If what happened at Assembly 2003 wrt the sexuality issue were not "colossal blunders", then they were IMO actions taken without much prior thought about possible consequences or without much prior regard for the adverse and hurtful affects that they would have on many members of the Uniting Church family. Those actions and the way in which they came to be communicated eventually to the wider Uniting Church community have left many in our family hurt, bewildered and alienated.
Ok, so when it comes to matters like sexuality and abortion, people like Andrew and me are probably to the conservative side of the teaspoon, even while in many other matters we might be seen to lie on the liberal side. Is it now the expectation of the Uniting Church that people like us who don't totally and completely embrace the dicta resolved by the recent Assembly are to be silent, else we suffer the threat of demeaning sarcasm?
Well it is good to see that we already have a volunteer for the 2006 Assembly, one who truly knows what being "Spirit-led" means. Andrew, I hope that you are not seriously mocking the sincerity and integrity of the members of the Assembly.
As for the rest, a simple reading of the ASC material will show that what is happening is a new process. Proposal 81 asked for concurrence on the mattters raised in '84'. The ASC has asked for a response, so that proposals can be prepared for the 2006 Assembly, not to 'ratify' decisions of Assembly 03. Clause 39 of the Constitution has not been invoked.
Regardless of where people are 'at' following Assembly, '84' and '81' were not 'colossal blunders'. From those decisions we are seeing the strengths of our Church and the places that need building up, and most of us are opening ourselves up to explore or re-explore the many and varied issues. We are being led by the Spirit [read: led by the Spirit, not 'having a good time'] into new places.
Andrew, I am sorry that you were not able to see what the 10th Assembly was *actually* like, not having to rely on judgement of others experiences.
And isn't this exactly what the rejected Proposal 81 would have done?
I'm glad. I have of course always been saying, stick with the UCA, give it three years. The 2006 Assembly is the place to fix what went wrong at the 2003.
And that, of course, remains an issue. Those who were at the 2003 Assembly continue to say, publicly and privately, just how 'spirit-led' the 2003 Assembly was. What they seem to mean by this is that they had a good time there. And that's good. But they then use this to attempt to silence those of us who question the decisions they took. That is not good.
The rejection of Proposal 81 remains such a colossal blunder that it calls the processes that led to it seriously into question. We must make sure that people *don't* have such a good time at Assembly 2006 that they come back to us unable to rationally consider the issues.
------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
