The original text contains in-text links to additional material which are omitted here. External Link to source*

Dear Friend(s), 

I apologise that this is a form letter but I am away from the office and need to be able to reply.

I want to assure the members of the UCA that the Tenth Assembly in Melbourne was a time of much prayer,
proclamation, and praise, that dealt with many issues in the life of the church and the nation. The nearly three hundred members present were drawn from each of the more than 50 Presbyteries and 6 Synods, with more than 50% there for the first time. We used consensus decision making proceedings which means on important issues, there were hours of discussion with every one in small working groups and able to participate in the discussion. I encourage you to talk with those whose members of the Assembly who were present from your Presbytery.

The Assembly resolved to take the second of a four step process toward union with the Anglican Church in Australia.  The Becoming Disciples Report on the nature of membership is continuing to be discussed. A report on the Diaconate was approved, and a report on Theological Education was received. We were thrilled to have leaders from our partner churches, who shared with us re the situation in the Solomon Islands, global warming and the impact on Tuvalu, and representatives from the church in North and South Korea who spoke to proposals re peace in the Korean Peninsular. Representatives of the Church from Bali, spoke of their prayers for those Australian families who were suffering as a result of the bombing in Bali. And many other matters.

It saddened me that many people have reacted to the reports in the newspapers re one decision of the Assembly, Proposal 84. Most who have contacted me did so on the basis of the newspaper headlines rather than the actual proposal which was passed. In the last few days some emails have been responding more particularly to the Proposal itself.  I have included both a copy of the proposal, and a series of questions and answers which were prepared for discussion about the proposal. As well the background paper which describes why the task force brought this proposal is included. It gives the history of the discussion in the life of the Church. Please read them carefully.

Some see that the Proposal challenges their view of the Word of God. I would remind them of the comments in the  Basis of Union concerning the Biblical Witnesses in Paragraph 5, and Scholarly Interpreters in Paragraph 11.  There are at least two streams of interpretation of the passages on sexual acts between persons of the same gender. The Proposal encourages you to hold to your convictions, and with regard to the passages involved, be able to acknowledge that other persons hold with integrity another position, in their same loyalty to Jesus Christ.

Again, some have asked me to comment on the decisions of Synods and Presbyteries who have accepted celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage as their position.  These are matters to be considered within the Synod and the Presbytery in the first instance.

I want to report that the matter was considered by the Assembly over 5 days. All 26 working groups gave this as the most likely way forward, and from my position in the chair, when it came to the vote, more than 80% voted for the proposal. 

Some emails have believed that it was for the Assembly obligatory to seek the concurrence of other councils on matters of vital importance to the life of the Church. In the Constitution clause 39 gives the process by which the Assembly deems a matter to be vital to the life of the Church, namely that a two thirds majority vote is needed.  Following the debate about this matter a two thirds majority was not obtained. Indeed the vote was far from this number.

In the closing worship I brought the following word to the Assembly. It is given in an abbreviated form.

“A New Zealand visitor to the Assembly, had noted that he had worked with Walter Brueggeman on his comment that there is a tension between holiness and justice in the biblical record. It is expressed in the tension between prophet and priest in the Old Testament, and between Jew and Gentile in the New Testament. And in the last century this has been most marked with strong emphasis in the church on evangelism and the desire for conversion of individuals, and also a strong emphasis on the social consequences of acknowledging Jesus Christ as Lord.  This tension between holiness and justice has been strong, with of course no one group only concerned with holiness and justice. Nevertheless these two positions have been strongly evident in the Uniting Church when it comes to the matter of sexuality. 

The 8th Assembly in Perth had a clear resolution about the importance and nature of marriage. It is however important to see what the Assembly has actually resolved and not resolved about the wider issue of sexuality.

In the 1985 (4th) Assembly and the 1988 (5th) Assembly, a proposal that the position of the Uniting Church be “Celibacy in Singleness, and Faithfulness in Marriage” was presented. It was not passed, and indeed over 50% voted procedurally that the resolution not be put. Why? My reading of the situation was that there was a realization that the Church was aware that society was in the midst of a revolution in sexuality, and a new biological understanding of sexuality, and did not want to ties itself finally to this one position. It ran the risk of the focus on holiness being seen as overly legalistic rather than open to the situation of people’s lives.

Then in 1997 as a result of a six year process the Uniting Church was presented with the report ‘Uniting Sexuality and Faith’ which proposed the position of the Church should be one of ‘right relationships’ as spelled out in the report. That was not passed either, with my reading of the situation that this attempt to do justice to the range of relationships in society and the nature of those relationships was felt to be too open, and too subject to individual interpretation.

The Assembly has not endorsed either view of sexuality as its position, recognizing that there are at least two different views that are in tension, but acknowledging both in its life. The tension between holiness and justice is evident. Each needs the other. The holiness expressing the depth of God as the life giving source, and justice expressing the depth of God’s loving openness to the marginal and hurt in society.

That tension saves us from self righteousness and becoming legalistic on the one hand, and on the other hand that tension saves us from the fear that this is “the first step on a road of continuing moral decline”, as some from the holiness stream have stated, and also that this will “lead to the endorsement of gay marriage as the next step” as some from the justice stream have maintained.

The Assembly did not pass a proposal that the Uniting Church ordains homosexual people. It did acknowledge that it is and has been possible for a Presbytery, on a case by case basis, to accept that a homosexual person could be called by God to ministry, noting that it is appropriate for a Presbytery to take into account the way in which all applicants express their sexuality, and noting that Presbyteries may choose to take into account the expectation that its ministers will adhere to the standards of celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage.  This is the tension that is acknowledged by Proposal 84. The responsibility for discernment remains with the Presbytery. 

But then, 2 years ago I was asked to look at the Basis of Union as a document in the light of the great Confessions of Faith from the past, such as the Westminster Confession, the Savoy Declaration, and the sermons of John Wesley. An interesting discovery emerged. First these confessions do not agree with each other. The Basis of Union brought Calvinists and Arminians together! Is the gospel for the elect, or for all? Our documents from the past do not resolve that most basic issue.  Secondly, the Basis of Union is in fact another sort of document that does not look only to the past, but above all looks to the future. In Paragraph 1, three churches “acknowledge that none of them has responded to God’s love with a full obedience”, and in Paragraph 2, the Uniting Church “recognises that she is related to other Churches in ways which give expression , however partially, to that unity in faith and mission” of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Uniting Church “seeks a wider unity in the power of the Holy Spirit”. 

We are a church which looks forward to continuing discussions with the Anglican Church, and other Churches. Along the way we will not agree about all matters, but will seek the union which is Christ’s prayer for the Church. At the heart of our life, we are learning, how in sole loyalty to Christ, we go forward together. The basis of our agreement is in response to Christ, not just from what each partially believes, out of our less than full obedience. This tension between holiness and justice in this matter of sexuality is an opportunity to discover the fundamental call of the Basis of Union in our own life. In Paragraph 5 the Biblical Witness is the way “our faith and obedience are nourished and regulated”, and in Paragraph 11, acknowledges that “God has never left his Church without faithful and scholarly interpreters of Scripture.”

Proposal 84 does not end the discussion, but gives place to two alternative views, two different interpretations of particular passages about sexual acts between people of the same gender in the scriptures within a Uniting Church,” and encourages the discussion between these two positions to continue.

 What amazed me in looking at it from this point of view was that a number of Assemblies over nearly twenty years have slowly worked their way through this matter affirming the Basis of Union, the inter- related councils, each with their own responsibilities, and what it means to go forward in sole loyalty to Christ listening to an ongoing debate about a particular issue in the scriptures.”

I thank you for your email, and give this report to you of what the Assembly has done. I pray for a listening ear that we may hear each other. It is the responsibility of members of the Assembly to convey to you what the Assembly did. Please talk with someone who was there who lives close to you in your Presbytery.

Dean Drayton

 *Source: http://nat.uca.org.au/assembly2003/newsmedia/stories/presidentletter.htm 8/6/03.