G'day Jonathan, Sue and the Group
Quite a lot has crossed this, but I think there's an important point not yet made.
At 11:28 PM 11/12/03 -0500, Jonathan Arthur wrote:
Sue Bolton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spong wrote:
>> There are exceptions of course. They are happy to receive or pay
>> interest, they don't agree with slavery, they can enjoy prawns or
>> ham - especially at Christmas. It is just that they have a bit of
>> trouble with loving their neighbours.
> This is a strawman argument, as there would be very *very* few in the
> UC who would claim that we are not expected to love our neighbours,
> including G&L!!!
I think it is true that the vast majority of Christians would *say* we must love gay and lesbian people. Unfortunately, it does not always translate to action - and I think this is Spong's point.
I understand discrimination to be incompatible with love. So, when a person has has all the appropriate qualifications for ordination, and a group of people denies or challenges that ordination simply because the individual to be ordained is gay or lesbian, this is discrimination and therefore the group of people is not loving the individual regardless of how much they say they are.
Hmmm. I think you presuppose here that a person in a homosexual relationship *is* qualified for ordained ministry, or at least that they can be. But as I understand it, that's the main question.
Some of us have serious doubts about whether they are. We feel that to regard such a person as qualified is a big change in the UCA's understanding of what the Bible says, or in how what the Bible says should be refelected in our actions, or both. We're not yet ready to endorse this change. We may never be, but at the very least we still need to talk about it, without presupposing the answers.
Isn't that fair enough?
But the more immediate problem is that we feel that decisions have already being taken in this direction without listening to the Church. As time passes the "year of listening" of a while ago looks more and more to have really been a year of closing ears to all but one view. However well-intentioned this might have been, it was not good. I think this is now being addressed.
Addressing this is not discrimination. Just the opposite. The attempt to disenfranchise all but one view within the UCA was discrimination.
It didn't work. The very sad result is that, while the UCA has up until now been one of the leading organisations promoting justice for homosexuals, this advocacy is now in dire jeopardy.
Talk to us. But listen to us too. I know it's hard, especially when things that appeared to be won at some cost are now called into question.
All is not lost. We need goodwill and realism on both sides. Please note, I said both sides. Last time I said this some people interpretted me to mean EMU and UN. That's not what I said. Many of us, on both sides, belong to neither of these organisations.
Yours in Christ
andrew alder
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: 6.0.550 / Virus Database: 342 - Release Date: 9/12/03
