G'day Darren and the Group
At 03:24 AM 22/11/03 +1030, darren wright wrote:
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."
Yes. Awesomely good point. We are failing miserably to put homosexuality into the context of sexuality. That's part of the problem.
IMO one reason that we do this is the quite correct fear of the straight and married that if we do, we will then subject their bedrooms to the same scrutiny to which we have traditionally been quite happy to subject those of the gay and the single. I've raised this before.
Food for thought?
Do the sums, this discussion has gone on longer than half of my life.
Likewise. About five millenia of it are recorded. How does the song go... "When we've been there ten thousand years..." (;->
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 think it should be, in a way. I go offshore sailing for fun. It sometimes involves sitting wet and alone at a cramped, poorly lit navstation at 2am in the morning, being thrown around in deafening noise, and knowing that if I get my sums wrong eight people will soon be in the water in the dark, with our yacht, wallets and carkeys at the bottom of the sea and in danger of death.
I have a good time sailing. Are you saying you *didn't* have a good time at Assembly? I'm sorry about that.
If I get the chance to go, I will. I'm sure I'll be challenged and extended by it. But I hope I won't come back thinking that the *outcome* was perfect, however positive the *experience* may have been.
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.
Please be specific. Have I done any of these things? Which?
I am further distressed about the same thing happening regarding to the actual decisions of the Assembly.
So talk to us. But meet us halfway. Have you considered how *we* feel?
Andrew and Trevor, the decisions were not collossal blunders,
See my earlier reply that crossed this. I believe I have only called one decision, the rejection of 81, a "colossal blunder". I stick by that. I think it's very important to come to terms with this, and very painful.
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.
Agreed.
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.
Let's keep talking about this. That's exactly the attitude I seek to address.
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."
No, of course not.
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.
And I'm not trying to silence you. Just the opposite.
What have I suggested that is "silly"?
What have I failed to "accept" about your experience? What have I suggested that was "otherwise"?
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.
I belong to none of these. May I assume you are in the third?
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.
Interesting. Do you think it's possible that members of all these three groups believe they are in the majority?
But, in some age groups I believe you are quite right here.
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.
Hmmm. I suppose that unless we all know the minute number, we should really say "The Resolution that was Proposal 84". But it's *not* "Resolution 84", that's what I meant to point out. Agreed?
If you can come up with a better name for it, let's use it. I think we all know what it means. I just wanted to avoid confusing people not familiar with minutes who take the trouble to look them up, and who will look in vain for a "resolution 84" and won't even find anything of that format.
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?
Because that's what I mean. Obviously there's a deeper question you wish to ask. Several come to mind. Could you be explicit?
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.
Good points.
I think I mean "we" in exactly the same sense you do here. Is that clear now?
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.
Let's disagree on that for the moment. I have friends on both sides of this who do need to soften IMO.
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.
Yes. Interesting, that is. I agree with some of it.
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.
Thanks for your contributions.
YiCaa
email: andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27/10/03
