The Synod General Secretaries of the Uniting Church in Australia today released this question and answer document:

The Assembly decision on Ministry, membership and sexuality: common questions answered

Introduction

The national Assembly at its meeting 12-19 July in Melbourne made a number of decisions relating to membership, ministry and sexuality. These have been reported with varying degrees of accuracy by various media. The decisions have been conveyed to the church by the President and the Moderators, and are available on the Assembly web site.

This information sheet seeks to offer answers to what the Synod General Secretaries believe may be the most commonly asked questions about the decisions and to provide background information on the resolutions. 

The resolution of the Assembly recognizes that there are two different and mutually exclusive ways of expressing our discipleship in regard to relationships and sexuality, and that in each case they are positions held by faithful Christian people. The resolution asks us to keep talking with, and stay in the same church with, those with whom we disagree on our understanding of acceptable practice, and to do this by relying on our essential unity in Jesus Christ.

As we seek to respond to the resolutions of the Assembly, there are undoubtedly questions we may wish to ask. Below are some questions and answers that seek to respond to the issues that people may have.

Questions and answers
Q: Will the decision of the Assembly stop us talking about matters of sexuality or being critical of certain positions?
A: No! We are all encouraged to keep talking, to voice our opinions, to oppose views that we do not believe reflect our faith. We are asked, however, to ensure that we carry out this conversation with respect for the other people involved, to recognize the faith and integrity of those with whom we disagree.

Q: Did the Assembly approve the ordination of gay and lesbian people?
A: No! It affirmed that decisions about ordination have rested with the Presbytery, and this has not changed. The Assembly has indicated to Presbyteries that they must deal with each candidate on their merit, exploring gifts and call. 

Q: Could the Presbyteries act differently from each other?
A: Yes, they could, depending on their views, and the way those views are taken into account (i.e. the weight given to those views in relation to other issues). That is part of our diversity.

Q: Is this just the beginning of changes that the Uniting Church will approve? Are we on a slippery slope where we will next approve homosexual marriages, support for gay or lesbian couples to have access to IVF, or de facto relationships?
A: No, we do not believe so. The Assembly decision is about the recognition of differing views on sexuality, and the right of Presbyteries and congregations to make their decisions about leadership within the church. 

Q: How do these decisions impact on our view of marriage?
A: Not at all. The 1997 Assembly affirmed a very clear understanding of marriage as a God-given relationship between a man and woman. 

Assembly Minute 97.31.12

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 a man expressed in every part of their life together.
In marriage the man and woman seek to encourage and enrich each other through love and companionship.

This view is not changed in any way by this decision.

Q: Could a congregation have a gay or lesbian Minister forced upon it?
A: No. The Uniting Church does not force Ministers on any congregation. Ministers are called after conversations between the Congregation, the Presbytery and the Minister. If your congregation believes that it could not develop a healthy and creative relationship with a gay or lesbian Minister it can say so. The resolution says that the congregation cannot develop a policy that would stop you talking with a gay and lesbian person, but that you must deal with each person in term of their gifts. At the same time, their sexual orientation and behaviour may be one of the factors you will take into account.

Q: Does this decision mean that, if a congregation says it doesn’t wish to accept a gay or lesbian Minister, they may be guilty of discrimination?
A: No, we do not believe that they would be. However, the resolution requests the Assembly Standing Committee “to seek 
advice for the church on the legal implications of the relevant legislation, eg anti discrimination legislation, anti vilification legislation, etc”. While the church will always seek to conform to the law, this is not what must shape our behaviour. Sometimes we will have to act as the church and deal with the legal consequences.

Q: Could a congregation, Presbytery or Joint Nominating Committee ask questions about a person’s sexual orientation or practice in regard to placement or ordination?
A: Yes, as long as those questions are asked equally of all people, and are asked in ways which are respectful of the people involved. It should also be recognized that, if people ask these questions of Ministers, the Minister may also ask similar questions of the congregation to see how they feel about ministry within the congregation.

Sexual orientation and/or sexual practice is one of the issues which a Presbytery may take into account among the many considerations which will be part of a person’s fitness for ministry. The Presbytery may believe that homosexual relationships or practice does not reflect its understanding of the Christian life, and may take this into account when making a decision. Policy statements are inconsistent with this approach.

Q: Can we exclude a person from membership if they are gay or lesbian?
A: No. The resolution says that “membership of the Uniting Church is open to all persons subject only to the guidance of the Basis of Union, the Constitution, the Regulations and the policies of the Assembly”. The Basis of Union says that “membership is open to all who are baptized into the Holy Catholic Church in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (para 4). 

Q: Is a congregation able to refuse to have a gay or lesbian person as a leader (for example, Elder, Sunday School Teacher, Church Councillor)?
A: Yes. The people we appoint to leadership are those who reflect the values and faith of our community, and whose practices and expression of faith seem to reflect what we believe about the Christian life. If the congregation does not believe that certain behaviours reflect its understanding of the Christian, faith it is free not to appoint people to leadership.

Q: Can we exclude people from membership or ministry because of the opinions they hold?
A: No. Such actions would not be appropriate in a church that is seeking to be open to diversity. 

Q: What impact has this had on the UAICC?
A: This is clearly a difficult issue for the members of the Congress. The leaders of the Congress believe that their voice was not heard, that the Assembly was wrong in its decision, and that the decision will be unhelpful in terms of the Congress’s ministry. They need time to reflect on these matters.

Q: What impact might this have on migrant ethnic churches?
A: This is also a difficult issue for many migrant ethnic communities, partly because their communities have not been able to discuss the issues. It is not easy to speak about sex and sexuality in some communities. However, the response of some leaders at the Assembly was that their communities value their place in the Uniting Church and will continue to reflect on the issues raised. They are committed to hospitality to all people, and to remain in the church together.

Synod General Secretaries
Uniting Church in Australia
19 July 2003


APPENDIX:

General background to the decisions

The people of the Uniting Church have developed differing views on how we should respond to issues of ministry, membership and sexuality. These differing views have arisen within our common faith in God and the work of Jesus Christ, our affirmation of the authority of the scriptures, and our commitment to the unity we find in Christ, 

The resolutions of the Assembly were not an attempt to say new things about our life, but to see if the Assembly wished to clarify what it had decided previously and what had become practice within the Uniting Church.

What the Assembly recognized in those resolutions was that:

various members of the church have wrestled with equal integrity with the Scriptures, and have come to different, indeed mutually exclusive views, on some aspects of Christian sexual ethics. 
Membership is open to all people, “subject only to the guidance of the Basis of Union, the Constitution, the Regulations and the policies of the Assembly”. 
The resolution identified two major strands in the way we understand Christian sexual ethics. Both strands, including their biblical foundations, are found in the Assembly report Uniting Sexuality and Faith.

Right relationships
One of these ways is called “right relationships”. The marks of right relationship described in Uniting Sexuality and Faith are:

honesty (including openness about feelings) 
trust 
faithfulness 
equality and mutuality 
vulnerability 
freedom and responsibility 
setting limits on our needs and behaviour, and exercising self-control 
giving and receiving affection and pleasure 
communication of needs and feelings, and being patient with each other 
discovering intimacy (i.e. depth and closeness in a relationship). 
People who support this position say that a relationship is right or wrong depending on whether it reflects this way of behaving.

Celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage
Those who support the second way of understanding Christian sexual ethics may also believe that relationships should reflect the qualities of a right relationship, but say that more is needed. This position insists on celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage. In other words, in this view the only right sexual relationships are those which occur within heterosexual marriage.

Neither position has been endorsed by the Assembly. 
July 19, 2003