A netfriend (August 2003):

Greetings,

I have been walking on the beach and thinking about this UCA Resolution 84 stuff. I mean, there has to be a solution to the mess we’ve found ourselves in as a church on this matter. Here’s one assessment of the problem.

What Resolution 84 unfortunately does (whatever the movers may have intended) is to divide the church into two camps. Placing labels on people and categorising two options places them in a position where they feel compelled to make a decision. For example, I feel that I am being forced, by presbytery and congregational meetings and by petitions and discussions with other church members, to be in favour of either “CISAFIM” or “Right Relationships”. While the motion may have been intending to make space for a diversity of opinion, what it in effect does is create a POLARITY of opinion.

In his romp through Australia in the 1990s, Kennon Callahan described for us the dangers associated with being a “two-cell” church. He was referring to congregations that have two distinct and opposed “camps”, and what seems to be expected in on this issue is exactly that, only on a larger scale. The scenario that he outlined for the two-cell church was continued fighting and bickering and eventual breakdown and ineffectiveness as an agent of the Gospel.

However my conversations with many seem to suggest that most people don’t want to be polarised into accepting one or other of the described/proscribed positions. Many, like myself, are distressed at what is happening and more concerned about the future and unity of our Uniting Church than we are about which of the two “positions” is theologically or biblically correct. We are not unconcerned about the issue of which people should be ordained and in leadership, we just don’t see this as THE most important issue.

Thus, faced with being forced to choose between the described positions, whether by vote in a presbytery or congregational meeting or by having to decide whether or not to sign a petition, we become confused and/or distressed and many will vote/sign for things they don’t necessarily feel fully comfortable about.

A classic example of this was demonstrated at a recent Queensland presbytery meeting which, when faced with a range of resolutions that were presenting opposite positions, passed all of them in the affirmative by formal vote. What is happening here? People are not yet ready to tear the church apart over this issue. People who love each other and their church are voting not for the resolutions, but for reconciliation and a continuance of relationship with people who have different understandings from those they themselves hold.

I am becoming firmly convinced that the future of our church is dependent on those of us in the “messy middle” finding a THIRD WAY. This means we will refuse to become polarised by the debate and instead will work to find a way through the disarray in which we have found ourselves. We will need to stand up for our convictions and state clearly and plainly that we are committed to discovering another way for the future of our church.

So what does this third way look like? I’m still working on that but my early thoughts are that it looks kind of like things did before Resolution 84. In other words, it is a way that acknowledges that this IS an important issue, that there are MANY different opinions on it and that we are NOT YET ready as a church to make definitive choices at any level about these issues. One day we may have the wisdom and maturity to do this, today we obviously do not.

This differs from Resolution 84 in that it allows, at some time in the distant or even not-so-distant future, for the possibility that the church might decide that the manner in which candidate’s sexuality is expressed should be a consideration when making a determination regarding ordination.

It also allows that, at some time in the distant or even not-so-distant future, the church might decide that the manner in which candidate’s sexuality is expressed is a matter which should not be considered when making a determination regarding ordination.

In other words, as a church we are not yet ready to make such determinations either at Assembly or in synods or presbyteries.

What happens meanwhile? Steady as she goes. We’ve survived this far without a determination; we can survive and indeed thrive for a long time yet. We will choose to remain in the messy middle and not tear our church apart over this issue, whether or not it is of vital importance to the life of the church. We will be a church that continues to dialogue with each other rather than shouting at each other. We may look foolish in the eyes of the world (more likely in the eyes of our ecumenical community) but then looking “foolish” was always a given for Christians.

So, I’m nailing my colours to the wall. I am not for “CISAFIM”; I am not for “Right Relationships”; I am for a “Third Way”.

I am content to continue to dialogue with the various understandings of my fellow Christians and keep my options open to the leading of God’s Spirit. I refuse to allow myself or my church to be destroyed by this process of polarisation. I call on others to stand in this place believing that the unity of my church matters and that, in the end, it is our love for each other and ability to dialogue with grace and generosity whilst sharing a common cup that will be our most effective witness to Christ’s love (John 13:35).

Kindest regards,

Related Articles:

• Greece: can you believe this/them?
• Syria February 2012: Two Perspectives
• EGYPT: THE GROSS INSECURITY OF THE DHIMMI
• Female Circumcision in the Maldives, the Islamic Movement and Islamophobia
• Australia Day message

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.