from the fellowship for reasons that appear to be beyond
our control.
Yes.
In both cases people are being led by their feelings and are either refusing
or finding it impossible to understand the feelings of others. To recognise
our own feelings is essential, but to be led by them is disastrous. I
believe it is the path to hell. (There's an opening for someone) Read
Anthony de Mello's "Awareness".
Not familar with it, what does it say?
While Jesus seems to be in touch with his own feelings he is also very aware
of the feelings of others. But he doesn't ask us to feel good or even do
those things that will make us feel good. He asks us to love our enemies,
do good to those who persecute us and follow him on the way that leads to a
cross. That is quite clearly not about being led by our feelings.
In a world where a half of the population lives in abject poverty (existing
on the equivalent of $2 a day or less but with no certainty of a meal the
next day) I believe our argument about whether the Bible is literally true
is an indulgence we cannot afford. I could say that much more strongly but
will desist for the moment.
Very well said. I'll ask them to keep the cross next to mine for you, this ain't gonna be a popular tub we're thumping...!
However you regard the Bible it still says that what we do to others is what
we are doing to God and that our first priority is to care for the oppressed
and downtrodden. The call for justice reverberates through both Old and New
Testaments. That includes acceptance of those who are different from us and
caring for those who are hurting. This is much more important than having
some mythical church that is pure and unadulterated.
If we in the church want to be recognised as Christians, let us love one
another
Amen. Awesomely well put.
Does that clear up any of your confusion?
for that is the only hallmark that God will recognise.
I'm not convinced of the theology of that last bit. I'm not even sure we are told. We are told to make disciples (and I think being disciples ourselves is taken as read), and that the *world* will recognise who these disciples are by our love. Exactly who *God* will recognise is not clear to me, although the Bible says quite a bit about it. There are several theories, most of them unhelpful. Being sure who God will recognise is one of the marks of a cult IMO.
Exactly how we should recognise *each other* is still a third question. Some seem to think that a practising homosexual can't be a real Christian. I don't think this simplistic view would have any great support, but I still think it would be good to clear this up. I think 84 comes close and was intended to, but it doesn't succeed. Maybe next Assembly. It will take some *guts*. I think we are finding them.
On another tack, how's this for a theory (which I have raised before)... Jesus *commends* many things, but the *only* things he *condemns* are *actions* that *affect other people* (I don't think "sin no more" is a condemnation, rather it is just plain good advice).
I think that's a bit scary. But if it's true, the scariest thing is how few people seem to have noticed.
Yours in Christ
andrew a
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
