(This page uses CSS style sheets)
Uniting Church in Australia
three former Presidents' report to Assembly Standing Committee
The National Social Responsibility and Justice Committee was one of the groups asked to provide input to the Three Presidents’ Report. We were sent a copy of the report and asked to give some feedback. In response we make the following comments.
Social Responsibility and Justice seeks in its own work to begin from the perspective of solidarity with oppressed and marginalised people.
Through listening we have learned,
In regard to the Three Presidents’ Report we are concerned,
We would have expected at least one of the Presidents to have met with the leadership of the Uniting Network, based in Melbourne or the executive based in Adelaide, and to have consulted with gay and lesbian ministers, both those who are "out" and those who are not. If this has happened, it is not mentioned in the Report. If it did not happen, it is a serious oversight. After all, these are the people whose place in the church is in dispute and who were left in a very vulnerable position as a result of ‘coming out’ in the time leading up to the last Assembly and the back-lash since.
Resolution 6 should have included reference to the Uniting Network, and to gay and lesbian ministers, many of who have no connection with the Uniting Network. To do justice we need to consult gay and lesbian members of the church about the issues in the Three Presidents’ Report in the same way as it is recommended that the Congress and Multicultural groups be consulted. Social Responsibility and Justice have built a covenant relationship with the Uniting Network, and could facilitate this dialogue.
The unity of the church is important, however, we do not believe that we can postpone making national policy decisions about such key questions as the place of homosexual people in leadership roles and the church's attitude towards same sex relationships. Social Responsibility and Justice is concerned that the present proposals leave gay and lesbian members, especially those in ordained ministry or who are called to ordained ministry, in a very vulnerable position. The report seems to accept that each parish and presbytery will develop their own policies on this issue. That means that gay and lesbian candidates or ministers will have to fight out this issue on a case by case basis in each parish and presbytery in which they are involved. Some may be removed from settlements or refused ordination on the basis of sexuality, and others may not. This creates inequity between ordained ministers. The focus of the debate will be on individual gay and lesbian ministers, rather than on the overall policy/pastoral questions.
Gay and lesbian members of the church share the weariness with the protracted discussions over sexuality and agree that there are other pressing issues in the life of the church. While Social Responsibility and Justice share the Presidents’ desire to focus on other issues in the life of the church, we do not believe that the proposals will allow this to happen. The present debate will happen over and over again in each parish and presbytery when they are faced with the possibility of ordaining or calling a gay or lesbian minister.
The debate on sexuality will continue because all of the participants see the need for a clear national policy based on a search for justice and truth. Accusations of not believing the Bible and being the work of the devil do not constitute either justice or truth. To achieve this the church needs clear guidelines on how dialogue can continue in constructive ways.
Parishes in a particular presbytery have already received a call to pass guidelines on sexual conduct, on the basis of a call for a tougher stance on sexuality, because it is believed that the Assembly was weak and did not give enough clear guidance. Many parishes in that presbytery are finding this very intimidating. There are reports of members in the Uniting Church disrupting church services of gay friendly clergy and lay people. Clergy families, who have been seen as supportive of gay and lesbian people have received serious abuse and threatening phone calls, to the point where they cannot let the children answer the telephone. Practices such as this should not be allowed to continue unchallenged. Given this kind of response it is important to establish appropriate forums within the church for serious dialogue between diverse groups based on justice and truth.
Adequate pastoral care and support needs to be given to gay and lesbian people who have ‘come out’, those who are closeted and their supporters. Without this, gay and lesbian ministers, candidates and lay people working for the church will be under great pressure, and no doubt most closeted gay and lesbian members will remain so, thus forcing them to continue living with the stress of a double life. Already candidates and ministers are experiencing various levels of vilification. At least one member employed by the church has had to take the church to an equal opportunity tribunal in order to obtain justice. One group in the church has decided to target all single women in ministry as being possibly lesbian. What protection will they receive in the face of this deliberate distortion of their personal lives? A pastoral response to this situation needs to be done by the synods, as presbyteries do not have enough skilled people that have the confidence of the gay and lesbian members of the church to create safe support groups enabling them to work through the issues. Any response must be uniform and tempered with justice, therefore a synod group is important.
Social Responsibility and Justice supports the Three Presidents’ encouragement that there be a focus on study of the Bible, and how one interprets it. We do not believe, however, that a decision on sexuality should be postponed until this is done. If we engage in this task prior to a decision, some members of the church may feel they are being "brain washed" by the process into accepting a particular point of view. This will make them resistant to the process. We need to learn from the experience of the United Church of Canada, where parishes were encouraged to careful study of the Bible, in context with the discussion on sexuality. Then the focus of the study can be on different ways of looking at the Bible, including ways that support inclusion of gay and lesbian people. This seems less manipulative and more honest and could result in a much more Biblically literate church.
There seems to be an assumption underlying the report that if we study the Bible long enough, we will eventually all come to a consensus, and no one will leave the church. It may be that there are irreconcilable differences in Biblical interpretation, and the UCA may eventually have to declare where it stands on these issues.
Whatever position the UCA adopts, there will be some who are unhappy with it and may leave the church. The danger with the present proposals is that people at both ends of the spectrum will be unhappy and we may lose both. The members leaving the UCA already include many gay and lesbian people and their supporters.
If steps are not taken within the church to deal with the misguided understanding of its ministry with people whose sexualities are other than heterosexual, then the church may find itself in the same position as we have been with the stolen children. Our attitudes are destroying gay and lesbian relationships and their self-esteem. The knowledge is available. The theological reflection is available. Gay and lesbian people are articulating the issues. If we do not listen we will again have to apologise to people whom we have denied justice in the church and the communities in which we live.
That the Assembly Standing Committee: