For those that want to know the conclusion before the details, here it is:

I’m staying for now. I better understand the perspective of the board and the minister – we actually want the same things and have a very similar line of thought on almost everything. It’s funny that with the same thoughts and reservations, one side can conclude “Sign it because it doesn’t hurt us” while the other side concludes “Don’t sign it because it can only hurt us”. The real work of any kind of unity requires us to work together despite two different conclusions.

I took a stand for something I strongly believe. I also committed myself to working it out until I got an answer – and that answer could have been that I leave the church I attend. I wanted a certain answer, but I was and still am willing to accept that an agreement cannot be reached (thus I leave). I feel like the minister did the same – he strongly believes in togetherness and family. He was committed to me as a friend and wanted to understand why I am outraged at the UP. He was hoping that I wouldn’t leave, but would be my friend either way.

Here is the rationale of where we disagree, as I understand it:
Local authority trumps all in this agreement. The agreement itself (as opposed to the Q&A) says that local autonomy is the primary rule. As such, anything in the agreement is optional, especially as there is no real method of enforcement. In other words, if someone says that we have to abide by something in the document we as a local church disagree with, then we can opt out of the agreement altogether. As such, the agreement has no binding power over anyone. Signing it is an assent to the intent of the writers, not to the provisions of the agreement itself, necessarily. Other auxillary documents explain that this agreement is meant as a temporary step and a first step towards the goal of unity. The document itself asserts that areas may need to be rewritten.

In English, the plan is a pretty good idea, but it doesn’t bind a local church to anything. Signing it demonstrates support for the intent to create unity.

Here is my contention:
The Q&A, an auxillary document mandates a complete yes or no. Based on other auxillary documents in addition to the Q&A, the intent was to find those that maintained a specific set of beliefs and practices. Based on a set of shared beliefs and practices, steps could then be taken to address certain local and global concerns through the proscribed measures. There is no room to declare certain parts optional – therefore signing this agreement is an assent to all of its contents, regardless of the local church’s intent. Jesus said “let your yes be yes and your no be no.” It is disingenuos to sign it saying, “We agree to all of it” when we really don’t agree with all of it.

In English, the Q&A demands that signers agree 100% or not. Signing it states that a church believes in all the stated doctrines and practices contained in the plan.

So we are both going to get clarification from the Unity Group about various things. He’s going to ask about how binding the plan is, and I’m going to ask about the ‘all or nothing’ clause in the Q&A. Both of us marvelled at how the document and the Q&A can be so different (in all its incarnations). Both of us expressed areas of agreement in regards to the plan as well. The practical plans are good and I believe helpful with one caveat – outside help means outside the ICOC umbrella.

As far as other matters, I spoke about the things I’ve written here, and to the Unity Group. I spoke about my antagonism with the Unity Group and others. I talked about how I do not trust a couple members of the group, and how that gets in the way of looking at the agreement strictly on its face. I feel like I was not penalized for having these strong beliefs. I freely admit that I have said things here that I shouldn’t have – but I would rather be honest than polite. I am a radical and a liberal and I am proud of that. This is not over, yet, but I hope to be able to acheive some kind of separate peace.

I do have to admit that I have been in a very dark place since all this began. It’s what happens when the mind and heart have a severe disconnect. The mind was and is resolute that the UP is a bad idea. The heart was and is resolute that I am committed to my friends here. That conflict still continues, but the heart has been assuaged by an intelligent, rational discussion that healed the mind. Of course my mind enjoyed the discussion, especially when we discussed provisions of the UP, some of them line by line. My mind holds dissent, but the heart enjoys being heard and respected for the difference. Not only that, I respect the perspective of my minister and understand the rationale behind it.

At the end of the day, I want to do the right thing. End of the day, is the key phrase as my minister half-joked with me. He’s right, of course, and we both enjoyed a laugh about it.

Last thing – this whole conflict proves my point. Two people with very similar thoughts came to polar conclusions. Tell me that drawing a line in the sand, or even trying to legislate unity is the right thing to do. Were it not for the relationships I have and the respect given to me for a dissenting opinion, we would have damaged our friendship and possibly lost it. All of this over 12 pieces of paper. Peh! Saint Bernard of Clairvaux said, “Hell is full of good intentions or desires.” Sometimes I think that is overly judgemental and harsh. Other times, I’m not so certain.