This is being predominantly prepared as a personal reflection
on the report to Assembly in preparation for making pastoral response to assist
the congregations I serve in preparation for the discussion regarding marriage
to be presented at our Church’s upcoming Assembly meeting. This is not meant to
be a definitive discussion of what is an extremely detailed and well referenced
paper but will attempt to be fair to both the presenters of the proposal and
those who have voiced opposition to it. I apologise to both groups in advance
for any shortfalls this paper may have in seeking to condense a significant paper
in the life of our Church or misrepresentations I may inadvertently make.
The report notes that it arises from a significant discussion
in the life of our church where two different and mutually opposing positions on
this particular issue have arisen within the life of our church. While there
has been significant discussion, if anything the two sides have strengthened
their position rather than growing closer together on this issue over this time.
While we have had one Church with diverse practices over the issues of leadership
and ordination, this is not possible for the issue of marriage as it stands as we
have a stated doctrinal position.
What follows is a well-prepared and articulated doctrinal statement
that I feel loses impact as it seeks to make two distinct points simultaneously
without explicit explanation. The first point is that it is possible to hold a
position contrary to our stated doctrine while staying within the ongoing process
of discernment that is framed within the Basis of Union. The second argument is
that differences in doctrine such as seen on this issue are a consequence of
the way in which we have committed to seek to follow God together under the Basis
of Union and may even be reflective of the nature of God. Unfortunately, when these
arguments are read together in the form presented in this proposal this can be
read as a rebuttal of the beliefs of those who hold the validity of our current
doctrinal position which makes the work of the next section more difficult.
The next section then outlines the different responses that
different Churches have made in response to the legalisation of same-gender
marriage. These are four-fold
- · Forbidding their clergy from solemnising same-gender marriages, but allowing them to perform blessings of civil unions (without specifying an order)
- · Forbidding their clergy from solemnising same-gender marriages, while specifying a particular order of service for any blessings of civil unions
- · Forbidding their clergy from solemnising same-gender marriages or blessing civil unions
- · Allowing their clergy to solemnise same-gender marriages.
The committee then considered which of these options would
best allow those who hold different points of view within the life of our church
to practice their faith with authenticity.
The first option is the one we currently have defaulted to
in our life as a Church. This poses a significant risk as those Ministers who
choose to perform a blessing need to make sure that the ceremony does not mimic
marriage itself. It also shares a number of difficulties with the second
option. Providing a blessing service for civil marriages causes problems to
people who hold strong positions on either side of the debate. For those who
wish to acknowledge same-gender marriage this does not meet their desire for
their relationships to be fully acknowledged by the church. For those who
oppose same-gender marriage it is deeply unsatisfactory to ask God to bless
something that they believe is condemned in Scripture.
The third option does not allow a group within the life of our
Church to practice their faith within its life, and the ASC found this to be
unsatisfactory as it effectively excludes a group from our practices as a
Church.
The fourth option, to the ASC, was found to have the greatest
possibility for the different groups within the life of the Church to practice the
faith of their conscience together as long as several freedoms were guaranteed.
These were that Ministers should be empowered to choose whether or not to solemnise
same-gendered marriages as a matter of their own conscience, and that Church Councils
should be able to choose whether or not same-gendered marriages could be
solemnised on their properties. While this is the preferred option from the
report, there have been a number of concerns around this raised by those who believe
that this would not allow them to practice their own faith with freedom and integrity.
The first concern is that those who wish to refuse
same-gendered marriages could lose a level of protection under the law. With
the current practices, Ministers are implementing Church policy when refusing a
same-gender marriage and would presumably be covered against civil claims by their
professional practice insurance. There has been a concern expressed that if the
Church policy changes, it could be argued that Ministers or Church Councils could
be forced to face discrimination claims if they exercise their discretion as the
proposal only protects them from Church disciplinary functions. The current
reality is that Ministers are protected under legislation from such cases if
they are acting under personal, church or community conscience. While there is room
for fear that these protections may be diminished with changes of politics, we
can only make decisions on our current situation. I believe that this proposal
provides all of the protection for the exercise of conscience in this regard that
the Assembly is actually able to provide.
The second concern, to me, is more critical. The concern is
that the changes necessary to the statement of our doctrine of marriage exclude
those who adhere to the statement as it currently stands. Many of this group struggle
to see how the interpretation of those who are seeking this change can be
considered as Christian, let alone be sanctioned within the life of the Church.
They also are concerned that this doctrinal change will place us among a small
minority of Churches who allow this globally. Despite participating in years of
difficult discussions, they wish to retain a place within the unity and vision
of the UCA. They particularly struggle with the prospect of being asked to
change a form of words which they value and treasure as a statement of what
they believe is the true Christian belief around marriage.
Changing our doctrine to be more inclusive is portrayed as a
laudable act of justice and comes with a recognition that sometimes the rights
of the majority need to be diminished to make room for inclusion for those in
the minority as an act of grace. That being said, I would caution us to listen
to Miroslav Volf’s warning on overreaching on liberation as a theme in theology
in "Exclusion and Embrace"– it is very easy for us to use acts of power to merely change which side of a conflict
holds the power in a relationship. He cautions that it is more important that both
parties work together towards the situation where they can live in harmony that
he defines as justice. It also needs to be seen that grace can only be offered,
not imposed, in order to be authentic and life-giving.
In this I have cautions for both sides participating in the
discussion at this time.
For those who are in favour of this proposal, I join Volf in
cautioning that justice is not achieved until both sides of an issue are satisfied
that fairness has been reached. This means that simply saying that there is
room for those who disagree with you to exercise their faith within a statement
that you have prepared because this is a logically true statement is not
sufficient. I suggest that we need to recognise that enforcing a single
statement on the doctrine of marriage may not be possible.
For those who oppose the proposal, I wish to caution that the
misrepresentations of this proposal that I have seen are not helping this
discussion. I commend these people who have stuck with the Uniting Church
through what has been an enormously difficult time, but also note that if this
side is unwilling to enter into a discussion of how our Church can make room
for different practices within its life the pressure on the Church to make changes
will only increase as the social pressure increases. In other words, you may
well never be in a stronger place to negotiate than you are now.
As for what I would do if I was at Assembly. Firstly, I
would be willing to provide my point of view but also be prepared to lay down
my own agenda to seek the will of God in community, as that is the commitment
all need to make for discernment to work.
If I was unable to discern a way through I would make a
suggestion that the current diversity we have within our theology is unlikely
to produce a single statement of our doctrine of marriage, so we are unwise to
try. I would suggest that the Assembly introduce the proposed new statement of
marriage as an optional statement that Ministers and Church Councils could
choose to adopt rather than a replacement for the current statement. To me this
reflects that on this matter we are not united, but rather Uniting.
Secondly, I accept that this is not an ideal situation as it
would allow our current divergence in theology to continue and maybe even accelerate.
I would like something to express our call to be Uniting in our practice. I
would like to suggest that each of the two liturgies that would be generated from
the differing statements on marriage would include a section in the prayer of
confession that would acknowledge the hurt that our choice to exercise this
practice causes to other people of good faith in the life of the Church and to
members of the community.
In any case, I will make this point and lay it down. I
continue to pray for all of those who will be exercising discernment in this
next meeting of Assembly, and once humbly ask for forgiveness from anyone that
I may have offended or hurt as part of this discussion.
