FRIENDS OF UNITY
Report on meeting with Moderator, Rev. Dr Graham Humphris, Tuesday, 13/4/04.
Friends of Unity Executive members met with Moderator, Graham Humphris
and Synod General Secretary, Stuart Cameron, taking up an opportunity
extended to us, to hold a conversation on issues of concern.
Present were Barbara Horne, Marelle Harisun, Rev. Margaret
Polkinghorne, Malcolm Cowan and Wal Anderson. We focused on
matters relating to the Synod Sexuality Task Group deliberations,
Presidential Ruling 23 and processes currently proceeding within the
Church concerning faith, membership, sexuality and participation.
In this we were well received and held frank exchanges of viewpoints
and concerns, touching on the following points.
On Presidential Ruling 23 (PR23).
This ruling relates to the decisions of My Lofty Presbytery in regard
to denying placement of a minister living in a same gender
relationship. The action was ruled as inappropriate. After
expressing our appreciation of matters of pastoral care already
undertaken by the Moderator, with respect to visiting the Minister
concerned, in response to PR23, we presented our view of what needed to
be done pro-actively, in order to bring reconciliation, through
confession, asking forgiveness and developing further dialogue towards
instituting a process of reconciliation and retribution. We were
assured that this was being given deep consideration, although the
situation was difficult, given that the vacancy had been filled and
that too little had been done far too late. The pain of the
situation was clearly heard and felt, with clear recognition of the
Church being at fault. Ways to handle the situation were being
considered, with some embarrassment, as it appears that there are
appeals being made from other quarters for the President to
reconsider. That is an interesting event, since there is no
formal process available to appeal Presidential rulings which are
final. Waiting on appeals does not seem to be a creative step
towards retribution.
We also urged the Moderator and Secretary to ensure that presbyteries
had a clear understanding of their roles, processes and
responsibilities, to ensure that inappropriate action of a similar sort
does not happen again. We expressed deep concern for the
continuing potential for discriminatory action from those who seek to
drive a wedge between persons and their sexuality so that sexual
orientation, practice and committed relationships become grounds to
exclude people or to limit or deny membership, participation and
ministry in ways contrary to the Church’s policy and polity as defined
in the Basis of Union, Constitution, Regulations and policies of the
Assembly. We expressed this pastorally, as a matter of creating a
"safe place" for all UCA members and ending serial harassment of glbt
persons in ministry or leadership positions.
The Moderator reiterated his view that disparate views are held with
integrity and that matters of ethics can be applied on a "case by case
basis’. The ASC is still looking at "safe place" matters and is
preparing reading material that is easy to read and appropriate, again,
with an eye to an emerging protocol.
Guidelines for discussing contentious issues.
Concerns were discussed that the Assembly has not produced and promoted
the guidelines for discussing contentious issues, as resolved by Tenth
Assembly, as per Assembly minute 03.12.04. Such guidelines are
overdue and are being prepared for Stage 2 of the current process of
"wrestling with issues". So we wait to see the outcomes there.
We discussed appropriate use of terminology so that ‘sexuality’ does
not equate with ‘homosexuality’, for example, and so that categories
‘evangelical’, ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘biblical’ are not the used
exclusively. Another example raised was where some sections of
the Church persist in interpreting "the manner in which a person’s
sexuality is expressed" as referring exclusively to homosexuality or
same gender relationships when the language used refers to sexuality in
general. We wait to see what the new protocols bring us, when
presented in July.
Two useful papers were mentioned by Stu Cameron: "Why the Evangelical
Church Needs the Liberal Church" by Richard J. Mouw, President of
Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, and "Why the
Liberal Church Needs the Evangelical Church" by Barbara G. Wheeler,
President of Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City. These
have been available from the FoU website for some months- nice to see
the Church catching up! [These may be accessed from the FoU website, by
going to http://fou.uniting.com.au/index.html#reflection and following
the links.]
An interesting response came from Graham when it was suggested that
educational provisions needed improvement. His retort was to ask
whether we expected educational processes to alter the opinion of those
who opposed homosexual persons being in positions of leadership, to
match ours It was one of the most impassioned questions to come
from the Moderator during the discussion. His tone and emphasis
was similar to that heard previously from Evangelical Members of the
Uniting Church (EMU) who rejected earlier educative processes aimed at
changing their mind concerning questions of church membership and
homosexuality. They claimed that they did not need to be educated
out of their opinion, for when you believe that you have the answer,
what is the use of further educational pursuit? In reply to
Graham, I answered, with equal passion, that I thought that the purpose
of education was to equip people with the knowledge and skill necessary
to make appropriate decisions concerning contentious issues. On
reflection, these skills had been painfully missing in the
deliberations and decisions of the My Lofty Presbytery, where education
about one’s role and the policy and polity of the Church may well have
saved conflicts and embarrassment. I am convinced that the role
of education remains an issue.
Synod Sexuality Task Group
This body (Moderator, General Secretary, Charles Biggs, Jan Trengove)
was mentioned as having been working during the last two months. [It
was established to "engage in conversation with Congregations and
Presbyteries who are deeply concerned about issues surrounding
Resolution 84, to explore ways forward for them to remain within the
Uniting Church." (minute CS03.88.4(a)] It was hoped that this
will report to Synod 2004 and offer suggestions as to a way
forward. Any documentation would be available to congregations
and presbyteries in early May. Graham offered to bring forward on
our behalf any issues that we wish to bring before the Synod or the
Assembly.
A question of non-geographic presbyteries
With EMU attempting to set up a ‘provisional orthodox presbytery (ies)
or similar structures (POPOSS), we asked Stu and Graham for their
response, as only Synods can establish presbyteries. We
were interested in asking what guidance may be given to the Council of
Synod on the matter. The proposal to set up POPOSS is a uniquely South
Australian phenomenon at this stage. We had the clear impression that
Graham and Stu are not impressed with POPOSS plans. [Subsequent
to our discussions, it is worth noting The Synod General Secretary’s
letter to all church council secretaries and ministers in the
minister’s mailing of April 16, 2004, concerning POPOSS and the Synod
Sexuality Task Group.]
Anti-vilification measures
We asked how the role of presbyteries would be included in implementing
these measures, again, with the view to avoiding improper,
discriminatory types of action. It appears that this work is
still in progress and expected to be made available in July.
Graham expressed hope that the new protocols may remind presbyteries of
their responsibilities and keep the Church from always being "on the
back foot". That was a nice touch, as we glbt folks have felt
that the Church has had us "on the back foot" continually, with the
persistent attempts by EMU and its allies to implement their policies
of discrimination by repeatedly shifting the goal posts with respect to
decisions in matters of faith, sexuality, membership and
participation.
Feedback on Stage 1 of the current process concerning responding to 03.04.12
We have made our response on behalf of FoU. [This can be read at
the Friends of Unity website at
http://fou.uniting.com.au/response_25_04.html ] We also reported
feedback from our members, identifying inconsistency in how
implementing Stage 1 was handled in some places. We discussed
examples, where prior decisions of the Assembly had not been passed on
and where details of pastoral letters and questions relating to Stage 1
were either not passed on to members or were pre-empted by the
processes used to discuss them. Subsequent discussion on how
Synod leaders could ensure proper processes was inconclusive.
Concerning Stage 2 of the current process and making a bridge to Stage 3
Graham briefed us on the resource pack being developed for Stage 2
discussions, stating that the resources will provide opportunity for
looking at issues, with reference to the Basis of Union, Church and the
Bible, history of the sexuality debate, ethics and other areas.
He welcomed feedback on this process (once it commences in the
mid-year).
Discussion on how the Assembly process will flow on to Stage 3 was
premature, as it seems that little thought has been given to this,
leaving developments to what ever subsequent measures are brought to
the 11th Assembly. There seemed to be no planned reporting on
Stage 2 envisaged. This is very much a "sit back and wait"
process with no proactive plans for resolution. It seems that
Graham and Stu are anxious for feedback on the process so far, as
material sent to the Assembly General Secretary does not filter to them
through the ASC or otherwise.
We expressed an opinion that some reporting back on insights or
directions gained from the Stage 2 process would be invaluable for the
Church in deciding future action. We stressed the need for a
qualitative evaluation and not a mere quantitative one based on
counting responses generated by indoctrinated programs of dissent.
Summary
In our own debriefing afterwards, we all felt that the discussions had
been frank and open, with Graham willing to listen and receive our
concerns and see that they are presented. We were encouraged by
the acceptance of the need for retribution and reconciliation with
respect to implications of PR23, although mention of appeals left us
feeling that a degree of indecision and ambivalence existed. We
now wait to hear from the SA Synod Sexuality Task Group, the resources
for Stage 2 discussions and reports on legal aspects relating to
vilification and harassment.
Wal Anderson
For FoU
April, 2004.
BACK