"There's an old saying: 'There has to be blood on the floor of the assembly for the church to live in peace.' Decisions have to be thrashed out," she said. "In the past people have been so nice. We're all nice people so we back off when things get ugly. There will be blood on the floor at assembly." [B. Zwartz, "Gay ministers still up for debate", The Age, July 29, 2004.]
To what sort of church does this woman belong? To what ugly kind of church does she invite us?
The
ugliness here is in Mary's language and the attitudes that she projects
through the media. Of course, we know that Mary is
upset. Her preferred options were not adopted by the Tenth
Assembly;
bloodlessly, too, in that gay and lesbian members of the Church were
not pushed further into the cold, by Evangelical concerns for purity
and
restrictive Christian practices. Neither were evangelical
dissidents forced to leave the Church. The Assembly's decision
was to strive to live with diversity, to live in peace together,
regardless of divided opinion. Predictions of "blood on the
floor" are not something that one would expect to hear from good
Christians, either as a spiteful metaphor for change or as a dire
prediction of revenge. In Christ, blood has been spent enough.
We
know that Mary and other "Evangelicals" were peeved by
their failure to sway the Tenth Assembly to their mind set and
opinion. However, the imagery used by Hawkes serves a deceitful
purpose, inciting homophobia and disunity, using "gay ministers" as
pawns in a vicious act of dissent. After the Tenth Assembly, the
dissenting voices of Hawkes and her mob were far from being "nice".
However, all persons throwing stones at others assume their own values
are righteous, don't' they? Her latest, outrageous comments
continue the threats and abuse levelled at that time, when their
opinion was not adopted by the greater majority at the Assembly.
Zwartz' article makes it clear that trigger for Hawkes' bloody minded
outrage was the Assembly releasing its report on feedback on opinions
regarding R84, which is not as bleak as Hawkes projects. As he
reports in the same article...
"Only 619 of 2252 congregations and 27 of 50 presbyteries responded. Mr Corkin interpreted this as some congregations being too divided to reply, some having yet to discern a view and some feeling they did not need to respond.
Of those that did, 18 per cent supported the
decision to ordain gay ministers, 13 per cent accepted it but were
concerned at the implications, and 17 per cent rejected it outright.
The rest commented only generally on the issue."
Of course, Zwartz reports the figures
in a way that plays up
the numbers game, to better present the opinion of Hawkes and her
mob, as they play "wedge politics" over issues of gay people in
ministry. 72.6% of congregations and 46% of presbyteries
did not reply
to the survey, as part of Stage 1 of the Assembly's current process of
discernment on issues of homosexuality and church participation and
leadership. That gives R84 good standing within the church and hardly
calls for threats or for Hawkes to accost people's lives in dreadful,
violent ways.
The pretext for Zwartz' article comes from notice that the Uniting Church Assembly has released its booklet, "Sexuality and Leadership in the Uniting Church in Australia: biblical and theological reflection resources,"
as part of Stage 2 of the current process of discernment concerning
issues of sexuality, membership and leadership within the Church.
In which case the figures quoted above do not give the whole
picture. As Assembly General Secretary, Terence Corkin,
rightly pointed out to Zwartz, there are many reasons why people chose not to
comment, not least of which include a perceived lack of relevance or a
lack of readiness to comment at this stage.
It is notable that Corkin was more careful with his language. He is quoted as saying,
"The church is quite clear that we are not finished with the question (of homosexuality and leadership); it remains on the agenda," Mr Corkin said.
"If presbyteries or synods want to bring it to the next assembly they can.
Many certainly will, and it's far too early to know what will happen."
However, change and bloodshed is not on the
agenda, necessarily. What is at stake is the type of church that we may
become. In her bloody rhetoric, Hawkes has already
separated herself from people of goodwill. Her choice of imagery
is not only inappropriate but gives cause for concern, as she and
her mob seek to change the Church to their liking, to re-create
it in their, unworthy image of bloody minded discrimination. As
Zwartz reports further,
"She (Hawkes) said evangelical churches in South Australia were seeking synod approval to set up a non-geographical presbytery along theological lines. Similar moves were being made in Victoria, NSW and Tasmania."
A few words quoted elsewhere in VOICE serve as good indicators of what is at stake, here. (See "Voices from the Past")
If Church-based Churches know only too well the techniques of ruling, of compromise and of politics, sect-based Churches are in danger of over confidence in their private insights, of perfectionism and of excessive high-mindedness. … The Uniting Church will probably be relatively free of priestly pretensions, it is much more likely to be prone to prophetic pretensions.
Ed.
Articles with issues related to this page