I really fail to see why the second alternative is so problematic.Andrew replied:
No, I do not believe it is a fair summary. First, let me make it clear that I was not (in my response to you) talking about feeling pain, whether that of rejected homosexual candidates or of conservatives who feel they are unsuitable. I am happy to acknowledge the pain on both sides, and I do care about it, but acknowledging pain does not and should not stop us from seeking to critique the arguments being put forward by various parties. You asked what ‘the church’ will say to homosexuals about their lifestyle, will it affirm them, or will it say that Christians differ and the church has no official position on this. I suggested that the latter was entirely appropriate.
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?
Perhaps you have taken literally my figurative language so let me rephrase. When I say, “I fail to see why the second alternative is so problematic.”, what I mean is:
“Having heard and understood the arguments put forward by conservatives that the church cannot accept within itself differing positions on this particular issue of sexual ethics, I am unpersuaded that these arguments are either logical or coherent.”
Is that statement clearer? Perhaps you doubt that I have heard or understood their arguments? Firstly, be aware that I was both raised in, and trained as a Minister in a conservative evangelical subculture of the Church. Secondly, if you still think that I have not heard or have misunderstood any or all of the conservative arguments, then feel free to articulate such arguments and we can dialogue.
Now let me also say that I think that part of the incoherence of the conservative position is that they are concentrating on one narrow area of christian ethics rather than addressing the issue of hermeneutical frameworks by which we make such ethical determinations. If the conservative side was putting forward a consistent hermeneutical framework by which it could be determined that homosexual acts were unacceptable for christians, that would be a debate worth having. But that is not happening and I suspect it won’t happen because the minute we enter the issue of hermeneutics it becomes obvious exactly how complex and involved it is, and many of the simplistic arguments being put forth about homosexuals in leadership are revealed for the shallow, inconsistent nonsense they are.
ISTM that a position of integrity would be to acknowledge that there are huge differences in hermeneutics within the Uniting Church, and to admit that unless and until such differences are resolved, the church will indeed contain differing approaches to homosexuality amongst a raft of other issues. A position of integrity would find creative ways to live with those differences on homosexuality (amongst other things) and to enable people as much as possible to follow the dictates of their own consciences in relationship to their own choices and those of their congregation. Seems to me that 84 was attempting exactly that.
I agree entirely that our practise ought to reflect our beliefs and I suspect we are on the same side of the question when it comes to lay presidency. I also concur with your remarks regarding benefits of and caveats regarding Alpha. I’m not quite sure however, how this feeds into the debate about 84 – wasn’t it in fact an attempt to do exactly what you are asking for – be more upfront about things previously taken as read?
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.
Andrew said:
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 replied:
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.Then Andrew asked:
Has made *what* crystal clear?Has made crystal clear the fact that they will not be “forced to accept a homosexual minister”. I repeat, every single bit of official information as well as the very regulations 84 affirmed has made it clear that no church will be forced to accept a homosexual minister (or any other minister unacceptable to them). Later you suggest that regulations could be brought in “to make it impossible for anyone to be forced to accept a gay minister”. Now it’s unclear as to whether you mean by this individuals or congregations. If you mean individuals then I would have thought this was an impossibility as well as being highly undesirable. Do we really want to give every individual an absolute veto on who can be a Minister in their church? And if so, why limit it to issues of gender orientation?
If on the other hand you mean congregations, well they already have the power to reject a Minister they find unacceptable and 84 has done nothing whatsoever to change this. It is of course possible in the future that there may come a time when the UCA has so clearly and strongly come to understand that faithful homosexual relationships are acceptable to God, that the church may make a ruling that a congregation may not reject a Minister on no basis other than their gender orientation. I can imagine that situation. But I cannot imagine that situation occurring unless the vast majority of UCA members and churches had reached that understanding, nor would I support such a regulation unless and until that was the case. To me, the wisdom of 84 is that it affirms the fact that those at the grass roots, those who will live with the results of decisions regarding candidature, ordination and placement, are those who have the responsibility to make those decisions, and that they may make them according to their conscience.
I said:
And Andrew replied: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...?Let me reply on three levels. Firstly on the factual level, my reply to this comment was nothing at all because it was said in a forum and in a manner which would not have enabled any reply at all from me to be helpful. Secondly, on a feeling level, I am wondering what your reason is for asking this and a number of similar questions in your response to me. They feel somewhat like a rather patronising attempt at the Socratic method rather than a genuine inquiry. If you have some point to make it – by all means do so, if you feel I’m missing something, by all means say so. Or if I am misinterpreting your tone, perhaps you could use phraseology which would make it clear that your questions are genuinely seeking to learn something, eg. “I’d be interested to know how you replied” rather than “And your reply to them is...?”
Finally, on a conceptual level my theoretical answer to this question is as follows:
If you are correct and homosexual practise is a sin, then your grandchildren’s faith or lives will no more be injured by being ministered to by this person than they would be were the Minister a heterosexual philanderer, an inveterate liar, selfish, proud or arrogant; and you are no more likely to be aware of the person’s homosexual activity than you are any of the other aforementioned sins. Furthermore, God makes a habit of using sinful people for his ends, so perhaps your grandchildren (or better yet, you) will be mightily blessed by this person. Finally, if I am correct and that Minister’s homosexuality is not sinful, then you and your grandchildren will benefit from the ministry of someone who’s life history and outlook are probably quite different from your own.
Andrew said:
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?Of course I have asked people what their concerns are, and how they are feeling. As I stated at the beginning I am certainly concerned for the pain felt by people of all positions, and in fact my own highest priority in this situation has been to help my church through it in as good a state as possible. For that reason I even drafted the letter of protest we sent to other Councils of the Church, though I disagreed entirely with its content. And in point of fact, out of concern for my pastoral responsibilities, I have never publicly expressed my personal view on the issue of homosexuality and leadership. I have certainly attempted to help people to understand how Christians have come to differing views on the matter, but I would hope that any Minister, regardless of their personal point of view, would be doing that as a matter of professional ethics. And I have tried to help them to understand R84 and its implications for our church.
But all this is by the by. I understand that it is important to hear and understand the concerns of others, and I believe that I have adequately done so. In this forum I am simply endeavouring to put the case that such concerns are inappropriate and ought not to be the defining criteria for our theology or praxis.
Andrew said (regarding serious theological work leading to a contemporary theology of sexuality):
Great. So, how do we move forward on it?Perhaps the recent NSW Synod resolution might kickstart such a process. I will certainly do what I can in the Councils of the Church in which I am involved to see such an end. Although, as I have said earlier, I think such an effort would be vain unless foundational work on hermeneutics had proceeded it. What will you be doing?
Andrew said:
(Sigh... yes... because they are designed just to work, not just to sell softwareErr. And that’s bad???
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?Yes, but you’re speaking to someone who is a registered owner of Nisus Writer, Claris Impact, Appleworks, Safari, Omniweb, etc. etc. I only own Office for compatibility.
Linux --- because it's on your sideYeah sure, *nix is god, but if I had my druthers I’d still go back to RT-11/RSX-11/VMS...
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
Hallelujah brother, he’s seen the light!
Microsoft Windows: Betchya can't install it just once!
--
Rev. Lindsay Cullen
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An old(!) website... www.lindsaycullen.com
