How will the re-current controversy over homosexual people in the Uniting Church be viewed by history.  Personally, I think the issue of homosexual people in leadership in the Uniting Church is one of the greatest theological con jobs I have ever seen.  It has virtually nothing to with homosexuals in leadership.

Naming the issue as "homosexuals in leadership" I see a group of people who are using the fears of church members for their own ends.  I see them using the desire of Uniting Church members to be faithful to God for their own ends.  Those ends are allowing this group to deal with their own homophobia, avoiding their discomfort with life in the modern world, and making a grab for power in the church. 

I base this assessment on the following observations:

Loss of Power:
In theological college, and then later in my life as a minister in the wider church, I have heard the constant complaint from some so-called "evangelicals" that they were being picked on by lecturers and the hierarchy of the church.  They seemed to feel there was no respect for their ideas and theological position.  It seemed to me that both lecturers and the wider church were, and are, amazingly tolerant of an uncritical and un-sustainable theology that did not like having its shallow foundations challenged.  It seemed to me that what was really happening was that some of these people were being left by the wayside because the denomination as a whole did not see their theological position as relevant. Interestingly, as I think of some other down to earth and competent theologically conservative colleagues, I can not recall them making these complaints. But there has been a body of conservatives in the Uniting Church who have felt disempowered and disenfranchised.

Loss of Courage and the need for certitude:
There has been much hurt on the part of some "evangelicals" and EMU people about being called fundamentalist.  However, from the outside, the EMU clique often sounds suspiciously fundamentalist.  The following is extract from a paper on this site 

"Courage is the affirmation of one's essential nature..." [Tillich, P. The Courage To Be pp16 ppiii]  [It] involves the acceptance of our finitude and the acceptance that our grasp of reality is imperfect. Ultimately it is shown by being able to face the threat of the universe, the dread that one day, apparently, we will not be. Courage is necessary to allow change in our reality construct.

Our present situation is a 'fundamentalist climate'. This is a climate of rapid change and great complexity. It is a climate where established reality constructs and conceptions of what life is about begin to crumble because the rate of change in the society is too great to be internalised. There is too much data at variance with the structure of many people's reality constructs, which is pushed upon them too quickly, for them to mould their perceptions of reality into the shape their conceptions say the data should have. Thus the constructs of large numbers of people are put under great stress. There is a loss of meaning.

This climate is characterised by an extra-ordinary testing of people's ability to deal with the world. It is a climate in which people need more courage. It is characterised by (among other things) doubt as to the meaning and worthwhileness of reality and life. To avoid this painful experience of asking and doubting many surrender the right to ask and doubt. They 'surrender' themselves in order to save themselves. They give up their freedom to ask and question the meaning of life, to escape the anxiety of meaninglessness. "Meaning is [thus] saved, but the self is sacrificed."   Tillich says this sacrifice "leaves its mark"; a "fanatical self assertiveness." Fanaticism is the correlate of spiritual self-surrender.

Fanaticism shows the anxiety it was supposed to conquer, by attacking with disproportionate violence those who disagree and who demonstrate by their disagreement elements in the spiritual life of the fanatic which he must suppress in himself. Because he must suppress them in himself he must suppress them in others.  [Tillich p56-7]

 [Fundamentalism's] freezing of the reality construct, provides courage. This courage is a 'regained certitude'.  [Tillich pp57] "The Bible is certain no matter what change and complexity we face." But this has surrendered the right to ask and doubt; inerrancy cannot be questioned or certitude fails. This courage is thus limited. It cannot face certain doubts. A consistent fundamentalist is thus limited in how far he or she can modify their paradigm for understanding the world

and...

We see how the courage of Fundamentalism is a limited courage. Using the language of Tillich, we may say that the Fundamentalist limitation placed upon modification of a person's reality construct for understanding the world is a limitation of their potential for being. That is, whilst they consistently adhere to the notion of biblical inerrancy, their potential for being is limited- (at least from the direction of their initiative.)

If Fundamentalism is a limitation of the potential for being , and the church is an enabler of people fulfilling their potential for being, one must conclude that Fundamentalism, as a system, is antithetical to the church.

I can only say that my experience of EMU-ish anti-homosexual theology has smelled strongly of the description above.

Homosexuality in the Bible:
Despite the claims of anti homosexual campaigners, a theologically aware and biblically literate study has a very hard time finding any real reason to censor or exclude homosexual people from the life of the church or its leadership.  There is no doubt that gay and lesbian people may lead a lifestyle that is profoundly anti-christ.  But that is not about being homosexual.  The same is done by heterosexual people... who make up most of the child molesters and so on that some church members get worried about.

Fear of faulty leadership:
Every parish of which I have been a part has had a horror story of sexual misbehaviour by clergy and other leadership.  The damage done has lasted for decades.  It has all been heterosexual misbehaviour!  The church has worked strongly in the past decade and more to address these issues.  Leadership has been subjected to scrutiny like never before.  The same will apply to homosexual candidates for leadership. If we are willing to trust the vetting of heterosexual leadership, then why are we so afraid of homosexual people?  Are we saying they are intrinsically perverted? In my experience....

My experience of gay and lesbian people:
When I think of the untrustworthy people of the church whom I have met, and the dangerous ones, none of them have been gay or lesbian.  A good number have been profoundly sympathetic towards  EMU.  When I think of clergy who inspire me, there are gay clergy are in the list.  When I think of people who have supported me in my lowest times, and who have been friends, there are gay and lesbian people in the list. In my experience, the notion the homosexual people are in a state of sin, or unworthy of leadership in the church is just plain wrong.  

Instead, I think the long held prejudices of society against homosexual people have been turned to a new use. Fearful conservatism has used the notion of homosexual people as a rallying point.  The conservatives were soundly and definitely defeated on any desire to keep homosexual people out of the church.  So they have focussed on leadership, because we all know leadership has a special responsibility. 

Plenty of people are willing to listen, because they too are afraid of homosexual people.  Plenty of ministers who have nothing to offer in a world where their theology is powerless and ridiculous suddenly have a fear based rallying point.  People of like fear flock to them.. There is no gospel in this, only fear, but they can sometimes even point to greater attendances.  Suddenly people are listening to them again.  People will support them in stupid things like funding boycotts... so they have power again.

But it is all a lie.  The work of the church is being ignored as our energy is sapped in this ridiculous debate.  Funds that could save lives are used to fly EMU delegates around the county.  People are led to think they are being faithful when they are simply being scared.  The homophobia of a few, and the need to regain power without courage, is abusing the church.

One of my colleagues posted the following to a newsgroup:

If I am mishearing the Spirit of God in this debate and am wrong in my convictions, and those convictions sway the day, then some people who feel and evidence the call of God in their lives, who demonstrate God’s gifting, and who are personally dedicated to loving and serving God and wanting to do so in the demanding context of ordained ministry – some of these people will be ordained and will serve God in that way despite living in a state of sinfulness. And I will answer to God for that at the final judgement.

But if I were on the opposite side of the argument, and was mishearing the Spirit of God in this, and my wrong convictions won out, then I would be part of a system perpetuating gross injustice on people made by God in God’s image, I would be part of a system which has led to oppression, vilification, abuse, physical violence and even death for some. I would be standing directly in the way of God’s calling and God’s plan for some people’s lives and ministries. And I will answer to God for that at the final judgement.

I have no doubt, if I were to be wrong, which of those two wrong choices I would rather be defending before the throne of God.

This short paper will be outrageous and hurtful to some readers. Much of what is being said and done in the debate is doubtless unconscious.  A power greater than the sum its parts is at work.  But where would God and where will history most harshly judge us in our quest for living out the truth? Will it be for trusting some people we should not have trusted? Or will it be for abandoning the gospel out of fear and prejudice? (Andrew Prior)