(This page uses CSS style sheets)
Uniting Church in Australia
three former Presidents' report to Assembly Standing Committee
We are lesbians, gay men, bisexual and transgendered people, families and friends within the Uniting Church in Australia and some valued companions from other churches.
We affirm that we are part of God's good creation, witnesses to the imagination of God and to the diversity in God's creation. There are among us people from many races and cultures. Whatever our origins, we experience the same pain in our efforts to claim our life in God and the same joy in the fullness of life in Jesus Christ to which we are called.
We affirm that the Uniting Church in Australia is our church and that we make a significant contribution to its life and faith. We observe the different views on many issues, including sexuality, which are held by members of our church but commit ourselves to live inclusively with sisters and brothers who differ from us. We believe that the Christian way of life requires us to deal with each other in love and respect.
We affirm that there was some consultation with the Uniting Network by the three Ex-Presidents. We are, however, concerned that no face-to-face consultation took place and that the report itself gave no indication of consultation, either by direct reference (as happened in relation to other communities within the church) or through the inclusion of concerns raised by the Network. Certainly there was a grave imbalance in the way each concerned group was presented. This meant not only that we felt excluded from consideration, but that the church was not offered an appropriate model for further dialogue. We offer ourselves to work with the rest of the church in the ongoing planning for our costly journey together and in all the dialogue that ensues.
We are not to be regarded simply as one of two groups of people who disagree with each other in the church, nor as an issue to be discussed.
Our community is not taking part in an abstract discussion about Scripture and leadership, but one which is intimately linked with our very being and our right to exist as God's good creation. Our lives, vocations and futures with not just this church, but any church, are at stake.
We are bearing a pain which cannot be shared by those who disagree with us.
There is a significant power differential in the debate. Those who are on one side are free to speak with openness and without fear, while many of us and our friends feel unable to be open because of the punishing consequences which are likely to follow. This happens because people would possibly jeopardise their jobs or because they live and/or work in environments which are hostile to those who accept us. This makes the style of consultation modelled by church authorities even more critical.
It is appropriate that the report calls for an end to abuse between those who hold different views, but as far as we can tell, people who hold our views are not engaged in abuse. When will the church be honest about that?
We also believe that the gravity of the level of abuse is not recognised.
We are speaking from personal knowledge of people who have committed suicide because of the level of abuse. Indeed current Australian research indicates that as high as 30% of youth suicides are related to sexual orientation issues. This fact is worth more than a rather modest reference.
Some of us are relating to people outside the church who justify their own hate of us by pointing to the hate that is expressed by Christians. When will the church say quite clearly that hate of another person is never Christian and that the expression of hate in personal abuse is a matter for discipline?
We recall the strong, clear actions that our church has taken in response to other forms of abuse.
We had expected that, in a report relating to the painful journey of our church in conflict, there would be a significant theological interpretation of such a journey. This is not really about a long-haul journey which produces weariness. It is about a tough and rigorous journey that involves costliness if we are to emerge into risen life. It is a journey where we take up our cross of pain and deathliness and follow the Christ. We are fortunate indeed that Jesus did not give in to his weariness. He travelled through the wildernesses, the loneliness, the chaos and the costliness because he knew that it was the only way through to the resurrection.
We ask ourselves whether, if this was a journey about racism, we would dare to suggest that in our tiredness we should take a break from the journey. While we see the greater ambiguity in the issues involved in this journey, we suggest that the weariness is as much about the draining of energy through indecision, anger and fear as it is about the effort of making the journey.
We would have expected the Ex-Presidents to give evidence of inviting wisdom from the experience of overseas churches which have travelled this way before us.
Is a break for the weary helpful, or does it simply extend the weariness?
Could it be that the church has now entered its labour – that the child of its birthing has now entered the birth canal?
Having done that, will it simply experience that protracted and painful labour rather than being able to rest? Will we be trapped in a false sense of community – in a "peace when there is no peace"?
Let us remember that God did not rest until the creation was complete.
What is the theology of "resting" while still on the journey? We agree that there may be a good theology of rest for the burdened, the heavy-laden, but we need to ask ourselves what lies within that rest that God gives us so that we may continue the hard journey.
In what spirit will we study our Bibles by the roadside and with what hope?
We see no theological discussion on the nature of Christian community.
Could we reflect on the struggles of the early church to admit Gentiles into their community?
What does it mean to share the Eucharist together at this moment? What does it mean to encourage people to be welcome at the table, when they can go no further? How is that welcome incarnated in, say, a rural parish where it appears that the whole congregation and its minister regards us as "abominations" and there are no other options for hundreds of kilometres?
How are those who have to wait in personal pain to receive care, while everyone has this rest? We, who wait in exile even as we live from the liberation of the Gospel, will care for each other as far as we can, but what of the responsibility of the rest of the church?
The report is suggesting that the way forward is for us to study our Bibles while we restore ourselves for the further dialogue and debate.
If the church has not received a post-critical view of the Bible in the more than 50 years in which its clergy have received this view in their training, what will change to make that possible now?
Are we seriously suggesting that consensus will be achieved or are we preparing the church for the pain of not reaching agreement and dealing with that in grace and courage?
It is hard to have confidence in the proposals for moving forward until some of these questions are answered.
This is a more costly journey for some of us than for others. It is also, we believe, best understood when it is imaged for the church in the stories of real life and the meetings between people who are open to hear each other, as were many people during the Assembly itself. That is for us the most powerful way of entering the next phase of the dialogue with the church. It was ever so, as the Biblical witnesses model in their own testimonies.