Posted by Katie and Martin on December 1, 2013 in theology
December 4, 2013 at 11:21 am
Jim, not theological, try theocratic.
The LCA clergy still believe they can get away with running a theocracy.
The ordination of women issue is a symptom of clerical hegemony that is unacceptable in the 21st Century.
OK the values of the clergy are gradually breaking down under the weight of the expectations that people living in a secular society have come to regard as normal – democracy, the rule of law, abolition of slavery, respect for minorities, equality of status for women and girls, anti-discrimination on the basis of race and gender differences, the acknowledgement that divergent sexual preferences and customs are reflective of normal healthy human behaviour, …
But while society is changing the LCA is still falling short in a number of these areas, proof texting on the words of such scoundrels as Moses and Saul of Tarsus.
The LCA lacks respect for the democratic process: the laity is excluded from the highest office in the association.
It defies its responsibility under the South Australian Incorporations Act to hold an annual general meeting of Members (congregations).
It treats women as second class members.
… and don’t stand underneath the fan when the issue of gay marriage or gay clergy reaches the alter.
It is not proof texting that will solve these issues. Fred Blaess and Siegfried Hebart took the easy way out. There are too many individual members of the LCA who no longer believe that every word, every sentence and every book in the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of the god in whom they believe. In fact as the weeks drag on, belief that this god is on their side is gradually being eroded. Clerical proof texting only reinforces this position.
Be not deceived, the laity is not dumb!
Rather the issues of democracy within the LCA, the ordination of women and gender difference … will be resolved, not by what is reported in the Bible to be God’s thoughts on these matters, but by what members of the LCA – both large M (congregations) and small m (individual) believe and express in democratically run ballots.
The role the previous President of the LCA played (at the most recent Synod) in denying Members the democratic right for their motions to be tabled, discussed and voted on was shameful and unconstitutional.
Equally shameful was the cowardice in the assembly in not ruling him out of order.
When push comes to shove it may well be the Members, acting under the rule of law as laid down by the South Australian Associations Act (and with the help of the Supreme Court of South Australia) that forces the issue.
Prepare ye for the second reformation.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 188 other followers
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)