Biggest regrets
When leaving a position you have held for a long period of time, it is appropriate to reflect on successes and regrets. And it may be that you are able to characterise one of them as your biggest regret - the absolute thumping mistake that stands out above all others. And, if the organisation is a Christian one, then your biggest regret is likely to reflect what you see as the most important things in your ministry. So it is in this context that Gordon Moyes reflects on the worst failing that happened during his watch as superintendent of Wesley Mission:
Asked by the Herald what was his greatest failure as superintendent for 27 years of the Uniting Church’s largest and richest parish, Wesley Mission, he said it was his inability to convince the hierarchy that homosexuality had no place in the church.
“Ministers in particular must live a holy and respectable life. There should be no room within the life of ministers in the church for sex, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.
“I regard that as pretty much a failure but I’ll keep working at it. It’s not a losing battle because the church must always correct itself and always has over the years.”
As someone married to a minister, I am pretty disappointed that there should be no room within his life for sex. However, it might give me more time to play on our new Xbox.
Via Darren
December 12th, 2005 at 4:21 pm
“And demonstrate to me that God has absolutely no problem with homsexual activity much less orientation.”
Jesus’ praising of the centurion’s faith, and healing his beloved young male ‘pais’.
Lance.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
Isn’t it strange that “false teachers” are always people who disagree with us?
How do you know you are not the “false teacher” Homer on a whole range of issues?
I don’t think that there is any more powerful phrase in Christian speak to kill a discussion on differing points of view than “false teachers”.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:55 pm
Dan -
I don’t know what to say. I stand by everything I said, or else stand ready to be corrected where I have erred.
Sure we are at a disadvantage on this medium because we can’t see each other and read our comments with the benefit of body language and voice inflection which would tell us just how much jest or heat there is… but whether offline or online, conversations are necessarily based on trust. And while you corrected me my own interpretation of your original post as one of jest, just as I corrected others that my ‘mis-informed’ comments were not directed at you, I will still be happy for example, if one could explain to me how I should react when someone who claims to be a professional journalist and is should therefore be well versed in the art of fact checking, quoting and the vagaries of editing, is intelligent, can reasonably be expected to be well informed on current events particularly on matters which intersect with one’s personal passions, then writes with a straight face (!?) that Moyles was perfectly clear about no sex for ministers?
I guess I could have scoffed and dismissed it out of hand instead. But if, once the horse has bolted, others then start sticking the boot in without stopping to think a bit do I stand by and say nothing? Sometimes you do, sometimes you don’t.
This time I don’t.
And yes, I questioned submission to God’s authority, I questioned whether Christ is the centre of one’s life, and I questioned people’s understanding of the Fatherhood of God. Because that is precisely my point. That is how I see it. That is the point of view I am throwing into the ring.
Of course that is going to make some feel uncomfortable, will lead others to ignore me, and some will no doubt challenge me or question my own faith.
Is that not allowed?
Is now the time to tell you I was just googling stuff on the sacraments for something totally unrelated to this and came across a book review of Richard Hay’s The Moral Vision of the NT in which he argues that homosexuality is “antisacrament” and a challenge to God’s authority. (Do I tell you I then thought of what I had been writing on this thread and laughed at the coincidence?) Do we quickly write to the reviewer to remove that from the net, lest it offend someone? Quickly go and lobby the publishers and tell them ban that book, someone might get upset?
And unlike the god of Muslims our God is knowable, and He has made Himself known, knowable by the Holy Spirit through Christ. He has revealed His name to us, His every nature. He has revealed Himself as Father. If we call Him and call on Him as something else than by His name, should I not ask which god are you talking about? Should we say stop speaking of Him as our heavenly Father because say, Muslims find that blasphemous and atheists find that mad?
The point of a conversation is to engage with what one has to say: by all means question, focus, correct, challenge what I have to say, defend your point of view. Phil has tried to do so (and I respect that he has better things to do in his life) and I have no quibble with that. I don’t take offense at him questioning me or my understanding or even my faith. Go for it. But if by doing so you think it is personal or out of bounds for the sorts of conversations you wish to have on Signposts, if you think I am “a step away from saying people who disagree with you are not Christian” (your words, not mine) then I am happy to stop commenting and do so without any ill feeling towards you or anyone else who comments on this blog. Because I can’t guarantee I won’t make anyone uncomfortable in the future. My words are under my control and my responsibility, however I can’t control - nor do I want to - other people’s reactions.
So maybe best if I just bid you adieu?
Do you think? Just say the word. Or maybe I should make the decision. Perhaps. Yes. Anyone who wants to continue can always email me.
So thank you for allowing me to participate on this blog in the past couple of years, I have enjoyed it, enjoyed ‘meeting you’ and other commenters, enjoyed and learnt much.
Happy blogging, and happy feast of the Nativity.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
Phil, it is you and Dan that are putting up a hissy fit and not debating with Saint.
It is a subject that iether you are correct or Saint is.
I have read Saint’s theological argument but I have yet to read yours.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
What has that got to do with false teachers?
Oh come now Homer… I have debated this issue theologically over and over.
I have not done so yet at length with Saint (this time) because I was attempting to clarify his comment that you cant question consensus. When I ask questions about this, Saint replies with slabs of information - most of which is interesting and good discussion but irrelevant to what I was asking.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
I just posted a reply Dan but I got a message saying to contact the administrator to recover it. Over to you.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
Saint,
I have emailed you separately, but by all means continue to comment on the thread. I am enjoying the discussion.
Dan
January 3rd, 2006 at 9:32 am
[…] eak for all, or for the majority of us… **EDIT: Geoff Bullock just wrote this in the comments thread on Signposts about this particular article… Oh w […]
January 3rd, 2006 at 9:32 am
[…] eak for all, or for the majority of us… **EDIT: Geoff Bullock just wrote this in the comments thread on Signposts about this particular article… Oh w […]
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Ok guys and gals .If I say that I am a Christian who happens to be gay or I’m a gay Christian are you saying that I’m in a deluded mind if I believe I am saved. I get the immpression I cannot be gay and Christian and be saved . That is despite what I believe in my faith in God I will not be acceptable to God and have eternal life in Him .In other words ,I aint going to heaven when I die or if the rapture occurs before I physically die .
ts like so many things in The BIBLE where there is not clear cut black and white answer to many of our questions on different issues /aspects of life .
The Bible says …Believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and you will be saved confess with your lips that He is Lord etc .Are there conditions attached to salvation. God has done all that needs to be done in what happend on the cross, I cant add one iota to the Grace of GOD for my salvation.
Footnote to my message : As a Christian gay guy am I wasting my time in following /believing the Bible so might as well just go and do my own thing cause I’m going to hell anyway.
Can you understand what I am saying ?????
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:17 pm
one more thing to my previous message ..Should I give up going to Church because I’m only a fake “Christian” and by going to Church I’m a hypocrite ?
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Allan, you as a gay guy, are saved by your faith in Christ Jesus.
You were washed, sanctified and justified by the blood.
Don’t let some of the bastards here or anywhere in the church mess with your head.
Lance.
January 3rd, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Agreed. Reach out and embrace God, have faith in him and seek to follow the path that Jesus trod. I hope that you can find a community of faith that will celebrate your salvation and share with you as you walk with Him.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Allan,
I am proud, greedy to an extent, drink a little too much from time-to-time, I am critical, negative at times and judgemental, lustful, gluttonous.
There is some good stuff about me too (or so they say).
I hang in on the promise that “For God so loved the world that he sent his only Son so whoever believes in him may be saved”.
I think that’s pretty damn promising. God sees through the crap and the sin and sees value in all of Us…enough value to die for!
January 12th, 2006 at 12:57 am
“For his part, Al-Azhar’s fatwa committee chairman Abdullah Megawar argued that married couples could see each other naked but should not look at each other’s genitalia and suggested they cover up with a blanket during sex.”
This guy would get on well with Gordon Moyes.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17789981-13762,00.html
January 29th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
You know Jesus said when he healed and forgave sins said - “Go and sin no more”. I think he was asking for an attitude, a willing of the mind so to speak. He is God he knew that we could not live up to it. That we would still fall prey to lust, still have the temptation to lie, still eat and drink to much, still hate and fall into sin. That is the condition of the fallen man. Paul talks about it as “I do what I don’t want to do and I don’t do what I want to do”.
So do we in our hearts resolve to follow Jesus and His Word despite our shortcomings? We should each examine our hearts and find if we have a heart after God’s own.
March 24th, 2006 at 10:37 am
15. Bring Back EP at LP Says:
December 6th, 2005 at 9:45 am
If the quote was correct ( and the reorter doesn’t even cover religious affairs, then gordon Moyes would have been a roman Catholic not Uniting Minister.
simple coomincation with his office would have found out what he actually said.
Grace only comes to those who repent of course!
I thought grace wasgiven to all - and in fact it is only by God’s grace that we are even motivated to repent - hmmm…more sad theology from EP aka Homer
May 1st, 2006 at 2:36 pm
If Grace is only given to those who repent…..then that means it’s conditional…..correct?
That is the most lame-ass statement I’ve ever read.
Hello……?? Grace, by its very definition, is not conditional. Grace is unmerited, undeserved favor.
That’s the biggest problem with the church today - - trying to make people believe that they have to earn God’s love or that they have to earn salvation and forgiveness. God gave that gift freely. It just rests with us to receive the gift.
Come on people……try working with God and the Holy Spirit, instead of working against the kingdom of God.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Another person who has expressed soem dissapointment with his churches stance on homosexuality is retired ArchBishop and former chairman of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Desmond Tutu:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/22/ap/entertainment/mainD8K9L7KG0.shtml
A person of much greater contribution to world affairs and peace than ever Gordon Moyes ever was or could ever hope to be.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:48 am
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_78298_ENG_HTM.htm and here’s a whole congregation who ahve vacated their church in New York because they refused to pay their diocesen contribution due to there stance on the concecration of a gay Bishop in New Hampshire. What’s even crazier is that they now claim to have joined the Anglican Church of Uganda! (note the appropriate use of the exclamation point):
October 5th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Greg,
As was shown when he came to Australia Desmond Tutu is not the best person to ask about what is in the scriptures.
It is about time anglicans finally decide whether they wish toi be in the communion of saints or the anglican communion
October 5th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
How was it show that he doesn;t know what’s in the scriptures - cite your source as well please