|
Hello. I thought I'd set out some arguments in favour of
homosexual ordination in the Uniting Church in Australia.
And counter those of
EMU
-- the Evangelical Members within
the Uniting Church in Australia.
EMU was set up to oppose homosexual ordination within the Uniting Church. (Bad luck for Evangelicals who support homosexual ordination, I guess they'll have to start their own group.) Paul Dyson pwdyson at yahoo.com I'm not in anyway associated with the Uniting Network. I hardly know anything about them, actually. |
I seem to have a log in my eye. 31/3/05 Rev Dr Nick Hawkes writes in an endnote to "Being an Evangelical in a Liberal Church" given 29/10/2004 This year, George Negus spoke at an Adelaide Press Club luncheon about his book on Islam and told us that Islamic people are just like us (thank you mother for that one), but, in his eagerness to be politically correct, completely failed to address what it is in that culture that allows the extreme violence of Islamic fundamentalism to develop.The same day Dr Hawkes gave this address (29/10/2004 5:10 GMT), CNN carried the headline "Study puts Iraq toll at 100,000" quoting from The Lancet. Of course Muslims are not just like us Christians, we not only have fundamentalists who engange in extreme violence (100,000 Iraqis dead and counting) but we have evangelicals who can't even see it for what it is. Islamic fundamentalists kill thousands in several terrorist acts and their culture must be questioned to explain why. Christian fundamentalists carry out an illegal war of aggression lasting years and killing a hundred thousand and no need is felt to explain what it is in the Christian culture that allows such a thing. No embarrasment at asking Islamic culture to explain its terrorism. The diversity of Christianity and Islam around the world make a nonsense of the concept of a single Islamic or Christian culture. Such questions are meaningless when put in these terms, and the causes certainly can't be put down to one religion or another. But the more interesting question is: what is achieved by framing the world in terms of clashing religious cultures? Let's all Give Thanks for the Prime Minister 31/3/05 There are some who believe that there is a right-wing plot to split a church that is critical of the Liberal Government, with sexualty as the wedge issue. The test of that will be whether any break-away churches remain committed to social justice and criticism of government. After seeing this on the EMU website I'm not holding my breath: The National Day of Thanksgiving was launched by the Governor General, Sir Michael Jeffries, on February 11th, 2004, at Government House, Canberra. The National Day of thanksgiving was endorsed by the Prime Minister John Howard and the Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson. This day will be celebrated annually in May, the Saturday prior to Pentecost Sunday. "Catch the vision" or innoculation? 1/4/05 In response to an email asking the good question "Thanksgiving for what?" I had a look at the origins of this American national holiday. Though dating back to the Pilgrims in 1621, the national holiday was proclaimed by George Washington (leader of the revolutionary forces) and the Continental Congress during the American Revolutionary War in 1777. This lapsed by 1800 and it wasn't until another war, the American Civil War that Abraham Lincoln proclaimed the national Thanksgiving Day that remains to this day. And now, once again in a time of war, we have a National Thanksgiving Day being taken up by political leaders (including a former Major General), this time in Australia. Those leading a war have repeatedly used this tradition to reassure the population. Should the church "catch the vision" or have "eyes to see"? Reforming Alliance -- Aligned to the Right 31/3/05 I'd been told the Reforming alliance would be aligned to the right but nothing prepared me for what I saw when I went to their home page. And if you have a large enough web browser and a small enough font you will see it too. Unlike most web sites that line up along the left hand side of the page, the RA web site lines up along the right hand side of the page. Their home page is RIGHT JUSTIFIED. And to rub it in their logo consists of two arrows pointing to the right. Three-fifths of five-eighths of bugger-all 31/3/05 Spring 2004 issue of travelling EMU proclaims that "Canadian Population Only 1% Homosexual". And I always thought I was 0% homosexual, but then I'm an Australian. What is the argument here? That a smaller group has fewer rights? If there was only one praticing homosexual in the world (actually, better make that two) then discrimination would be ok? Or is it just: Hooray there are so few of them! But I'm being uncharitable. Maybe the excitment is that Matthew 18:12-14 is seen to apply far more exactly. According to the article quoted, this survey asked people what they defined themselves as, not what they had actually enganged in. This gave me the impression that asking about activity would lead to larger i.e. inflated numbers. The implication is that it is more accurate to ask people what they consider themselves to be, than ask them what they have done. But as I understand it EMU is against the act, not the self-identification, so the 1% is only part of the story. Misunderstanding? 8/8/03 Is part of the opposition to homosexual ministers the belief that homosexuals are paedophiles? If that is the case then much of the heat in this debate is due to misunderstanding. If I thought homosexuality and paedophila were the same thing, of course I'd be against homosexuality. But they are no more connected than heterosexuality and paedophilia. "Right relationships" does not include paedolphilia, it condemns it! I was not aware how widespread this misunderstand is until I looked at the recent ABC internet forum. Quite a few posts lumped homosexual people and paedophiles together. And now I see that on 1 Aug 2003 EMU's National Spokesperson Mary Hawkes advised an EMU meeting in South Australia to Send letters to/ place ads in local press: Tell your community that you are still the same people and you don't agree with the decision of the Assembly either. Tell them that their children are still safe with you. Tell them that you hold to the biblical understanding of faithfulness in marriage and celibacy in singleness. (Emphasis added)If a hatred of paedophila is driving this, then can't we all agree to condemn it and leave homosexual people alone? Sexuality, Where is the Case for Change? 8/8/03 In Sexuality, Where is the Case for Change? Owen Davis argues that, contrary to common understanding, and the understanding of those in the ASC meetings, the Assembly Standing Committee (ASC) minutes did not allow for ordination of practicing homosexual people. He wants to "enable readers to understand why those decisions do not permit what is claimed for them and also see how words and distinctions can be twisted to make the impermissible permissible". Much as I don't like the method used -- I find it overly legalistic, ignoring what people took the words to mean when they wrote them -- let's see where we get if we use this method to examine ASC minute 82.12: "that Standing Committee advise the Presbytery that in its view the sexual orientation of a candidate is not and has not been in itself a bar to ordination. A decision on the suitability of a candidate may of course depend among other things on the manner in which his or her sexuality is expressed." The ASC used the word may. This is a permissive word. It allows, but does not compel. Sexual expression may be taken into account, but it does not have to be. ASC did not say sexual expression should or must be taken into account. If church doctrine was against practicing homosexual ministers prior to 1982, then this was when the doctrine was softened. Sexuality, Where is the Case for Change, Even Now? 8/8/03 "Sexuality, Where is the Case for Change" was written before the recent Assembly meeting caused all the fuss. The Assembly resolved: Recognising that:Let's continue with the method of looking only at the words, and ignoring what everyone understands them to mean. When we do this we find that this resolution does not change the church's position at all! The Assembly recognises that members hold two differing positions and neither is adopted as doctrine. The Assembly merely calls upon us to live together in peace despite our views. Not that controversial at all. So if we accept the method Davis used to argue that ASC did not change the position on homosexual ordination, then we must also accept that Assembly didn't change the position either. So what is all the fuss about? Of course, Assembly did allow for homosexual ordination with this resolution, and of course, ASC did allow for it back in 1982. This shows the limits to a legalistic reading of documents created by a particular group of people in a particular situation, ignoring what was meant at the time. Imagine what mess we'd get in if we applied this technique to our scriptures... Homosexual Celibacy in Singleness? 8/8/03 Are unmarried homosexual people treated more harshly than unmarried heterosexual people under the policy "Celibacy in Singleness and Faithfulness in Marriage" (CISAFIM)? Consider a heterosexual person who is required to be celibate until they are married. They must refrain from sexual intercourse, but are allowed to hold hands, cuddle, kiss passionately... and somewhere a line is drawn before the act of sexual intercourse. Now consider a homosexual person who is also required to be celibate, as they too are unmarried. They too must refrain from the act of sexual intercourse, in this case homosexual intercourse, due to prohibitions against this particular act in the bible. So what does homosexual celibacy allow? Holding hands, cuddling, kissing passionately a partner of the same sex? Where is the line drawn for homosexual people? Do advocates of CISAFIM want to restrict homosexual people from doing many of the "celibate" things that they allow single heterosexual people to do? If so, why does "celibacy" mean one thing if you are homosexual, and another if you are heterosexual? And why is heterosexual celibacy more sexually permissive? Splitters!!! 8/8/03 Has the Eyre Presbytery in SA proclaimed itself to be the only true Uniting Church, or is it just a drafting problem? "With a heavy heart and desirous of reconciliation in the future, at this point the Presbytery will no longer extend fellowship to or participate in ministry with the Assembly and any of its agencies, any Synod, any Synod agency, any Presbytery, or any Uniting Church Congregation that settles, employs, ordains, accepts for candidature in an approved Ministry of the Uniting Church, or approves of the ordination of any person or persons in same sex relationships as it considers such sections of the church to have left the orthodox position, which is described in the Basis of Union, and thus left the Uniting Church."They are going to work on the wording. So do they mean "approves the ordination" or "approves of the ordination" as stated. I suspect they mean the first, which may not happen anywhere for some time, the second is already Assembly policy. Basis of (Dis)union 8/8/03 Much is being made by EMU about their following the Basis of Union, as opposed to the rest of us, who are departing from it with gay abandon. It is claimed the Assembly ignored paragraph 15(e) of the Basis of Union, To this end the Uniting Church makes provision in its constitution for the following:when the proposal was lost to deem homosexual ordination "of vital importance to the life of the Church." But the Basis of Union says it is the constitution that provides for this. If the constitution did not provide for this it would be failing to follow the Basis of Union. But the constitution does provide, and importantly provides a method for determining what is of vital importance to the life of the church. So in order to adhere to the Basis of Union we should look at the constitution. 39. On matters which, by a two thirds majority vote, the Assembly deems to be vital to the life of the Church, the Assembly shall seek the concurrence of Synods and/or Presbyteries and/or Congregations as the Assembly may determine.So even if nearly 2/3 of the Assembly thinks something is of vital importance to the life of the church, it will not be deemed to be. 2/3 is needed. Homosexual ordination did not get the required 2/3 vote at the Assembly meeting. So it was not deemed "of vital importance". I didn't see this vote, but comments such as "we can now get on with things" indicate that for some, at least, sexuality is seen as a side issue and not the main game - not of vital importance. You may disagree. You may lobby to get Assembly members to change their minds. You may lobby to get the constitution changed. But you can't say the Assembly wasn't following the Basis of Union. The regulations make it hard to deem things of vital importance to the church, and rightly so. Countering anti-homosexual interpretation of scripture 8/8/03 First of all, if you want to be against homosexuality, you can find those passages in the bible and I'm not going to convince you. Also, if you don't believe you are interpreting the bible, then once again I'm not going to convince you. However, interpretation is unavoidable, everybody does it. I don't see one handed, one eyed, Christians walking around. So either their hands and eyes have never caused them to sin, or they interpret what they read. So the question is "how do we interpret?", not "whether we interpret?". I would argue that we must interpret all of the bible in the light of Jesus Christ, who is revealed in the bible. For me, this calls rules into question. Jesus was a confronter of authorities and a breaker of rules. Particularly rules that excluded people. So I have a problem with hard and fast exclusionary rules. However, you may not see Jesus that way, so I'll continue. What about the NT concept of "judging by their fruits"? My testimony is, my witness if you like to this, is that both lay and ordained homosexual people that I've known have born great fruit for the church and for justice in the world. This experience makes an anti-homosexual stance hard to take. From what I've seen committed homosexual relationships are no more damaging than committed heterosexual relationships. And in fact homosexual relationships are under enormous pressure in society, despite legal changes. If this is not your experience of homosexual people, then you won't agree. But please don't write homosexual people off if you don't know any. Finally we get to the texts. I find the argument by Wink compelling: http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm that the church is so selective about biblical sexual ethics that we can't accurately speak of holding to a biblical position. We tend to ignore the biblical positions against: * intercourse during menstruation * celibacy * exogamy (marriage with non-Jews) * naming sexual organs * nudity (under certain conditions) * masturbation (some Christians still condemn this) * birth control (some Christians still forbid this) * And the bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not And the bible allowed things we today condemn: * prostitution * polygamy * levirate marriage * sex with slaves * concubinage * treatment of women as property * very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13) So the church is selective about what biblical sexual ethics it holds to and it is consistent for the church to disagree with the bible about homosexuality. In doing so it seeks to follow Jesus Christ, as revealed in the scriptures. However, you may not agree so we'll look at the texts. The Leviticus ones can be said to be not applicable to Christians. How many Christians follow the rules about the uncleanliness of menstruating women? However, if they are applicable, then they advocate death for men who have sex with other men. I don't hear many Christians advocating that (thankfully). Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexual rape, which is not being advocated. I'm sure everyone in the church is against all the men in a village surrounding a house and demanding that the men inside come out so they can have sex with them. Rom 1, refers to people who have replaced God for an idol and engage in same gender sex. This is what happened in cultic sex practices at the time. People in faithful same sex relationships, who confess Jesus as LORD, are not replacing God for an idol -- they are followers of Jesus. This passage is not talking about them. I may have missed some references, but I think this leaves the NT occurrences of the greek word 'arsenokoite' -- literally a "man-bedder". There are arguments over the meaning of this word. Some say it refers to male-prostitutes. But whatever it refers to I would argue that it is not talking about the concept of homosexuality as we know it today. This way of thinking about homosexuals was not around 2000 years ago. When arsenokoite was being condemned the idea of "orientation", the idea of faithful same-sex relationships just wasn't around. I don't think that Paul was talking about the same thing that we are taking about today. |
`