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.
I wish I'd said things like that, Andrew.
Some of us have serious doubts and worries about this particular issue, while at the same time perhaps being more alarmed and worried by where statements from EMU like "We are not at liberty to ignore passages [of scripture] at random (or for particular purposes)" could lead us. Even if we do have problems with this particular decision (and the way it is being defended), that doesn't necessarily make us supporters of EMU, RA, Gordon Moyes etc. Indeed some of us would probably take such labelling as a personal insult. Reactively labelling dissenters to resolution 84 as EMUites, religious bigots or just intellectually deficient may make the labeller feel good, but it doesn't recognise the real concerns that otherwise liberally inclined people have about the resolution.
I don't think that it is sufficient to give people like Andrew and me a little pat on the head and send us away with the admonition to "stop stirring little boys, because you weren't at Assembly 2003 and therefore you cannot possibly understand that decision and how and why it was reached".
------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
