I was gunna stay silent as I'm getting really tired of the conversations surrounding sexuality. I am 28 now, a youth worker in my presbytery "came out" when i was 14 and I guess started the discussions in SA over teh "sexuality issue." realistically its actually a "homo-sexuality issue" because if sexuality was the issue we'd be discussing something more than homosexuals in leadership positions within the church. In my opinion we've not been discussing "sexuality."
Do the sums, this discussion has gone on longer than half of my life. The proposal seeking concurrance has a legal theme to it, some might have others believe that concurrance only defines "agreement" as it says in the oxford dictionary...... however, in the purpose that it was originally meant it does actually mean a lot more, or could be seen to mean a lot more. This is seeking responses, not concurrance as in the previous proposals at assembly. I am concerned that the Assembly has been dubbed "liberal" and "beuroctats" I had hoped that the recent experience of others in their own synods would hammer in that this is a process that we follow in these meetings to get to decisions, it wasnt a whole pile of beurocrats and the people were not all "liberal." The process was really well thought through, people discussed it in small groups, in tea, in lunch, in breaks, on the toilet... Andrew said that the next assembly might not have such a good time, this is a complete misunderstanding. If you consider sitting in a 1 person dormatory at 2am with 4 people, the constitutions and BoU in hand "fun" by all means go for it, have a lot of fun. I am upset that there is a large misconception and misunderstanding as to what happened at Assembly, and i continue to be upset that there have been many people spreading false rumours, lies and incomplete-truths about the Assembly, its process and its discerning of what we needed to do. I am further distressed about the same thing happening regarding to the actual decisions of the Assembly. Andrew and Trevor, the decisions were not collossal blunders, they were decisions that had come through a process that we as a Church have put in place. They were decisions that the Assembly came to after seeking out God's will and call for us as a community, as a church, as the people of God. To call them "collossal blunders" or "wrong" is in my view an act of great distrust in God, the people at Assembly and dare i say it blasphemy. When the Assembly says it was Spirit-Led it does not mean good time, unless of course when you say that your church service was led by the spirit that it was just "the congregation having a good time." I'm not silencing you, I'm just asking you to accept my experience of Assembly without suggesting that it was otherwise, without trying to silence me by suggesting such silly things. Moving on... I believe that you would find in our church at least 3 groups of people, not two as mentioned in the Assembly resolution. Those who have come to the conclusion that CISAFM is the only way Those who have come to the conclusion that Right Relationships is the only way AND Those who have come to the conclusion that they want to be a community where this discussion does not destroy us and who want us to move from where we have been. The third group might not be totally "Liberal" or totally "Evangelical" but I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that these people are actually a majority in our church and unfortunately they are not being talked with, EMU only speaks to one group, the Liberal only speak to the other and the rest of us wallow in the middle somewhere watching them all tear each other apart. Moving on again I still believe that Concurrance sought on a proposal that stated the current practices and beliefs of the councils and people within the UCA would have only ended up in a bigger mess than what we're in now, the problem the church has had in the last few years was a blanket ban on discussing these issues, or at least an understanding that it was meant to be a time in which we ddnt speak of it. This has lead to confusion and hurt by/to many of our community in the UCA. If we sought Concurrance on something that already-was and received no concurrance, then we'd have effectively not agreed on our process for calling people into ministry into our Church, into our churches and possibly decided that there are not actually people who believe these things within the UCA which is quite obviously not true. Moving on (again) It is not a proposa it is a resolution, im not sure if it is officially Resolution 84 or if it will have a different number, however the very second we resolved the proposal it ceased to be a proposal. They mean the Rsolution, not the proposal. Moving on... Andrew wrote: "I'm sorry if that's blunt. But time is in a sense still short. This decision of ASC, and the similar decision of NSW Synod, are both ahead of the schedule I was hoping for. Perhaps that's good. If this momentum is maintained the prospects of 2006 Assembly are good. Now, we need to ask, what would be a good outcome of Assembly 2006? It needs some miracles. Those of us who believe in such things should start praying for them." Why is there a change from "I" to "we" in these statements? One of the problems i face with Synod and Assembly is that I am not there to represent anyone but God. It is not beurocracy, it is worship and it is prayer. I am not there to scratch anyones back, but i am there to seek out God's will for us as a Church. I'm concerned that there is a lot of "I" statements from various sections of the church that are unhelpful, same to with "we" statements. Its as if the community of the Church has forgotten that "we" is all of us and "I" is me. WE is not a small group within the church, this is what I had hoped that 84 would have done, just recognise that WE all don't agree and that WE need to move on. Quite obviously this has not been the case, however i continue to urge people to think that this is wider than "beaurocrats" its wider than "the liberals vs the EMU's" its bigger than the "Homosexuals and those who dont like them." The issue is that WE are a Church, WE are called to be a family and WE are a lot of people who will never agree and who are each called by the beautiful, powerful and loving God that we all know through our own life, experiences, prayer, through and in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and through each other. The very second WE break "we" and "i" down to small groups or individuals WE have lost the plot and cease to be that family God calls us to be. Crikies, And again I move on... Andrew wrote: "We should first pray for some softening of attitudes on both sides. I didn't say opinions, or stands, or policies, or principles, or theology, or doctrine, or proposals, or anything linear like that. That comes later. First, the attitudes. Start with yourself. Especially if your prayers tend at first to concentrate on the issues, or on the 'other' side, or both. And that's why I say "perhaps" above, and that time is still short. We have made a good start on the issues. How are the attitudes coming? Let's be Church. Jesus said "This is how you'll know you're in Church: The love you have for each other will be obvious to everyone who walks in." We have some work to do. And so has God. He's willing. Are we?" ok very quickly (because its now 3am) Yes we should pray, but not for softening. We should continue to pray that God works through and in us as a Community, a Church, a Family, an Individual to bring the Kingdom of God here and now to the wrld in which we live. I still think there are more than two sides and that softening doesnt feel like the way we need to be going. There are people hurt in this Church, I now refuse to say "there are people hurting on both sides" because thats rediculous, we're not playing world cup rugby people. I also ask if its theologically correct to say that God still has some work to do or if its us who needs to do it all.... hmmm, interesting thought. I'll stop here, however I will give prior warning to another post that I am about to send. I will be sending an email I wrote to my faith communtiy in South Australia after sitting at the SA Synod, after driving home in tears. The post is personal and I will not be entering debate over what I see as a part of my faith journey, I offer it in the hope that we can move past the "Proceedure, Policy and Sides" discussions and into where WE are vulnerable, WE hurt together and WE listen together. And where God can speak to US in a different way. Shalom Darren --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.536 / Virus Database: 331 - Release Date: 3/11/03 ------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
