David Powell wrote:
To be a 'safe place', church people of all backgrounds need to trust and to feel trusted.
To me there's a fundamental dilemma in that statement: namely, that church people who espouse a system of belief that I have found to be dangerous are, by definition, untrustable. That doesn't mean I think they as *people* are untrustable, but that when they act in accordance with (or aggressively promote) the beliefs they espouse, that's when I find them dangerous.
Maybe we *do* need a modern book of etiquette: one that explains where the different camps are coming from. Then the senders and receivers of communication can start to meet each other half way.
And here's the crux of the dilemma - what constitutes meeting them halfway? If it's open dialogue, hearing where they're at, understanding where they're coming from, and accepting their right to hold those views, fine. But if it's trying to find a stance which incorporates elements of both viewpoints, I have a problem with that. I can accept that we can live and work together while holding different views, but I can't and won't agree that any of us have a right to impose our views on others (always excepting expecting community members to abide by community consensus on what's best for the community as a whole, of course).
Clare *************************************************** Clare Pascoe Henderson http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************
------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
