One Man's Web - Sexuality

The Noise from Moyes

Posted.. August 18 2003

There has been much media misrepresentation about Proposal 84 at the 2003 Uniting Church Assembly. This amazing proposal made a courageous and radical witness to the community about working together in disagreement, and was passed by a large majority of the Assembly. It has been almost universally mis-represented in the media, and rabidly and fiercely attacked and misrepresented by EMU and other hardline conservatives within the Uniting Church.

Gordon Moyes is a long time critic of homosexual people in the Uniting Church. He has made well publicised attacks on people such as Reverend Dorothy McRae-McMahon. He is influential: as well as being Superintendent of the Wesley Mission in Sydney, he is a member of The Upper House in NSW representing the ultra conservative Christian Democratic Party. He writes a weekly article called The Superintendent Writes which has been reproduced in full below on the left column. In the right column there is an extended critique, which analyses the one example of the rhetoric used by those hostile to homosexual people, yet claiming to be acting on Christian principles.

One of the problems of arguing against such attacks is the breath taking scale of their claims, which tend to leave people "gob smacked" by their audacity (to quote one friend), and scarcely knowing where to start. Dr Moyes also obviously comes from a very different perspective from my own. I suspect we "scarcely speak the same language." This is important to realise, on either side of the debate, when we struggle to comprehend how someone can say something. Often we have very different under-pinnings to our positions. People also feel the burden to be graceful, despite the heinous nature of some such attacks and feel that to respond with a direct reply is some how lacking in charity.

My critique may thus perhaps sound a little nit-picking at points, and be almost boring in its detail. But I wish to show in detail the structure of the article. Only by becoming conscious of the design of an argument can we respond fruitfully. Of course Dr Moyes could say the same things about my writing. :-)

Dr. Moyes writes On Saturday the members of the Uniting Church will speak about their disgust that the Assembly should approve the appointment of homosexual clergy living in a sexual relationship outside of marriage for ordination.	Jan's Response and Critique Presumably Moyes is writing about a meeting known to his congregation, to whom he is writing. It is noticeable that he is talking about the members of the Uniting Church. Some members in some locations are meeting. There is not some representative national meeting happening here. But already in the first sentence the column is claiming some non-existent moral ground of the majority of membership. Moyes also speaks of disgust. A great number of people have also expressed concern, and a wish to know what is happening, but he speaks only of one response. Again the emotive colour is being subtly set for the rest of the article. He is also fore-ordaining the purpose of the meeting. There will be no discussion of Proposal 84 or seeking to understand why Assembly might have passed it. It is already consigned to error before there can be any judgement of its contents.
The Assembly approved any Presbytery ordaining such homosexual and lesbian ministers, despite the fact that four years ago over 90% of the membership of the Uniting Church who voted on the issue disagreed with such a move. The small numbers of people who attend the Assembly were completely overwhelmed by the gay lobby.	This is a statement of half truths, untruths, and again, of strongly emotive colouring. We are told a small number of people have been overwhelmed by the gay lobby. He implies that somehow Assembly is non-representative, and full of a gay lobby. It is not true. The small number is in fact 250 people. Assembly members are elected by the local church, in that year after year, local congregations elect people to their local presbytery. Year after year those Presbyteries people elect people to Synod. Those elected people at presbyteries and synods elect people to Assembly. Those who are against homosexual people have had over ten years to win the argument on this issue. If they do not have the numbers at Assembly, it is simply that their arguments have been rejected. The "small" number of people where "overwhelmed": Arguments were put. The conservatives would not allow the Uniting Church consensus decision making to continue. So people voted according to a formal process. Of those 250 people, at least 75% had to vote in favour of the proposal even being put. When it was, it had to be passed by at least 75%. The conservative, anti proposal 84 people, were overwhelmed by the ordinary elected members of Assembly, not some gay lobby. As I understand it, there was no gay lobby. It was the conservatives, EMU, who insisted on the issue being raised at Assembly... something they are now being very quiet about. "four years ago over 90% of the membership" voted on something very different. Moyes is not being honest enough in his rampant anti-homosexual stance to even mention the substance of Proposal 84 anywhere in this article.
The spin doctors of the Uniting Church were quick to send out letters from the President and Moderators saying nothing had changed, but the gay lobby knew better – they broke out into celebrations, claimed “victory” and said the next step was for the solemnization of gay marriage and the adoption of children by gay couples.	By the "spin doctors" I assume Dr Moyes means the President of the Assembly and the State Moderators. Yesterday the Uniting Church’s national Assembly reaffirmed presbyteries’ role in determining who is suitable for ordination, candidature for ministry or placement in ministry on a case-by-case basis..... Some media reports have given the impression that Assembly has done something dramatically new. The proposers of the motion stressed that the decision is not really new. It simply clarifies what is already Uniting Church practice..... The decision affirms the integrity of what you hold – and it invites you to respect the integrity of those viewpoints which are different from yours.... It invites you to discover the depths of what Jesus Christ makes possible as he holds us together as a uniting people. Dr Dean Drayton, President of the Assembly. The "gay lobby" (again that refusal to call them people) may have indeed made some silly claims. Moyse ignores the serial, sensationalist, and silly (to be nice) claims made by a whole raft of conservatives. The instant response of Mary Hawkes that 3000 people would leave the Uniting Church in one Synod alone, before most of them could possibly have read the proposal and digested it, is but one example. To imply that all people who think gays and lesbians should be ordained along with the rest of us were celebrating is ridiculous. Many are depressed that this is all assembly could say. In one sense it now allows Presbyteries to actively and openly discriminate against gay and lesbian people. Gay marriage and adoption is another issue. He uses it here to heighten his emotional attack. He is saying, "Deny ordination because you have reservations about gay marriage," and inviting people to avoid the issue at hand. In other, words he is deflecting the reader from the real issue by scaring them with another. It is a good political trick, but has little integrity here. Dr Moyes clearly wants no part of "discovering the depths of what Jesus Christ makes possible as he holds us together as a uniting people."
The Uniting Church members do not want homosexual ministers living in relationships outside of heterosexual marriage. They are not easily bought by a gay lobby, and they are coming to Wesley Centre to discuss what could be done. They are angry their church has been hijacked by a small group. This is part of a moral and theological conflict that will not go away. Evangelicals in mainline churches have confronted these issues and we expect all evangelical churches will continue the fight.	This is a disgusting paragraph. "The Uniting Church members" is an untruth. He is referring to people he expects to attend a meeting at his church. He carefully, as above, does not say "The members of the Uniting Church," but uses a subtle rephrasing to imply that without saying it. He does not want gay relationships. Some of his congregation do not want them. But they do not speak for the church. They "are not easily bought by a gay lobby." What impropriety is he implying here?.... that money has changed hands, or favours have been done? This is deeply insulting to the integrity of his Christian brothers and sisters and his colleagues. It is disrespectful to the church and the Assembly. It is a cheap emotive trick to try and bolster an argument by defaming others. He is correct about the deep moral and theological conflict. It will not go away. But he hijacks the word Evangelical which means teller of God's Good News, for his own brand of church, as though it has good news and is right. This is pure conservative hubris, as though only his brand of theology has any sense of the truth or the will of God.
I have personally received great support from the Anglican and Roman Catholic Archbishops in this struggle and from hundreds of members throughout Australia who have written to me.	Now for an emotive comment of my own: If the support of Jensen and Pell is a good thing, Gordon, you're welcome!
Despite their frequent depiction of the church as a heartless oppressor, the gay lobby is the aggressors in this conflict. We evangelicals, submit our lives to God's authority, believe in the authority of the Scriptures, and live according to His will.	The facts are that many churches have been heartlessly aggressive towards homosexual people. If I remember correctly, the aforementioned Archbishop George Pell has refused communion to openly gay people. By using the term "gay lobby" he seeks to disarm the call of many church members for justice towards its own members. He calls the attempt of other church members submitting their life to God's authority, believing in the authority of the Scriptures, and live according to His will, an act of aggression. In his own case, "submitting his life to God's authority, believing in the authority of the Scriptures, and live according to His will" is called being obedient and spiritual. There is no humility that even remotely considers that perhaps he is wrong. Again, to bolster the emotive power of his argument, he seeks to appropriate the church's word, evangelion, for only his own point of view. The other thing which is shown here with utter clarity is that Moyse will not even consider the spirit of Proposal 84, which recognised that within the Church people of faith have wrestled with integrity to interpret Scripture in relation to the issue of Christian sexual ethics and have on some issues come to mutually exclusive positions Only his position is right. He does not even have the grace to mention this clause. He is fundamentally dishonest in his presentation and criticism of the proposal, by missing out its key point. He does not even mention it as a claim that is wrong! Someone who trusted him as their minister to interpret the Assembly proposal to them would have every right to feel betrayed, for they would not have been told the truth.
Do you agree that UnitingCare under the direction of Rev Harry Herbert should provide children from Burnside to gay couples for fostering? We certainly do not. Have you heard that reported in “Insights” or in the Synod Reports? Have you heard that the Council of Synod approved this? That is the kind of underhand support by stealth given by the UCA to homosexuals.	I have asked Harry Herbert and Dr Moyes what this is about. Meantime, what I note is that there is no detail from Dr Moyes in his claimsr. They seek to imbue something with an air of conspiracy. There has been no reply from Dr Moyes. However, Harry Herbert replies, Dear Andrew, In regard to your enquiry, I have made no statement about the matter to which Gordon Moyes refers. Gordon Moyes has not spoken to me about this matter, nor has he spoken to Jane Woodruff who is the CEO of UnitingCare Burnside. UnitingCare Burnside is a service group of UnitingCare NSW.ACT and has a non-discriminatory policy in regard to the selection of persons to be foster carers. I do not know whether any particular foster carers within Burnside are from same sex families or not. Gordon Moyes must have more information on this matter than myself. My principles on this matter are clear: the pre-eminent issue is the protection and care of the children concerned. Foster carers for any particular child or children should beselected with a view to the best possible outcome for the child. Regards, Harry Herbert. Executive Director, UnitingCare NSW.ACT Is there, in fact, a problem with two gay people fostering a child if it puts that child in a safe environment? It seems to me that Moyes is trying to capitalise on the false and defaming myth that gay people are child abusers, by definition. If the church has behaved correctly and in due process, what is it "underhand?" If there has not been due process, why has it not been reported in Insights? Is Moyes claiming a cover up? Or is he doing what the media calls a "beat up." Uniting Care has a non discriminatory policy and the Synod approves of this, as it would, so therefore you can say Harry Herbert approves of gay couples fostering children. Clever politics, but no integrity. I guess that unless Dr Moyes cares to reply, we will not know.
If you have funds in the Uniting Church Trust Association, your foregone interest is funding this activity and the Synod staff responsible! Do you want that? Withdraw your funds, invest them elsewhere and use the interest to help the parts of the UCA that are obedient to the scriptures.	Withholding funds means we first of all fail to help the mission partners and the other people overseas, and in the areas in Australia, where there is no government support, not the people in Australian Agencies which often have government funding or subsidy.
A special Mission Council has been called according to the UCA regulations and we will determine all of our responses.	I presume this is an internal Wesley meeting.