A reflection on the Marriage proposal before Assembly

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.

On Exercise, Mental well-being and Mission

This reflection is the second part in our series on some changes that have been clinically shown to improve people’s mental well-being and how they relate to our lives in faith. It should go without saying that these reflections do not seek to encourage people to withdraw from existing mental health arrangements, but rather to encourage us all to consider changes that may well be beneficial. In a similar note, it needs to be noted that seeking your medical practitioner’s advice is vital before making sudden or significant lifestyle choices.

That being said, the article by Dr Roger Walsh notes that just as exercise offers benefits that lower the risk of certain physical diseases and can be used as part of the treatment for existing disorders, it also offers both preventative and therapeutic benefits on a demonstrable level.

In terms of prevention, exercise has been found to reduce the risk of depression as well as diseases of mental decline such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Among older people, the improvement found in people’s lives after exercise is undertaken includes a marked improvement in the executive functions of planning and coordination. It should be warned, however, that while the benefits of exercise for physical health can be seen at a lower level, the cognitive benefits of exercise are best seen with exercise activities of over 30 minutes duration and of a higher intensity (Janetzki recommends a level where it is difficult to hold a conversation) . For many of us, this is one of the changes best undertaken in association with appropriate professionals.

Of all the beneficial changes raised in the article by Walsh, this is one of two where the Christian tradition has historically shown ambivalence. In recent weeks, we have been reading from Paul’s letter to the Romans, where the body (“the flesh”) is set against the world of the spirit. This can be seen, particularly in Romans 8, where we are chosen to choose between things of the flesh and things of God.  It may be for these reasons that the tendency of Christian tradition has been to deprive the body as part of discipline.

However, there is a second view of our bodies in scripture that may lead us to choose a more beneficial way of living both for our bodies and our minds. This is the view of our body as a temple (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:19). If we see our body as the residence of God, we are called to treat this earthly shell of ours with care and respect.

If we see ourselves as participating in carrying God’s mission into the world, we offer our bodies to God’s service. If we adopt this view of our bodies, the act of exercise is not an act of developing vanity or carnality (literally translated from the Latin as flesh-ness) but rather an act of devotion and preparation to do God’s work in the world. I must admit that my temple is not in the best of shape, but am doing my best on the renovations, and hope you can see the physical, mental and spiritual benefits of doing this too.

Mental health pastoral care and congregational leadership- some reflections (in serial form)

On Mental Wellness and Mission

Last week I attended an “Introduction to mental health in pastoral care” training day. This was a day where new participants to chaplaincy in mental units and prisons are welcomed into their community of practitioners, and many were surprised to see a congregational minister attending. Many were willing to ask me why I was attending their day.

Thankfully, the answer to that question was delivered by the keynote speaker, Peter Janetzki, who spoke to us on “The challenge of mental wellness in contemporary Australia”. Peter is a former teacher and school chaplain who now works as a counsellor and trainer in mental health full-time. Peter gave us some stunning statistics about the mental health issues now facing our nation.

• 1 in 5 Australians will experience mental un-wellness at some stage in their life

• 1 in 16 young Australians is currently experiencing depression

• 1 in 6 young Australians is currently experiencing an anxiety condition

• 1 in 4 young Australians currently has a mental health condition

• Suicide is the biggest killer of young Australians and accounts for the deaths of more young people than car accidents

• The number of deaths by suicide in young Australians is the highest it has been in 10 years

• Evidence suggests 3 in 4 adult mental health conditions emerge by age 24 and half by age 14

 While Mr Janetzki brings his own passion for youth to the fore, these statistics show that mental health is a much larger issue than that which can be managed exclusively within the confines of the professional and acute health system but rather one that needs a whole of community approach. For me, the question then arises of how the church can help to build mental wellbeing. 

Thankfully, the talk proceeded to discuss some positive life choices that we can make that have been clinically shown to improve mental well-being, based upon the work of Dr Roger Walsh. Dr Walsh lists a number of these “Therapeutic Life Changes” and notes that one of the truly amazing things is that making any one of these choices has been shown not only to assist ourselves, but can also affect the behaviour and improve the health of people we know up to the third degree of separation (for example, friends of friend’s friends). 

Over a number of weeks (it may even go to months) I will aim to summarise Dr Walsh’s thoughts on one or two of these helpful practices, describe how this fits within the Christian tradition and how such practices may benefit our lives as individuals and a community that witnesses to the one who “came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.” (John 10:10)