FYI.
---------------------------
UCA 10th National Assembly Ministry and Membership (Sexuality)
http://www.emu.asn.au/assembly2003/wink_response.html
A Response to the issues raised by the President's replies to Church members
Many UCA members expressed their concern to the President and General Secretary about Assembly Resolution 84. In response they were sent a paper by the liberal theologian Walter Wink, Homosexuality and the Bible. Certainly, this action helps one to understand the position of the Assembly leadership. Wink essentially says four things:
1) The Bible's prohibition on homosexuality is purely an outmoded cultural thing,
2) The Bible has no sexual ethic,
3) The "love ethic" of Jesus should be our only guiding factor,
4) He quotes Morton Kelsey who suggests that homosexuality may be no more morally significant
than being left handed. (Wink even proposes that homosexuality may even be God's answer to our
overpopulation problem).
None of these arguments are new, or very convincing. We are, however, concerned that, Assembly leaders would show themselves be so partisan. Most Bible scholars of repute do not believe the Bible to be silent on one of the most powerful instincts of humankind. They would think it incredible if it was. Most biblical scholars also agree that the only sexual model Jesus entertained as being valid was that of a loving, faithful, monogamous, heterosexual, relationship. They also note that renewals caused by Gods' Spirit in history have never encouraged people into homosexual relationships, quite the reverse.
The Assembly makes out it celebrates the "triune God", the Lordship of Jesus over its life, and the primacy of Scripture. In reality, however, the Assembly is silent when Ministers of the Word promote the radical teaching of John Spong who denies all of the above. The Progressive Christian Network within the Uniting Church (devotees of Spong) believe that Jesus was not God's only son, did not die for our sins, was not resurrected, and is simply the cultural badge we put on our own internal spirituality. The Progressive Christian Network has a recognised status within the S.A. Synod. Sophia (with its neo-pagan links) is also promoted in the brochure on theological training for our theological college in South Australia. This means, in the guise of diversity of thought, the UCA is giving clear support to philosophies and ideals that are clearly and historically heretical from the orthodox Christian position and they clearly deny the documented importance of the ancient creeds and documents of the Faith as described in the Basis of Union. Ministers who hold to such views are therefore in breach of their ordination vows and outside the guidelines of the Uniting Church's own constitution. In the light of this, Assembly's assurances about the Trinity and the Lordship of Christ and the primact of Scripture appear to be no more than empty rhetoric.
In their letters to orthodox Christians, the Assembly leaders have protested that orthodox Christians may not understand the Reformed tradition of the Uniting Church. It has no Pope or leadership authority to define orthodox Christianity. They give the clear impression that we are free to make up our own minds. This is very misleading. The reformers did not believe themselves to be untethered ethically or theologically, free to think whatever they wished. Far from it. The reformers felt duty bound to return to the Bible for their authority. "Scripture alone" was their cry. We wonder why our Assembly officers did not stress this key truth.
It was encouraging to hear that the Assembly Standing Committee took note of the 20,000 signatures gathered in a petition against Assembly's decision within just a few weeks. Any politician would understand that every signature would represent a fair proportion beyond those who actually signed. The Assembly Standing Committee have expressed regret that they did not discuss the Assembly proposal more with the people of the Uniting Church. Whilst we hear their words, we can't help but look to see if the words are matched by actions. Although they express regret, the regret is evidently not at a level to persuade them to recall Assembly, to refer resolution 84 back to the councils and congregations of the church as is required by the Basis of Union (Para. 15e). This has left many Uniting Church members with a sense of complete disenfranchisement. Peter Bentley's report of 1996, according to which more than 80% of us did not support practising homosexual leaders, made no difference. The Basis of Union, paragraph 15e which obliges Assembly to send issues vital to the life of the church to congregations is ignored, and now the biggest petition ever received by Assembly officials seems to have changed nothing.
Our Assembly and Synod officials saw our objections to Resolution 84 as an expression of a continued desire to dialogue on the issue of sexuality. It is not. We have dialogued since 1985 and there is nothing more to say.
The Assembly now has to decide whether to value the wishes of over 80% of the people of the UCA or not. Our objection is not an expression of a will to dialogue, it is a protest that the majority view carries no sway with the Assembly. The recent establishment of the Reforming Alliance demonstrates that we will act independently of the Assembly, where necessary. The President and General Secretary were deliberately excluded from the summit in Sydney to make the point that dialogue is over. After the summit we informed the President of the decision of the Summit to form the Reforming Alliance..
We thank the Assembly for the mass mail-out to the signatories of the petition. In the mail-out it is stated that the UCA is still part of the "one holy apostolic and catholic church." Respectfully, we must point out that whilst we may want to consider this to be the case, other denominations in the wider "church catholic" may not agree. We are not members of the wider church simply because we say so. We are members if the others say so. And many are not saying so. The Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholic, Baptists and evangelical Anglican churches have all expressed difficulty over joint fellowship with us given the Assembly decision.
In a similar vein, the Assembly Standing Committee have stated vehemently that "the leadership did not mislead the Assembly". Whilst they are quite at liberty to say that they had no intention of misleading Assembly, whether the Assembly was actually misled is something that only others (and history) will decide. Certainly, there are three reasons to suggest that the whole truth was not adequately presented:
It was suggested that there were no legal difficulties with the church holding diverse views about sexual ethics. No orthodox congregation could be sued under the anti-discrimination laws for not appointing a practising homosexual leader. However, it has been suggested to EMU from a number of legal sources that this is far from certain and may not be the case. Similarly, no one pointed out that ministers holding to orthodox Christianity would be in breach of the Code of Ethics and Ministry Practice at Synods and Assemblies where they would be alongside ministers living de facto or homosexual lifestyles, whose ministries they cannot accept as valid. As such, there is no safe place for orthodox church leaders within the Uniting Church. They must either suspend their orthodox faith or leave the church
It has been suggested that the church has never had a sexual ethic. This is a misleading statement.[i] Leaders of the church throughout the ages, particularly those of our Reformed tradition, felt quite free to discipline those outside the biblical ethic of faithful, loving, monogamous, heterosexual union. They did not have a sexual ethic written down because it was already written down in Scripture. There was no ambiguity. To imply that there has always been ambiguity in the church over sexual ethics is to mislead.
It was claimed that the Assembly decision on sexuality would have no effect on the Uniting Church's relationship with other denominations. This has already proved not to be the case. It has certainly caused distress to UAICC and migrant and ethnic churches.
One of the main objections of the Assembly leadership to the response of orthodox Christians is the claim that the Assembly decision changed nothing and therefore should not be protested against. Until the 10th Assembly, orthodox Christians in the Uniting Church either did not know what the smaller councils of the church had decided regarding sexual practices of its leaders, or had held on to the faint hope that de facto arrangements and homosexual practices would never be allowed at Assembly level.
Many thought it impossible that less than 20% of a Church's membership[ii] could persuade a denomination to allow sexual practices that were against the consistent principles of the Bible and against the consistent ethical teaching of 20 centuries. However, rather than disallowing liberal ethical practices until the clear will of the church had been ascertained, Assembly gave its own imprimatur to continuing the practices that had been eased into place by smaller councils of the church that had no theological mandate. This is why the homosexual lobby rejoiced at the breakthrough. This is why the media headlines read "First mainline denomination to allow gay clergy." These acts were officially permitted by this vote at Assembly level. The last hope of orthodox Christians in the UCA was gone. To claim that Assembly was simply endorsing decisions at Presbytery level is to miss the point entirely. Such a view smacks of Pilate washing his hands. To claim that no theological decision has been reached on the issue rings hollow when society sees some UCA leaders engaging in homosexual behaviour.
If this were not enough, Assembly voted to make it compulsory to consider each leadership appointment on a case by case basis. It was not considered enough for a congregation to have a policy on insisting on an orthodox Christian sexual ethic, for they were still obliged by Assembly to consider the theology again and again each time a case arose. This is deeply offensive to many orthodox Christians.
Particularly disturbing to us was the rewording by the Assembly Standing Committee of Assembly's decisions regarding sexual practices. Against a perception by many that too much has already happened by stealth, without people being informed, comes the suggestion that by removing some key words, Assembly can continue to allow the same non-orthodox sexual practices but with less offence. This borders on deception and obfuscation and destroys confidence in the Uniting Church's leadership.
On a final note, it has been suggested that these liberal views on sexual ethics will rejuvenate and help make the church relevant to Australians. We wonder why this view is allowed to be presented without challenge? Almost all the churches that are vibrant, youthful and active in the community are the orthodox, evangelical churches.[iii] Several decades of liberal theology have served only to shut down churches. Has this fact been formative of Assembly's thinking and leadership in seeking a future and a hope for the church?
We know the mantle of leadership can be both slippery and burdensome, therefore we continue to pray for the Assembly and its officials. Assembly's leadership will be examined by history. We pray that the actions and communications from Assembly will begin to give the Church renewed hope.
In the end we all long to hear the words "well done, you good and faithful servant" from the only one whose verdict matters.
The EMU Executive
[i] Just a few years prior to union, homosexual acts were still outlawed in most states in Australia. As such, it would not have been necessary for the UCA to specifically forbid such activity.
[ii] 1996 Report by Peter Bentley
[iii] Orthodox evangelical Christians are not uncaring of homosexuals nor are they theologically lightweight fundamentalists. We refer readers to the Homosexuality Study on the EMU website and to the paper Spong and the Bible, should they want to know more.
[end]
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
