Wendie, your message is well put and elucidates the pain that is being experienced around this issue.
Trevor quoted Tutu in response.
Which got me to thinking (dreaming), might Tutu be a person who could bring a healing, restorative word to the UC at this time?
I don't know what he would say on sexuality issues - maybe he doesn't need to say anything. I think what he might say is that what seems impossible (ie reconciliation between those with different views on sexuality, cf dismantling apartheid) is not impossible for God. And he can certainly say things in a unique, personal and yet powerful way. His style at NCYC in 1987 (!) is still a fresh and inspiring memory for me.
Maybe the Assembly could look at bringing him out for a speaking tour - a dozen major cities in two weeks? Maybe the event could be broadcast by video link to congregations across the country. Or put on DVD and a copy sent to each congregation. Get his face in front of as many members as possible. Maybe he would want to have conversations with a range of individuals first, to better understand the feelings. So it might end up costing a few bob, but IMHO could be a very wise investment.
But probably it would need to be a bipartisan move - RA / EMU would also need to embrace it as an opportunity to move forward and stay together with our differences. Is that possible? (Maybe Tutu would need to work on that first.)
Just a dream.
Kind regards, Lindsay Brash.
At 12:23 PM 3/02/04 +1100, Wendie Wilkie wrote:
Have you seen the report from Reforming Alliance and accusations they make about church leaders?
>From their website. "What was surprising was the response of many church leaders who were suspicious, offended or frightened by a group independent of Uniting Church structures conducting an open survey of members. We received letters and phone calls reporting how some leaders within the Uniting Church made attempts to ban or dissuade individuals and congregations from participating in the survey. These leaders denied people the opportunity to express their honest opinion - these same people questioned our motives, our integrity and the validity of both the sample and results prior to their publication."
It seems that they continue to deny that people like you could independently decide about the worth or otherwise of their actions and survey, and continue to promote a conspiracy theory about what 'leaders' do and say. There seems to be no room for genuine discussion and challenge to actions and yet we are meant to be open and to see the error of our ways in a one sided response. They are right and we are wrong. The reality is that in which ever survey you look, theirs or NCLS, what is clear is that there is significant difference of opinion on this matter (as well as countless others) and how are we to respond to that - by ejecting those who don't agree with us? And where does that stop? It is about our ecclesiology - what kind of church are we, and it is about how we understand truth. The thing that comes to me so often when I read the Bible, and last Sundays' passage was a classic, is the reminder from Jesus that God doesn't always act as we want God to do. The affront to the people in his home town was that he reminded them that God didn't go only to the righteous and chosen ones but to Nahum and the widow.
It is not about one side being right and the other wrong but how we live with profound difference. Our good protestant roots tends to push us to split apart from those who don't agree with us and form a community which does. But I don't think that was what Paul or Jesus or the rest of the Bible is about. My belief in Jesus Christ calls me to be part of a worshipping community - not always people I agree with or get on easily with but ones that I am called to see as brothers and sisters in Christ. That is both security and challenge - I don't know it all, I am challenged to see others views, as well as be valued for my insights and experience. My sadness and distress in the current debate is that the fellowship of the community does not seem to be valued. They will go if we don't agree with them - so unless I change my opinion I can't be in relationship with them. It is not about compromise - there are things we can never got to a common view on - but it is how we live with the differences and what differences.
Wendie Wilkie
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of aleggett Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 11:07 AM To: Ann Wansbrough; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Insights List Subject: Re: chruch reject gay poll
Thank you Ann. Very well put. Clap Clap. Like Judy, I wrote a letter to the RA informing them that the survey was greatly flawed and received a similar return letter that acknowledged the same. I thought when it took them so long to release the data they must have "repented" of their actions, but obviously not. Allan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ann Wansbrough" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Insights List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10:58 AM Subject: Re: chruch reject gay poll
> > > > > Chris Udy writes: > > > > > My read is that 27,000 people - all UCA members? - responded to the RA > > > survey. 88% of them used the survey to register a protest. 273,000 UCA > > > members (at least) did not choose the survey as the way to > > > discern the Holy > > > Spirit's guidance for the Church - one way or the other. > > > > > The NCLS survey had a better chance of being a representative sample than > > the Alliance one, but it was a very small one, so I'm not sure that it was > > much more reliable. I think that the only way we might get a fairly > accurate > > understanding of the beliefs/feelings of UCA members would be to convince > > the government to include the question in the next census (as if!) :-) > > Ann: Perhaps someone from NCLS can enlighten us on their sampling process > and whether they think their sample size is large enough to draw some > conclusions. At least the NCLS sample is randomised across the UCA (that is, > there is no reason to believe that people responding to the survey are more > likely to have one view or another about sexuality). > > > > On another tack: > > > > Tom suggested that people who signed as "Dr" should be very embarrassed. > I > > suspect that a significant number of the Drs have medical qualifications, > > which tend not to include courses on research methodology, and it is > > definitely possible to get PhDs without doing this - the majority of > > theological PhDs would not involve any research that requires an > > understanding of statistics, for example, and nor would history PhDs or a > > number of others I'm too tired to bother thinking about just at the > moment. > > I suspect that many of the Drs are simply people of goodwill who don't > have > > any more training than many others which would enable them to see the > flaws > > in the survey design. > > Ann: My recollection is that most of those who called themselves Dr were > Rev. Dr. and I assume that they have doctorates rather than being medical > doctors. I don't think it matters anyway. If one claims the authority of the > title "Dr" then one should accept the responsibility that goes with that > authority. If one claims that research is "objective" then one has a > responsibility to know what makes it so. The code of ethics for specified > ministries requires that ministers not claim competence that they do not > have. If they don't know how to design a survey and interpret research data > properly, then they should not do it - they should get someone competent to > do the work. It is mandatory in academic and health institutions these days > that research proposals involving human subjects go to a human research > ethics committee. It is accepted as best practice in other institutions. > This requirement is independent of the particular discipline - it is about > the responsibility that one takes on when one involves human beings in one's > research project. At UTC students embarking on research involving church > members must have it vetted. UnitingCare Burnside has a research ethics > group. One of the criteria research has to meet before such a committee > looks at specific ethical issues, is basic standards of methodology. It is > unethical (immoral) to interfere in the lives of human beings if one does > not know what one is doing, or if one is deliberately using unfair or biased > research instruments, or if one's research will cause harm to the subjects > or to other human beings. On all these counts, the survey fails - bad > method, biased and misleading questions, causing harm to the subjects (by > creating misunderstanding in the subjects through the questions), harm to > gay and lesbian ministers, candidates, applicants and church members (by > arousing fear about them through misinformation and focus on the > "irrelevant" characteristic, namely their sexuality, instead of their gifts > and graces for ministry) and harm to the church (by creating > misunderstanding and division). The Reforming Alliance, for all its bleating > about morality, is immoral. They impose on others standards that they do > not meet themselves, since they have persisted with using this survey even > when informed of its invalidity, unreliability, and dangers - that is, they > refuse to repent. > Ann > (Rev. Dr.) Ann Wansbrough > UnitingCare NSW.ACT > PO Box A 2178 Sydney South 1235 > Phone (61) (02) 8267 4280 Fax (61) (02) 9267 4842 > Email: [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 > ------------------------------------------------------ >
------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
- 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
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
