Pr. Jae said:
Of course I've been speaking in regard to the cases that have been reported here. They're the ones that are here that I can speak to.
Indeed they are the ones here that you can speak to. And yet, you aren't listening to what has been said.
Pr. Jae said:
Not here I haven't. Go ahead though John, enlighten us. Share with us some stories if where the Committees were balanced, of where a proper exegesis was done of the pertinent texts, and where congregations chose not to become Affirming.
I can't unless I decide to operate out of a similar ignorance that you champion. I have not participated in a single Affirming Process. Still, if we look at all of the posts made prior to our initial exchange we find the following:
Seeler reports volunteering to serve on an 'affirming diversity' committee. She also reports that the five who eventually agreed to sit on the committee were enthusiastic. To be fair Seeler also shares that she doesn't know how many were asked and declined or which way their passions lay. Seeler also points out that ample opportunity was given to those who had questions or had expressed doubts. The Affirming process requires a congregational vote which is an opportunity for every voice to have a say.
You are proposing a process which includes, for lack of a better term, a defined devil's advocate. Whose role is to provide an opposing perspective. Such a role is not normative to Protestant governance and opposition is always given an opportunity to speak. Whether those opposing any measure choose to exercise their voice is another matter.
Pinga reports that a smaller committee of three investigated the congregation to percieve if this was a conversation that could happen and when they felt the time was ready they approached individuals from the congregation noted for an ability to work with others (most, if not all were on the fence about the issue) and they studied the questions related to the process for 18 months before going to a congregational vote.
Again, those in the congregation would have had opportunity to voice their opinion when the meeting was finally called to determine whether or not the congregation would take an Affirming identification.
BettetheRed reports an accelerated process which took into account the existing congregational marriage policy. It was still a consultative policy and it still afforded all members an opportunity to ask questions and voice opinions.
Nothing shared indicates that the decision to become Affirming was premade or that anything was rammed through.
There is information which showed that two of the congregations, at the very least, had already taken preliminary steps which would have made the rest of the Affirming Process much easier. Nothing which indicates any militancy in the decision making. That is something you are inferring.
Pr. Jae said:
You can take that from what I said if you like. I'm not quite sure just how you do so, however, since I'm one who has been saying Committees should have a balance of opinion.
It would be ideal, however one thing I have witnessed over many years serving the Church at almost every level of governance is that volunteer positions are generally filled by those who are passionate about the issue to be explored. Typically, in United Church contexts those who are passionately opposed to any initiative do not volunteer to be part of a process designed to explore issues they oppose. Primarily because that means the committee ends up bogged down in hostilities. It is not unheard of for individuals to participate in studies and release statements of dissent even if it is very rare.
At a congregational level it is far less likely that those opposed to an issue would agree to serve on a commitee exploring an initiative that they opposed simply because at the end to the day the congregation does have to work together. Those opposed know that they will be given opportunity to voice their opposition and they will have an opportunity to vote on whether an initiative is implemented or rejected.
Nothing is "rammed" down anyone's throat although that claim has been made. Primarily it is made by folk who dislike the outcome of the vote and do not understand that the decision made is a Church policy and not one which binds individuals. In the same way not all decisions at Presbytery are binding on all congregations under the oversight of Presbytery, all decisions at Conference are not binding of all congregations in the bounds of Conference and not all decisions of General Council or its Executive are binding on the churches of the denomination.
Congregations have a certain level of autonomy and individuals in congregations have another level of autonomy.
At the end of the day decisions at any level signal the direction that particular level intends to move.
Pr. Jae said:
Interesting. Are you always so winsome?
I could answer for myself but it is doubtful you would believe my testimony.
Pinga is probably the only person here who has been present with me during discussions and deliberations of issues at a Conference level. Winsome is not a word that I have ever heard used applied in my direction. I generally do not concern myself with being charming. I am definitely playful. I am more concerned with being earnest than I am at being sweet, although I do sweet extraordinarily well. As far as "winning" goes. I am a respected voice at all levels of Church governance which I believe is a combination of my playfulness and my ability to analyze positions offered.
At any rate my reputation here is what it is.
).