I just had a long telephone conversation with someone in a congregation who had called to ask about the Rule about…
I won’t say what; you may fill in any topic. You’d probably like for there to be a rule for something. She really wanted help with what to do in her situation. I talked about how important it is to have a conversation, to bring some more people in to help solve their problem, to share the decision and make it more acceptable to all. Nothing like being involved in a decision to create commitment, to ensure buy-in to the final answer. She needs to examine her own opinion; why does she think this way? Where do her ideas come from and does she need to update them?
Do you remember that tv show? The one where they kept asking “is that your final answer?”
If only we had more final answers. Why can’t we just turn to the back of the book? Isn’t that where we find the answers?
Sorry, 'fraid not. Alas!
My friend really did want me to just give her the rule. “Couldn’t we have just a tiny rule book?” she queried.
Well, I guess we could, but you can be assured that as soon as we got a tiny rule book someone would suggest we put it into a loose-leaf format so we could add some more rules—rules that would get their questions answered, their solutions found, their directions clarified.
I sent her back to work some more on her issue. She left off our conversation laughing. I hope it works out for her and her antagonist. They truly do love each other. They really do need to figure out how to work together. Because I don’t have a rule that will provide the majority vote in this situation. The rule is “Talk together and figure it out! Decide how you’ll decide and still remain friends.”
Posted by Marion
Posts
I assume the question was not whether she could ordain or marry someone who is homosexual. Rules on that subject are very clear and the punishment for violating them swift and harsh.
ReplyDeleteWell no, in fact it wasn't. But if it had been, I think some version of my "rule" would still have been offered.
ReplyDeleteIn my part of the world we're just not in the habit of applying "swift harsh punishment" and try very hard to stay with the "talk together and figure it out; decide how you'll decide and still remain friends."
You live in a nice part of the world then. Down here you get smacked quick for breaking these particular rules.
ReplyDeleteSo how's the national conference planning coming along? I've noticed no big Herald celebration of it as I have the US conference.
It IS a nice part of the world.
ReplyDeleteNational conference planning is ongoing. We're going for broader participation. We'll be looking at multiple sites with common agenda and an electronic connection at some point. We do have a "wide" country, so it takes some work to pull off, but details will be starting to come out shortly. Not likely in the Herald, but stay tuned :-)
Timing mostly likely will be in early June 2012--before the USA conference.
Has Leadership made any statements as to what it will be about and how it will work (legislative, non-legislative, advisory) as they have done with respect to the USA conference? Down here it feels as if we've reverted to a USA-only perspective, both for dealing with the issue of homosexuality, and for giving news about it. I'm sure things are different in Canada.
ReplyDeleteOur proposal does not go to the WCLC until December, however the guidelines are much the same. Our conference will be different, however. If we can make it work, we hope to have a multi-site gathering with satelite or internet links between the sites. We do not think it is practical to have people spend thousands of dollars to attend a meeting if we can accomplish the same thing at lower cost, both in dollars and time. We will see how that all works, but as someone said recently, we could feed a lot of children for that much money!
ReplyDeleteThat's a good rule Marion; I'll try to remember it.
ReplyDelete