Sorry for the delay in replying to this – was on holidays and amazingly found plenty of things to do apart from worry about R84!
I said:
You replied: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.I’m sorry if you think I was prejudging or obscuring anything - that wasn’t my intent. I simply didn’t have your exact words to hand at the time (for the record, they were, “In particular, will we say that homosexual practices are equally valid in God's sight to heterosexual practices?”) and I was simply summarising the fact that you had listed two possible positions the church might take, one of which was affirming (I think judging a practice as valid in God’s sight is affirming don’t you?) homosexual practise. In the context I felt it was clear that I was speaking of affirming practice (what I meant by ‘lifestyle’) rather than the person, though I now see it might be read differently. In any case I can’t see that any of this matters to the main thread of the argument, since I was not primarily commenting on the first of the two positions you mentioned, but rather the second (ie. “Or will we say that Christians differ on this, and that the UCA has no official opinion”), which as I said, seems perfectly reasonable to me.
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.
I said:
And you replied: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.I do think you are being unnecessarily pedantic here. I think that “I fail to see why ...” seems reasonably good shorthand for “I am unpersuaded by your arguments that ...”. Then the second wording simply makes more explicit what it is which I believe conservatives find “problematic”. In any case, since I had acknowledged the possibility that you had misunderstood me and gave the second statement specifically to guard against that possibility by giving a more explicit rendition of my primary argument, I don’t know that it is especially helpful to pursue further the equivalence (or otherwise) of the two statements.
I think the problem (and remember here that I am describing ‘the problem’ as conservatives see it, in order to then critique that view) is absolutely about accepting other positions within the church. So for example, quoting from Nick Hawkes’ paper from the EMU website, “Why can’t we live with it”:
And, I don't think the problem is about accepting other positions within the church. It's about what we do about them.
(http://www.emu.asn.au/assembly2003/emu_nick_hawkes_coexisting_sex.html)
Some things have to be excluded if the Christian faith is to make sense.
Similarly, you cannot have two groups within the church speaking directly opposite things about fundamental issues of scriptural authority, holiness, judgement, ...and retain credibility. Any institution speaking with such a forked tongue has forfeited the right to be taken seriously. It can no longer be seen to be the dispenser of truth handed down from God.
You can put things together harmoniously, and live with the tension of the differences, only if each party can retain their integrity in doing so.
Now clearly I disagree with the view expressed above, but I believe that it demonstrates that I have accurately summarised ‘the problem’ as conservatives see it.
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.I agree that having no policy is a (meta-)policy all its own, and that such a (meta-)policy has practical consequences; but that doesn’t in and of itself make it a bad, wrong or unhelpful (meta-)policy. Assembly clearly had reasons for deciding on that meta-policy, ie. not to have a policy. If you disagree with that decision you need to put forward arguments to demonstrate that having a policy would be a better meta-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.
I think dialogue is an entirely appropriate term to use. Used as a verb (as I did), it means something along the lines of “to take part in a conversation, discussion or negotiation”, and that was what I was offering to do. My objection was not to the Socratic method, per se (I quite enjoy using it myself in the role of teacher), but its use in the manner you used it and in the context in which you used it. It came across as patronising and so far from enlightening me from a consideration of my own thoughts, it served only to irritate. I may be wrong, but I suspect that the Socratic method may not be so fruitful a tool in a conversation between equals as it might be for a teacher.
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.
I’m not quite sure what to say regarding your comments on hermeneutics, since I’m not entirely sure what substantive point you were trying to make. Are you trying to say that an understanding of the differing interpretational matrices through which different sectors of the church are approaching questions such as homosexuality is unnecessary? Or irrelevant? Or are you denying that there are interpretational differences?
I don’t think that I did suggest that there wasn’t integrity on both sides. I think that what I said spoke about the integrity of a particular position, and specifically a position taking into account the hermeneutical issues foundational to the current debate. If you wish to put forward an alternative position of integrity which takes into account those hermeneutical differences I would be pleased to hear it. And just for the record, claiming that the UCA is “guided by the secular ethics of our age rather than consistent biblical principles” is not such a position of integrity. (http://www.emu.asn.au/assembly2003/emu_nick_hawkes_listening.html)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.
I agree that it didn’t work, but in fact I cannot see any possibility of any approach which will work, given that the conservative position is that no difference may be tolerated. If I’m missing something here, let me know.
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 can see the distinction you are making between feelings and information. But to be honest, from the parishioners I speak to, this is not really the issue. They are happy to accept that they will not be forced to have a homosexual minister against their will. But their position is that they do not want the UCA to have any homosexual minister anywhere, even if s/he is in a church which is comfortable with the arrangement. That is why I made the comment in one of my earlier posts that this issue is about imposing their will on other Christians. I am quite happy to deal pastorally with someone who is worried that they may be forced to accept a homosexual Minister, indeed I have attempted to do just that, and I think I have done so successfully. But that is not sufficient for the hardliners – whether or not they ever have any contact with the person, if the UCA ordains even one active homosexual person, they feel that is unacceptable.
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.
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...?
I said (among other things): 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 whose 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.
I don’t understand why you think my third answer (quoted above) doesn’t answer the question. It is the answer I would give, were the question asked genuinely in a forum where it was appropriate for me to reply.
I said:
Andrew replied: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.I don’t think this is the case. Your original criticism, perhaps on the basis of my phrase “I really fail to see...”, was that I did not understand or care about the pain of those who oppose homosexual ordination. I rephrased my statement in order to more clearly indicate that I did both understand and care about their pain, but I was unconvinced by their arguments. That is also what I have said (in different words) in the paragraph quoted directly above.
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.
I’m afraid they aren’t obvious to me and I’d be happy for you to ask them.
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. (;->
Cheers
Linz
The three 'R's of Microsoft Windows: Retry, Reboot, Reinstall.
--
Rev. Lindsay Cullen
Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An old(!) website... www.lindsaycullen.com
