An Affirmation: Amended ©

Please note that the original statement that appeared under this title appeared in the FoU Newsletter, August 2003.  Since that was published, the Assembly Standing Committee has amended resolution 84. This has removed the potential for misunderstaning of recognition of some ethical standards and has made the Church's position clearer.  The Statement of Affirmation is left to stand in it original form, acknowledging both the tenor ot the Church's decisions and our own affirmation of ethics of right relationship. What follows is an amended version of An Affirmation, that is in keeping with the tenor of the ASC amendment.  

We neither seek to have any member of the Uniting Church in Australia leave it, nor to place an embargo upon gracious dialogue and honest, frank exchanges of differing convictions.

We believe that in a diverse community, in which differences in Christian faith, conviction and practice are recognised, the acceptance of persons of different cultural viewpoints, Biblical interpretations, and Christian ethical practices is crucial.  From such acceptance we can continue to witness the glory of God in our lives and in the lives of others.

We acknowledge that the Basis of Union sets an astonishing standard in diversity.  In paragraph 10 it gives witness to disparate Christian traditions and seeks to continue to learn from them.  These traditions are so disparate that they cannot be rendered into one confession of faith.  As these statements are witnessed in the Basis of Union, they remind us "of the grace which justifies" us all through faith.  Notwithstanding how variously members of the Uniting Church in Australia have interpreted it, "the centrality of the person and work of Christ the justifier" is a common witness among us all. That witness is diverse, by its very nature.   Diversity sits at the radical heart of our Church. 

We note that the decisions of the Tenth Assembly in relation to Membership and Ministry, make no changes in Church policy and do not represent a huge step forward for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Christians. The status quo was upheld by a great majority and no one was excluded. There are no barriers of distinction imposed on membership and no barriers to participation are impose. There are no grounds to exclude people on the basis of sexual orientation, practice or conviction.  All participation is under the guidance of the Basis of Union, the Constitution, the Regulations and the policies of the Assembly and applies equally to all members. 

We believe that the existing policies on Baptism (Basis Paragraph 7; Tenth Assembly resolution 84.2(iv) and Communion (Basis Paragraph 8; ASC minute 87.46) provide sufficient guarantee to entry and participation within the life of the Church, subject only to discernment of gifts (Basis, Paragraph 13). 

We uphold the principle that there is no gift without corresponding service.

We note that the Church no longer speaks in terms of "sexual orientation" or "practice" within its resolutions but speaks in holistic terms of human sexuality.  Significantly, the decision of the Tenth Assembly speaks of faith and practice, sexual ethics, same gender relationships and sexuality and does not speak in terms of 'homosexuality' or 'sexual orientation'.  No wedge is driven between the person and sexual orientation or practice.  We welcomes the change in language and note this as marking a step forward in the way in which the Church speaks of sexuality. 

We note that by providing for guidance in how to conduct discussions on contentious issues, the Church is seeking compliance with its policies on vilification and harassment.  Again, previous decisions of the Church are being implemented with care.  Where the Church seeks legal advice prior to advising the councils of the Church on matters pertaining to anti discrimination and anti vilification legislation, the Church is exercising appropriate pastoral care. 

Where some people have previously sought to wall themselves inside protective barriers of discrimination, to bar participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people and to censure those who welcome them, the Assembly has not permitted those actions to stand.  There are no diversity free zones within the Uniting Church in Australia.

Where some parts of the church have previously decided to place barriers based on sexuality, in an attempt to restrict membership, ordination, placement, practice and participation, those decisions are now invalid. 

We acknowledge that presbyteries still have to consider every applicant and placement on an individual basis, and that they must take into account a wide variety of factors including the manner in which the applicant or candidate's sexuality is expressed.  This decision is consistent with previous determinations, dating from 1982, namely those of the Assembly Standing Committee recorded as minutes 82.12, 87.46 and 94.78.3., and subsequently ratified by the 8th Assembly, in resolution 97.31.15(e).  In determining "how a person expresses their sexuality", other decisions of the 8th Assembly stand as guides to decision-making, especially where it resolved,

• to affirm the joys and responsibilities of God's good gift of sexuality; 
• to reject judgmental attitudes in sexual ethics and witness to the renewing grace of God in this as in all areas of human behaviour; 
• to recognise the importance of responsible sexual behaviour and that all practices of sexuality which are exploitative and demeaning are unacceptable and contradict God’s purposes for us; 
• to acknowledge the diversity of human relationships in which Uniting Church members are involved and the different Biblical, theological, ethnic and cultural responses of groups within the Church to these relationships; (Assembly minute 97.31.05 - 97.31.08(b))

In deleting the clauses referring to two standards of Christian ethics that are held by its members, the Assembly Standing Committee has made the intention of Resolution 84 clearer, by removing the possibility of interpreting either position as doctrinal.  

However, subsequent decisions of the ASC still identify implicitly, the ethical standards of  "celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage (cisafim)" and "right relationships", which is outlined in Uniting Sexuality and Faith, as different views held by some members within the Church. While the Church has not adopted any of these ethical positions as doctrine, it has given explicit approval for the adoption of these (or other ethical principles) by congregations, presbyteries and synods.

We acknowledge that questions of ethics are now open to being discussed within the councils of the Church.

We affirm the ethical standard of "right relationships" and comment it to all persons. The ethical standard  of "right relationship" applies to all persons and provides a comprehensive sexual ethic in our time.

We believe that "cisafim" is not a socially just ethic.  It is tautologist in the first part of its construction, and so speaks without meaning and does nothing to inform sexual ethics among single persons. "Cisafim" is reductionist in its second part, for faithfulness is a moral precept that applies to all human, sexual relationships and not merely to those within marriage.  We regret that the church has not been taught these facts, nor adopted the principles as outlined in Uniting Sexuality and Faith.

We affirm marriage which is to be characterised by the principles of  "right relationships" as are same gender relationships.

We regret that the Church has been unable to celebrate same gender relationships with honesty and equity, as covenanted, loving relationships characterised by the principles of "right relationship". 

We further regret that that Church, through its Assembly Standing Committee, has opened the way to disparate positions on sexual ethics being adopted in congregations, presbyteries and synods, with the potential to entrench anachronistic positions, such as "cisafim", in localised communities. 

We see this as a threat to the broader conciliar nature of the UCA, introducing local autonomy with respect to doctrine that risks further fragmentation and localisation based on entrenched differences. 

We pray for continuing dialogue and honesty in discussing questions of hermeneutics, Biblical interpretation, matters of Christian faith and practice.

We pray that all persons of faith will continue to work together in their diversity as servants of the living God.

We pray for the day when all persons, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity, can acknowledge and celebrate their relationships without fear of discrimination and lack of equity. 

Welwood L. Anderson 
Malcolm Cowan
August, 2003.  The original version may be read here.

Three new contributions from Dorothy, Paul and Jack Spong.

Cisafim Revisited: a satire.

Sexual Ethics in the UCA Post Tenth Assembly