G'day Lindz and the Group
(and a special Hi to Judy whose post on "Replying to Andrew" is very helpful and relevant too IMO)
OK. I'm sorry if my last post felt like an interrogation in places. It wasn't intended to be that, although it was intended to be challenging. As is this.
At 07:00 PM 20/10/03 +1000, Lindsay Cullen wrote:
Linz said:Andrew replied:
- I really fail to see why the second alternative is so problematic.
No, I do not believe it is a fair summary.
- 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?
OK. I'm glad of that.
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,
Great.
but acknowledging pain does not and should not stop us from seeking to critique the arguments being put forward by various parties.
Agreed.
You asked what the church will say to homosexuals about their lifestyle, will it affirm them,
I hope that's not what I asked. It wasn't what I meant to ask at all.
Firstly, I don't think "lifestyle" is a helpful term here if it really means "sexual partner". Secondly, affirming a person is a very different thing to affirming every choice they make. I realise that not everyone agrees that there is any choice involved here, but some of us do.
I think your terminology is prejudging the question here, and I certainly didn't use it. I think your rephrasing obscures the issue I raised.
or will it say that Christians differ and the church has no official position on this. I suggested that the latter was entirely appropriate.
OK.
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.
I don't think that's the same thing at all.
And, I don't think the problem is about accepting other positions within the church. It's about what we do about them. It sounds so very accomodating to suggest we could or should have no policy, but in a sense that is a policy all its own... a policy to have no (other) policy.
To put off a decision (call this decision 1) is itself to decide something (call this decision 2). Time won't stop for us while we make decision 1, so decision 2 (which we have made) has practical consequences in the meantime.
Is that statement clearer?
Both of your statements are clear enough IMO. But there are significant differences between them. And I personally have no objection to being questioned. Please continue.
Perhaps you doubt that I have heard or understood their arguments?
I'm sure you have in part, and I doubt you have completely. And we're all in that position.
Firstly, be aware that I was both raised in, and trained as a Minister in a conservative evangelical subculture of the Church.
Fair enough. I'm sorry in a way that you feel that you need to quote these credentials, but I think they help. I'd love to meet you sometime. My own upbringing was extremely liberal, it didn't even occur to me until I went to Uni that there could still be reasonable people who held evangelical views.
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.
And we are.
But IMO "dialogue" is a strange term for you to use. You objected very strongly to my asking questions in a way you likened to the famous "dialogues" featuring the Platonic Socrates. Socrates says in one of them (I forget which one and it may not be word perfect, and even then it's a translation of course) "I will call no witnesses other than you yourself, and you yourself will be the only judge of my success". That impressed me I must confess, so if my questions are Socratic in tone I'd consider that a compliment. Likewise I'm always pleased to be asked such questions.
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.
I don't see it as that one-sided at all, obviously. Some of the arguments are better than others, but like those supporting pacifism, they are accepted by a significant number of Christians and churches and should be taken seriously IMO.
It's an interesting question that you raise about hermeneutics. Technically, (Christian) hermeneutics is the meta-science of theology, i.e. the analysis of the principles underlying exegesis.
One of the main themes of the Reformation was putting bibles into pews and homes where (relatively) untrained people could read them. I don't want to reverse that change.
At http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07271a.htm there's the following observation promoting hermeneutics:
"Exegesis is therefore related to hermeneutics, as language is to grammar, or as reasoning is to logic. Men spoke and reasoned before there was any grammar or logic; but it is very difficult to speak correctly and reason rightly at all times and under any circumstances without a knowledge of grammar and logic."
One problem here is that all modern linguists would say that this statement about grammar is false. It was assumed to be true by 19th century grammarians, who tried to impose the rules of Latin and Greek grammar on English and other languages which they just didn't fit. In the 20th century philosophers and grammarians realised that one of the most fascinating things about language is that people do speak correctly and according to some quite elaborate rules without any conscious knowledge of what these rules are. Modern grammar is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Whoever wrote the quote above seems ignorant of these developments.
I think the same applies to logic. A study of logic can help with reasoning, but people who have never studied logic as such can still reason remarkably well. There are two little disclaimers in the quote, "very difficult" and "at all times", which may make the statement about logic true in a legalistic sense, but I don't think even they save it for grammar, and it's a line call for logic IMO.
Food for thought?
Interested people with no knowledge of hermeneutics might also look at
http://www.prca.org/articles/issues_in_hermeneutics.html#Introduction
for what I think is a good introduction. Please note I'm not endorsing either site or organisation, they're just what came out of Google that seemed most relevant.
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 think there are positions of integrity on both sides. I don't think that suggesting otherwise is helpful or even accurate.
And I agree, I think that this is exactly what was attempted by proposal 84. The problem IMO is that it didn't work.
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.
Hmmmm, we'd need to ask those who prepared it. It's a very tentative start if so.
It is a start. I think that if the bit referring the issue to the ASC had been replaced by one referring it to the wider church, it would have been a much better start. Referring the issue to the wider church was also what the rejected proposal 81 attempted to do, of course.
Note that what I am asking is for us to be more upfront about asserting those things which are the basis of our unity, not the things that divide us. I think we're quite upfront enough about our divisions.
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.
Yes. And I then suggested two ways in which I thought this fear could be addressed.
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.
Yes. Do you see the conflict between those two statements? I'm talking about feelings. You are talking about information. Now, information can certainly address fears, but I don't think the information passed on to date has done this at all.
And worse, the reaction has been "well it should have". That's just not addressing the issue.
Then Andrew asked:
- Has made *what* crystal clear?
And I apologise if this seems interrogatory.
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.
Lots of good points here.
I didn't distinguish between individuals or congregations, simply because you hadn't done so either. Yes, I agree we need to. Without this distinction, your assurance that "nobody will be forced..." etc. is so hopelessly sweeping that it is almost certainly false.
At the risk of being equally sweeping, I don't think anybody will be reassured by such statements, just the opposite.
So that's progress.
I'm not sure myself in which category these fears are most prevalent, I think we probably need to address both sorts, and to address them in different ways. I think you've made a good start at this above.
I said:
- 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?
And Andrew replied:
- Interesting. And your reply to them is...?
And again, if that is offensive I apologise.
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.
I don't think any of these three answer the question. The first answers a question I didn't ask. The second suggests I was wrong to ask the question as I did, rephrases it inaccurately and then doesn't even answer the rephrased question. You call the third answer "conceptual" and "theoretical" and I don't know what you mean by this. You make some very good points in it. Um, I find it very difficult to go further without asking you any questions.
Yes, I'd be interested to know how you would answer the question.
Andrew said: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.
- 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?
Well said.
I certainly didn't mean to call your attention to your pastoral duties into question. I'm also aware that I may sometimes put you (and other ministers on the list) in a very difficult position, as you must assume that your flock may read your replies to this list.
I have some similar considerations to make myself.
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.
OK. I think that's clear.
The problem is that you seem now to have gone back to restating exactly the view that I originally thought I understood, and criticised, only to be told it was "figurative" and I'd misunderstood you. I really don't know how to proceed now.
Normally, I'd ask some questions. I'd be very interested in your answers to them. I think they are fairly obvious anyway, but if they aren't obvious to you I don't mind you asking me what they are. (;->
Andrew said (regarding serious theological work leading to a contemporary theology of sexuality):Perhaps the recent NSW Synod resolution might kickstart such a process.
- Great. So, how do we move forward on it?
Yes. I think it is progress.
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?
Much the same. You're probably in a better position to do it.
You're certainly in a better position to pursue the hermeneutic angle. I agree it's related but I don't see it as critical as you do. I wouldn't like us to get completely diverted in this direction.
I'm also using this list to develop my own ideas and communicate them to a few others, and I'm talking to and praying with lots of others too, as time permits. As are you too I imagine.
(This is the end of the on-topic stuff, only those interested in computer stuff need proceed further.)
Andrew said:Err. And that s bad???
- (Sigh... yes... because they are designed just to work, not just to sell software
No. It's the way everything should be designed. You mentioned "integrity" above. Integrity is an attribute of a lot of commercial programming, but unfortunately its default value seems to be "no". (;->
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.
- 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?
Yeah sure, *nix is god, but if I had my druthers I d still go back to RT-11/RSX-11/VMS...
- Linux --- because it's on your side
Fascinating... I went from RT-11 straight to Unix at one stage, but yes, some of the conceptual design of RT-11 was streets ahead in hindsight. One problem was it wasn't even portable to other DEC machines... in fact at that time we had 16-bit DEC machines that numbered the bits in three of the four possible ways, all on the same network. I haven't seriously used *nix for 20 years now, but if I'm forced to XP a dual boot is a distinct possibility. I could then use XP only when offline. An apple would be a lot simpler.
- 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!
It's a maybe. Or I may put the whole project on hold until my head clears...
Microsoft Windows: Betchya can't install it just once!
Hmmmm... and when Pascal and top-down structure was new we used to say "Fortran makes it easy to write bad programs"... which was about right.
My last two WIN98SE reinstalls have both been after HDD failures (two years apart). Apples have those too. These reinstalls do have the advantage of removing cleanly everything that I no longer really need but couldn't be bothered uninstalling.
YiCaa
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
