Thanks Trevor and Jonathon I might respond a little more later (right now im doing shift work to survive and have to sneak in some more sleep prior to working tonight).
but just in regards to one point: "As far as I can see there has been no attempt to disenfranchise anyone. The current position allows each person/congregation/presbytery to fulfil their various responsibilities in regard to ordained ministries according to their own understanding of the will of God on this issue. 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." This is an interesting point that noone on this list has actually discussed yet (as far as ive seen). What the Assembly decision actually did was give the Presbytery the right to decline someone on the basis of their sexuality and how they express it. This actually allows the Presbytery to ask a question that up until now it was unable to do "how do you express your sexuality?" This in turn gives the Presbytery the right and power to discriminate against people living in same sex relationships, up until now they were not actually allowed to do so, or as far as I'm aware even to ask the question. The sad thing is that the Assembly decision didnt make it "ok for people who are a part of the gay/queer society to enter into ordained ministry." what it did do, but default is give the Presbytery the right to discriminate against or to allow people in such relationships/sexuality to enter into ordained ministry. Its sort of our ying-yang of the decision, what some people see as good is also what others see as bad. some people are not happy because "we threw out the bible" some people arent happy because "we made it ok for people to discriminate" We do need to find something else, another way... but unfortunately all i hear is "reverse the decision" or "why this is wrong (Quote Bible chapter:verse - verse)" not anything construtive in the discussion or a way forward that isnt inherintly white-middle-class-australian. I am amazed that the now named "Evangelical Presbyteries" and "Evangelical Churches" who have said that they are not happy with the decision are not happy that they have the right to discriminate against people from the queer/gay communities and/or living in a same sex relationship... it seems that's exactly what people want the right to do, ask people about their sexuality and to be able to discriminate against that person on the basis of the answer. It encourages people who are in the queer/gay community to: a) not be comfortable in their presbytery and move on the basis of it's sexual ethic b) not be comfortable in their presbytery and lie about their sexuality so that they can become ordained c) move presbytery in order to go through the process. Andrew is correct, 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 We've actually given parts of our Church the right to discriminate on the basis of how they express their sexuality... our advocacy is in jeopardy. Shalom Darren Wright give us the bread of today... --- 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 ------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
