G'day Jonathan and the Group
and especially Trevor, Darren and Alan whose very interesting posts crossed this one
At 11:39 PM 14/12/03 -0500, Jonathan Arthur wrote:
Andrew Alder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Yes. As I see it, the qualifications for ordained ministry are independent of sexual orientation.
Hmmm. I think this cuts right to the heart of the matter.
But I don't think *anyone* is denying that "the qualifications for ordained ministry are independent of sexual orientation". (1)
So, why do you raise this? It's good in a way that you do, because you're certainly not the only one to raise it. It has become something of a mantra! But the bizarre thing is, we seem agreed on it. So why does it keep coming up? Why do so many people feel the need to keep making a point that has never been in any dispute? See below.
What *is* in question is homosexual *practice*. But I think it's also agreed that orientation and practice are related but separate issues. So on one of these two issues, orientation, there is agreement. On the other, practice, there is no agreement.
>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.
I sense you feel you have not been listened to. Is this correct? If so, may I ask what needs to happen in order for you to feel listened to?
These are very good questions.
But they are a bit of a jump from what I said, which was that the *Church* is not being listened to. (2)
That's not in itself a bad thing. I appreciate you looking deeper into what I say to see what my real needs and even agendas are. I don't always identify them well, none of us do, so looking beyond the words to find the meanings is good. But I think that the real meanings of the words are quite clear here. There's no need to dig deeper. If you do dig deeper, this shouldn't prevent you from hearing what was actually said.
Despite this, in answer to your first question: No. I do personally feel well listened to. I have no shortage of pastoral care in my congregation, I have opportunities to participate in the organisation of the UCA at many levels, and I feel I have the ear of others more involved.
But examples like (1) and (2) above and (3) and (4) below do make me wonder how effective some of this listening is. Effective listening addresses the questions that are asked. The two above both seem to be answering the question that you would have liked me to have asked instead. This is a tactic used frequently by politicians (dare I again mention Yes Minister). Now I don't say that this is a deliberate tactic on your part, but I do say that it is common in the debate at present, however it arises.
And I think it's good you raise it, just because I think it's so typical. Many others have the same problem. You're still not hearing what we are saying, nor replying to the questions we are asking. This is one reason that I don't think the *Church* is being listened to yet. It's starting, we are making progress. But there's a long way to go.
What would make me feel (more) listened to, personally? For one thing, I think we need to repent of the rejection of proposal 81. That's not to say blame anyone for it. Just the opposite. *We* need to repent, to take responsibility for what was done in *our* name and in good faith by the Assembly *we* appointed. That would convince me that the listening has really started.
I hope I've answered your questions.
In practice the rejection of 81 is already as dead as a doornail. The consultation that it sought to avoid is going ahead anyway. So the rejection has had only two effects. Firstly, it has demonstrated that there is a problem with the processes that led to it, and an even bigger problem with the attitude of some returned delegates who have tried to place the decisions of Assembly beyond question or criticism. Secondly, it has left us in an unclear position as to how to proceed. As a result, ASC, synods, presbyteries and congregations have all been put to a lot more work, and this needless overhead will continue until next Assembly. As another result, we have increased activity by groups such as EMU, all consuming the time and energy of committed people which could otherwise go to the mission of the UCA.
We still need to pick up some pieces. There is no closure on 81 yet, and it will still be some time before we are able to address this IMO.
>From my view point, there has been much listening in the church. I have certainly had the opportunity to express my views as well as listen to others. I have found the listening extremely helpful because by listening to others (and myself) over 10 years, I have completely changed my position on this issue.
(That's your comment above, not mine, I don't know how the "<" got there!)
That's good. Continue to tell this story. Read mine too if you have not already done so, it's been on the web for the last 8 years or so.
It will be great if we can come to a consensus on all this. It will be tragic if we can only achieve unity by some of us leaving. So some of us need to change. To do this, all of us need to be prepared to change. That's scary.
>Addressing this is not discrimination. Just the opposite. The attempt to
>disenfranchise all but one view within the UCA was discrimination.
As far as I can see there has been no attempt to disenfranchise anyone.
Hmmm. Look more carefully is my advice.
You might also reflect on whether I'm the only one who feels this. The formation and promotion of pressure groups within the UCA to me indicates both that people are dissatisfied with the current processes, and that they seek to reduce the influence others have through these processes.
I don't think any of these groups are evil. Rather they are a response to the evil that is inherent in our very human system of governance.
Nor do I think our governance is all that bad. The minor crisis we have here is an opportunity to improve on it. I do think that we need to take this opportunity.
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.
Again, IMO none of this is in dispute. (3)
What *is* in dispute is whether this is a *good* situation. Assembly has both the power and responsibility to make decisions on such matters. These decisions are the proper way to reflect and implement any big changes to what the UCA understands scripture says and what we as an organisation do about it. That's one of the things Assembly is there for.
What you say above sounds very reasonable, but it also leaves a lot out, and as a result it glosses over the real issues.
>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.
Surely, allowing the ordination of gay and lesbian people *is* promoting justice for gay and lesbian people??
This may be true.
But, it would be true *if* and *only if* (practising) homosexuals *are* qualified for ministry. If on the other hand they are *not* qualified, then there would be no injustice in refusing ordination, nor justice in approving it.
So in coming to the conclusion that it's a question of justice, you are still presupposing that they *are* qualified for ministry. (4)
Which as I said before is the main question.
I don't think I understand your point...
Presupposition is IMO the trickiest logical problem of all.
Is it any clearer now?
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
