Resolution 84: What’s all the fuss about?

There are implications, of course, for those who may have wanted to bring changes have been prevented from doing so with regard to membership rules or to policies of inclusivity and Christian unity.  Therefore, it is the background behind the resolution that reveals much about what it says.  For in reminding presbyteries (regional councils) of their defined roles, obligations and practices, it shows that there is or has been cause for concern in the behaviour of presbyteries, especially in relation to the placement of gay or lesbian people in specified ministries.  The role of presbyteries needed to be restated clearly, with obligations and practices defined in ways that could not be misinterpreted.  Prior concerns are signalled as being present in the request to the Standing Committee to provide guidance on how to conduct discussions on contentious issues in ways that comply with the Church’s policy on vilification and harassment.  Legal concerns are shown to exist in respect to anti discrimination legislation and the role of presbyteries.  Legal advice is to be sought so that compliance to various State and Federal laws is not compromised.

Behind this resolution is a diverse community, in which the living realities of theological  differences and multiculturalism threaten division.  The roles and practices of presbyteries are confused or held in doubt with regard to persons in same sex relationships seeking candidature for ordination, ordination and placement; issues of discrimination, vilification and harassment exist sufficiently to cause concern; issues concerning same sex relations and sexual ethics exist; the authority of the Scriptures and their interpretation is questioned; and restrictions on the membership of some people has been an issue.  All of these concerns are brought to focus within one group within the Church, the Evangelical Members of the Uniting Church (EMU).  Their objectives have not been met: resolution does not address issues of gay and lesbian persons but addresses issues pertaining to the behaviour of the Church’s conservative right wing.  The Report from the Assembly Standing Committee shows that the move to discuss matters of sexuality was made in response to issues raised by EMU and the Synod of Victoria and Tasmania that sought to clarify the position of the Church with regard to issues of sexuality.  At a time when the Church has decided not to make new decisions with respect to homosexuality, regarding sexuality, faith and membership, the pressure from EMU has been to adopt reactionary principles that would put an end to tolerance, acceptance or celebration of gay and lesbian relationships and Christian ministries. 

The status quo has been stated; legal questions are to be answered and guidance is to be given on discussing contentious issues in ways that comply to policy on vilification and harassment.

In effect resolution 84 says to gay and lesbian members that while the Church will not make any decisions about same sex relationships and other issues that are vital to your life, it will continue to place no barriers on membership and will not allow discrimination, vilification or harassment to occur, except in relation to presbyteries deciding acceptance of candidates and ministers or in making placements.   In those cases, all decisions must be made on a "case by case" basis and they may consider "the manner in which the applicant’s or candidate’s sexuality is expressed."  That, of course, applies to all person regardless of sexuality.  However, given the background from which this resolution arose, it seems likely that the focus in some presbyteries will be on homosexuality.  The Church decision seeks to have discernment made unclouded by legalities of  discrimination, vilification, harassment and doubts about membership.  So that explains what the fuss is about.  Those who sought to discriminate, vilify, harass and cast doubts about membership on grounds of sexuality, have been defeated and defeated by a strong majority.  The cry of "foul play" from the EMU ranks, fed by lies, innuendo and misinformation from its leadership, has subsequently sought to reverse the decisions, making the Uniting Church an unsafe place for gay and lesbian Christians and their families, friends and supporters, whose membership and ministries would be seriously jeopardised.  If such a thing were to take place, people of the "middle ground", for whom questions of inclusivity are not contested as strongly as for those for whom such questions cut deeply, face being disenfranchised.  Liberal and progressive Christians would face life in a church that is oppressively conservative and reactionary, with loss of social justice and inclusive practices, while gay and lesbian Christians face even further marginalisation, as their membership, participation and ministries are subjected to harsher scrutiny and denial .  All the fuss is about the future of the Church as a diverse, multicultural entity. 

Peace and Blessings
Editor.