From an anonymous netfriend:

I have just returned from the Assembly.

I voted Yes, in the end.

Originally I was voting No, as I was aware of the pain that this issue could cause. I have already seen this pain in Migrant Ethnic congregations in Sydney and Darwin. I would have preferred not to have a vote. The status quo suited me fine. The ministers I know who are not heterosexual are fine people and good ministers. But not all agree that they should be leaders.

But it was clear that a vote would happen. So the TV cameras recorded me as saying yes.

Why?

1] I saw a divide between old and young. The young (under 25) members I talked to said that the issue was irrelevant to them. This is the generation that has grown up with Will and Grace, and homosexuals, women, blacks, migrants, all being treated as normal. This was an issue for the older generation. The young were not interested. They have grown up in a different world.

2] I saw that Jesus consistently said that when God's Love and God's Law come into conflict, then God's love must be the winner. That is what Jesus taught. Paul said other things. Romans 12 apparently talks about this. But Paul also said that women should keep their place. That and Paul spoke about God's grace. God's grace is paramount in any discussion.

3] I listened to the 3 migrant/ethnic ministers who spoke. They said that they knew how migrants were treated. They knew it first hand. Homosexuals were being treated the same way. It was time we stopped persecuting them too.

A partnership works both ways. We listened to their leaders. They had their turn. In the end we decided that they could have their view, but that other bodies should have the same choice.

4] Presbyteries are now empowered to make sexuality an issue when sustaining a call. They can intervene to prevent a minister be called if it would cause problems within the Presbytery. This may be unfair. But it is a way of ensuring that a minister is not forced on a Presbytery against the wishes of its members. Basically nothing has changed. The difference is that we have stated that nothing has changed.

5] I realised that I would belong to the first honest church in Australia. Others have homosexual ministers. But these people feel a need to hide their sexuality. The result is disastrous, for them and for their church. In the UCA at least, homosexual ministers may soon be able to admit that is what they are. Not yet. But soon. The Catholics, Presbyterians and Pentecostals will soon follow.

I am sorry if this hurts people. I am sorry that Fred Nile has left us. Truly sorry. For the UCA is broad enough to tolerate divergent theological positions and dialogue within itself. But only if we stay together and engage in the discussion. And recognise and respect our different positions.

I do not accept the theological positions of everyone, although at the Assembly I received a strong argument for the existence of evil spirits and the strength of shamans. Not something I had expected at 11pm on the last night of the Assembly. On the last day when they tried to reopen the debate, I sat with someone who was keen to do so. I told him that, while I voted against him, I respected his position. The discussion was helpful to both of us. He to return to his Synod, me to mine.

Ours is a Uniting Church. For the first time since I joined the church back in 1986 I am glad we call ourselves Uniting, for that means that we have divergent views that can help us all to grow in Christ and in our work in the world we live in. If we were United I think I would leave, for that would mean that we had fixed positions that eliminated the work of the Holy Spirit and hindered renewal in our theology and practice.

We are Uniting. That means we are moving. That means we are open to the breath of God. That means we are alive.

We may not like this. I, for one, don't like being rung at 9am on the first day I return, while I am still on leave, and being told that I am personally responsible for betraying the Gospel (he was calling me long distance). But I listened, for I respect his position, even if he rejects mine. I belong to that kind of church. The kind that holds opposite views are both having validity in the eyes of God. Who am I to say that God is not speaking through those who say I am wrong?

May God be with us, as s/he has been from the beginning.