Assembly '97 News Home page Documents		No change for church in sexuality recommendations Task Group on Sexuality recommendations to the Eighth Assembly are unlikely to please either supporters or opponents of the ministry of homosexual people in the Uniting Church. The recommendations generally — and parts of the task group’s revised report — may receive acclaim for their affirmation of marriage. However, recommendations dealing with the sexuality of people standing for positions of leadership have not varied from the church’s existing position. The recommendations, along with the task group’s final report, Uniting Sexuality and Faith, and a summary of responses to its interim report, were distributed to Assembly members this month. Most notably, there is no recommendation ruling out or unequivocally permitting the appointment of practising homosexual people to positions of leadership. If the Perth Assembly agrees, presbyteries will have the same authority and discretion to ordain homosexual ministers as they do now. The Assembly will be asked to affirm the 1987 decision of Standing Committee that “all baptised Christians belong in Christ’s Church and are welcome at his table, regardless of their sexual orientation”. And it will be asked to declare, therefore, that sexual orientation is irrelevant to eligibility for confirmation, membership and participation in the life and mission of the church. The Assembly will also be asked to affirm the principles of the 1982 Standing Committee decision advising presbyteries that “the sexual orientation of a candidate is not and has not been in itself a bar to ordination. A decision on the suitability of a candidate may of course depend among other things on the manner in which his or her sexuality is expressed”; and that “because all applicants and candidates for ministry of the Word, ministry of Deacon and Specified Ministry of Youth Worker are to be assessed on an individual basis in accordance with the Regulations, it is invalid for any presbytery or synod to establish or maintain policies which prevent certain categories of people from having their suitability for ministry considered in the specified way.” Other recommendations affirm “the joys and responsibilities of God’s good gift of sexuality”, recognise that all practices of sexuality which are exploitative and demeaning are unacceptable and contradict God’s purpose, and encourage the development and identification of resources for professional counselling (recognising the special needs of those who have experienced divorce or abuse) and to liturgically recognise the end of a marriage and assist in the process of “grief, repentance and moving on in God’s grace”. Marriage statement The longest recommendation is that the Assembly approve a policy statement on marriage: “Marriage for Christians is the freely given consent and commitment in public and before God of a man and a woman to live together for life. It is intended to be the mutually faithful, lifelong union of a woman and man expressed in every part of their life together. In marriage the man and the woman seek to encourage and enrich each other through love and companionship. Where sexual union takes place the partners seek to express mutual delight, pleasure and tenderness thus strengthening the union of their lives together. In the marriage service the woman and the man make a public covenant with each other and with God. It is an act of worship which, in the company of family and friends, affirms their trust in each other and in God and supports their determination to grow together. In marriage, children may be born and are to be brought up in love and security, thus providing a firm foundation for society.” An inability to sustain the marriage relationship, says the recommendation, breaks the commitment to be together for life and may be painful for the couple, the children in their care, as well as for parents, friends and the church community. “In cases of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the church acknowledges that divorce may be the only creative and life giving direction to take.” The church, says the recommendation, has responsibility to: care for people, including children, through the trauma of the ending of a marriage; help people where appropriate to grieve, repent, grow in self understanding, receive grace and forgiveness; and support them as they find God’s call for new life. “The grace and healing of God are available to people who are divorced thus freeing them to marry again.” A related recommendations seek a policy that Uniting Church marriage celebrants strongly encourage couples seeking marriage to undertake appropriate preparation. Another encourages Uniting Church couples to take advantage of appropriate relationship enrichment and education programs. The most overtly controversial recommendation is that Standing Committee appoint a group to bring recommendations to the Ninth Assembly “on how the church may respond to lesbian and gay people who wish to have their commitment to a life-long faithful relationship affirmed by the church”. Final report When members of the Assembly start to consider the recommendations on July 6 they will be able to refer to the task group’s final report -- substantially revised from the interim report but perhaps not to the satisfaction of many critics. They will also have a summary of responses to the interim report which were submitted, in the main, by people who strongly rejected the report. The final report starts not with the changing patterns of society but with the Christian identity as Church and the fact people are sexual beings: “The naked bodies of the male and female are not an occasion for shame (Genesis 1:26-31). The body is a wonderful creation (Psalm 139:13-15).”. The report moves on to “Living with the biblical story” (“Special attention is given to the primacy of scripture”): “It is clear that, given the wide diversity within the Uniting Church as to how we read scripture, it will be important that we be mindful of certain guidelines so as to preserve the integrity of scripture and as a check against undue subjectiveness.” A chapter considering the ways in which faith informs sexual identity and decision-making about sexual practice says, “Any decision on whether or not to engage in sexual activity involves searching for an answer to the primary question: How can our actions in this situation best reflect the love, faithfulness and grace of God that comes in Jesus Christ?” The chapter “Living as friends: seeking right relationships” is followed by the longest chapter, “Living alone, living together”. This addresses the question, What sexual expression is appropriate for members of Christ’s community that brings glory to God? The task group was not able to affirm one particular approach to passages of scripture which have traditionally been regarded as relevant to homosexuality. It said agreement about biblical interpretation of those passages was not the central challenge for the church. “The continuing challenge is to understand that, in the light of our faith, the one duty we owe each other is the duty of love (Romans 13:8-10). It is in this context we make our decisions.” The task group noted the church’s and its own division on such questions. The task group was unanimous that the Bible was silent about homosexual orientation. It said that being homosexual or heterosexual was not, of itself, morally good or bad. “It is not our orientation but what we do with our sexual nature that constitutes right or wrong.” It was unanimous that heterosexual and homosexual people were brothers and sisters in Christ. Some members of the task group believed homosexual acts were contrary to the will of God as expressed in the Bible and that homosexual relationships “remain as part of a disordered world that is in rebellion against God and therefore should not be endorsed by the church”. Some members believed the same standards applied to homosexual and heterosexual relationships and that loving, faithful, long-term homosexual relationships could be blessed by the church. Another challenge to the church, the task group said, was its attention to marriage. “There has been a lack of opportunities for church members to understand marriage in its contemporary context from the point of view of the Christian faith ... The church has simply assumed the importance of marriage but has not given any positive clarification to this assumption. Those who choose to marry may well have to work harder than their parents if their relationship is to grow.” In the chapter “Living as God’s people” the task group said it had “no reason to believe that a person with a homosexual orientation is less fit for ministry than a heterosexual person”. Nor did it have any reason to believe that a person with such an orientation was more likely than anyone else to damage the credibility of the ministry by inappropriate behaviour. The task group had “concerns” about the statement “celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage”. “This is not so much because we disagree with what is being advocated in such a standard. We are concerned that it underestimates the complexities of human sexuality and about the way in which it might be used unjustly against certain people.” Considering a way forward, the task group said there had been a substantial return to a focus on scripture across the church. That was reflected in the thousands of responses to its interim report, it said. “The church should continue to encourage the study of scripture, not only on issues of sexuality, but also on the broad range of issues before the church.” Responses When considering recommendations from the task group, Assembly members will also be aware of responses from church members to the interim report. While not strictly a statistically valid representation of Uniting Church opinion, the responses represent many people’s strength of feeling on this issue. In its final report, the task group itself noted that “responses to the interim report indicate that, confronted by changing patterns of behaviour, many Uniting Church people are concerned about the lack of ethical standards and call for a return to ‘traditional morality’. Others celebrate what they perceive as a new openness, acceptance and honesty and call the church to develop a new sexual ethic. Others are simply confused. This ongoing internal struggle creates an environment in which people feel hurt, confused and angry, which often hampers effective discussion about sexual ethics.” The summary of responses prepared for Assembly Standing Committee found that, of the 61 per cent (4,919) of responses able to be categorised, 82 per cent were negative. Of the congregational responses that raised concerns about the report, 89 per cent were negative. Major areas of concern were ordination of practising homosexuals, endorsement of homosexuality, and use of scripture. Councils of elders (84 per cent negative) and parishes and parish councils (81 per cent of those raising particular concerns, negative) raised similar concerns. The comparable figure for groups was around 70 per cent negative. Of the 2,597 analysed responses from individuals using the response form, 79 per cent were negative overall. And 85 per cent of the 1,660 individual letter responses analysed were negative. Of the 335 ministers who responded 66 per cent were negative. Around 40 per cent of responses from congregations, council of elders and parishes and parish councils, and 50 per cent of presbytery responses affirmed the statement “celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage”.

"The Uniting Church affirms that it belongs to the people of GOD on the way to the promised end." Basis of Union, Revised edition published 1992