At 11:14 AM 24/11/03 +0800, Trevor Mattiske wrote:
> The debates within the Australian church, including this list, are pretty gloomy and negative.
Yes, that seems to be the case here.
But I think there is an important distinction between
i) discussing / questioning / challenging an assembly decision; and
ii) bringing into question the competence and integrity of the assembly as a decision-making council of the UCA.
Unfortunately, (ii) has become common, among EMU/RA and also here. Perhaps this is sometimes unintentional. But it is clearly hurtful for members of assembly, not least the president. Keep in mind, this has been going on for months. So sometimes there is a back-lash.
For me personally, I continue to trust the assembly and its members, independent of my views on [R84] and everything that has happened since.
Which brings me to my point: Any attack on the (competence and integrity of) assembly is also an attack on me, and anyone else who feels this way. (Maybe it's a majority of UC, maybe it's just me.)
Kind regards, Lindsay Brash.
------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
