Wickedly Funny and Unbelievably True
Insights Magazine
Wed, 17th Apr 2024
Matters Vital to the Life of the Church
The decision of the 15th Assembly on marriage has been raising all sorts of questions. The President has given the church an explanation of the decision and the Assembly has also provided an FAQ resource. Questions about UCA theology and polity are also being raised. One of these concerns an obscure technical term, “vital to the life of the Church”. I’ll try to offer some explanation of that term and how it works within the UCA’s processes.
The phrase “vital to the life of the Church” originates in the Basis of Union (paragraph 15e) – that is, it’s not a traditional phrase in the church or theology. So it needed to be given content in the preparation for church union in 1977.
What the Basis says is, “It is obligatory for [the Assembly] to seek the concurrence of other councils, and on occasion of the congregations of the Church, on matters of vital importance to the life of the Church.”
Of course, it would have been anticipated that the Assembly would be constantly making decisions of very great importance in all of its areas of “determining authority” – decisions which are arguably “vital” to the life of the Church. But it would be impractical for all of that to be referred, after decisions had been made, back to the other councils for “concurrence” (which was also not defined). The Presbyterian Church had a “Barrier Act” which, as the name suggests, was designed to ensure that Presbyteries could maintain limits on the Assembly. There was no appetite for that to continue among Presbyterians coming into church union and Methodists and Congregationalists had never admired the process. So whatever was intended in the Basis of Union about seeking “concurrence” on “vital” matters, it wasn’t a version of the Barrier Act.
In preparation for the inauguration of the UCA, a Constitution Commission had the task of designing the constitutional structure for the Uniting Church in a way that was consistent with the Basis of Union – operationalising the vision of the Basis of Union, if you like. Among its many challenges was to give some content to the part about “matters of vital importance to the life of the Church”, and it did so in s.39:
On matters which, by a two thirds majority vote, the Assembly deems to be vital to the life of the Church, the Assembly shall seek the concurrence of Synods and/or Presbyteries and/or Congregations as the Assembly may determine.
That is, in practice a matter is “vital to the life of the Church” if the Assembly determines that it is by a 2/3 vote. And if it so determines, it will also determine what will amount to “concurrence” and from which other councils it will seek “concurrence”.
A proposal to that effect was before the Assembly in Melbourne after the decision on marriage and it was debated. Arguments in favour of declaring the decision “a matter vital to the life of the Church” included:
1. that this decision on marriage was a fundamental departure from the Christian tradition and/or
2. that it would threaten ecumenical relationships and/or
3. that it would cause deep division within the UCA and/or
4. that people would leave the UCA because of it.
Arguments against the proposal included:
1. that the doctrine/s of marriage is not and has never been central to Christian doctrine and/or
2. the Doctrine Working Group had demonstrated in their report how support for same-gender marriage could have a sound biblical and theological basis and/or
3. that our ecumenical partnerships were more robust than was being claimed and included an understanding that the UCA took a different line on some important matters (e.g. women in leadership, accepting divorce) without ceasing to be genuinely Christian and/or
4. not only was there already a clear difference of opinion within the UCA on this and related matters but the decision actually strengthened the traditional view and practice while it allowed for an innovation in line with previous Assembly decisions concerning homosexual people in leadership and the full participation of LGBTIQ members in our fellowship. It was further argued,
5. that this Assembly was bringing to a conclusion a 6 year process of discussion and study on marriage which had tried to involve the wider UCA (admittedly without getting the kind of engagement it would have liked). Using the “vital to the life of the Church” trigger would simply commit the church to a period of intense, divisive, probably hurtful debate on something which, in all honesty, isn’t actually “vital”.
The proposal that the Assembly deem its decision on marriage as “vital to the life of the Church” was not supported.
S.39 of the Constitution then adds a further avenue for something to be deemed “vital to the life of the Church”:
(i) If within six months of a decision of the Assembly, or its Standing Committee, at least half the Presbyteries within the bounds of each
of at least half the Synods, or at least half the Synods, notify the President that they have determined that in their opinion:
- a decision includes a matter vital to the life of the Church; and
- there was inadequate consultation prior to the decision
- the President shall notify the Church that the decision is suspended until the Assembly has undertaken further consultation.
Some Presbyteries and Synods will probably have proposals to that effect before them. So what would happen a sufficient number of Presbyteries or Synods passed those proposals? Well, this:
The Assembly would determine what “further consultation” would take place – and I have no insight into what that might be. It could be anything from a gathering or gatherings of interested parties to a process like the one used for Constitutional changes (which requires the approval of “a majority of the Synods and two-thirds of the Presbyteries” s.72). I would be very surprised if it involved anything remotely like a plebiscite. The Constitution goes on:
(ii) Following this consultation, the Assembly shall determine whether to affirm, vary or revoke the original decision and report its decision
and reasons to the Church;
(iii) No action taken in reliance on a the original decision of the Assembly prior to the President’s notification to the Church under
clause 39(b)(i) shall be invalid by virtue of that notification;
(iv) This sub-clause can only be used a second or subsequent time on the same matter if the Assembly determines to vary the original
decision.
That is, in the end it still remains the Assembly’s decision. Moreover, if the Assembly decided not to vary its original decision on marriage, that would be the end of the matter.
My gut feeling is that the energy being expended on having the decision on marriage declared “vital to the life of the Church” would be better spent on finding ways to live together in our disagreement on this issue – faithfully and with integrity. As I’ve said elsewhere, this is the Uniting Church’s particular vocation in a divided society and a divided world. The so-called “culture wars”, in which this is just one battle field, are carried into the life of the church by its members, but it is our calling to show what it means to love our “enemies” within the Body of Christ.
Andrew Dutney
This piece originally appeared on Andrew Dutney’s blog. The original version is here.
Share
4 thoughts on “Matters Vital to the Life of the Church”
I feel compelled to offer the following four observations to Andrew’s blog:
1. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the same person who presented Proposal 8 to the Assembly, which called for the removal of “man and woman” completely from our Marriage doctrine, would now be discouraging those who may choose to accept the invitation of Clause 39 (b)(i) of our Constitution to offer THEIR OPINION as to whether this issue is vital to the life of the Church.
2. Many Presbyteries will now be meeting to determine if, IN THEIR OPINION, this issue constitutes a matter vital to the life of the Church and whether, IN THEIR OPINION, the level of consultation and engagement with the whole Church was sufficient for a decision of this importance. Nobody has the right to tell the members of the Church what their opinion should be or why their opinion is invalid before it is even expressed. With all due respect to our former President, if our people believe this issue is vital to the life of the Church, then Clause 39 (b)(i) invites them to offer that opinion without interference or judgement.
3. I am absolutely stunned to learn that one of our Church’s most respected leaders actually believes that defending 2,000 years of Christian belief and tens of thousands of years of cultural understanding of marriage is now nothing but a “culture war carried into the life of the Church by its members.”
4. Surely the best way to determine if something is vital to the life of the Church is to ASK THE CHURCH. Why else was Clause 39 (b)(i) even written? So can we PLEASE allow the members of the Church to speak, if they so chose?
It is important that people understand that at Assembly the proposal 8 was dramatically changed, leading to two agreed definitions of marriage, one that holds to the 1997 definition and the second that uses the 1997 with minor modification for two people.
It is unfortunate that people who are unhappy with this duality, fail to recognise that there was an extraordinary amount of discussion at Assembly, with a lot of listening, discussion, discernment, pain on the way through. Five days of intensive discussion and modifications to the Proposal 8 to move to something, that the elected body of the Uniting Church Assembly overwhelming endorsed, at a higher level than the Same-Sex Postal Survey last year.
I respect that there is a clause in the constitution on concurrence, however, this was also very well discussed and voted on at Assembly.
I would ask that any parish or presbytery that wishes to consider concurrence, that they should go through a similar process to Assembly, and also ensure that LGBTIQ, Ally and other voices are present to be heard and to inform the discussion.
What saddened me is that prior to Assembly some Presbyteries tried to ban minister in their presbyteries from undertaking two-person marriage. Yet at the same time, I suspect these same presbyteries are arguing for religious freedom, as long as it is theirs.
The Marriage Act ensures that no Minister can be forced to undertake a marriage of two persons. The Uniting Church position, not only strengthens that within our Church, but also says that independently to the decision of a Minister, the Parish Council can independently decide if the buildings under their use can be used for two-person marriage.
Marriage is in my opinion not vital to the Church, and areas such as Baptism, which is vital, already has variations within our Church. Why is that acceptable, when it is vital, but in this matter two perspectives not acceptable?
In all the rational and helpful clarifying explanations we are getting about the Assembly decision on SGM the reality is that many congregations are experiencing grief and loss within their membership, regardless of whether those members support the proposal or not. (That probably would have been true for some other members if a different decision was made.) When a congregation loses 10% of its regular worshipping community, there is great sadness; and even a question regarding their future viability when those people are in the 30-60 year age range. We need to lovingly listen and lament, as well as explain, respect and hope. I wonder if we can hear a report by the end of the year as to what this decision has cost us, in membership, as a national church: not to necessarily change the decision, but to acknowledge that there has been a cost, for both those who remain and those who leave.
A Plea for the Sanctity of Marriage.
I have supported Gay Rights within the church up to the point of allowing Same Sex marriage. In the Government’s recent mail voting on this matter, I voted NO, because I believe that marriage is, always has been and always should be, between a man and a woman and NOT as a vote against Gay Rights. I believe that any union between two people of the same sex should be a civil matter and that such unions should have the same rights as a married couple BUT such a union should not be called a marriage! Even though the Government has altered the Marriage Act to say that marriage is between two people, I still believe that any such marriage should be a civil union and not sanctified by the church.
In announcing the decision of the UCA’s National Assembly, the expression “dual integrities” is used to explain and defend it. They see our church as holding to dual integrities. But surely, both ways can’t be right. Both ways can’t be equally valid. It certainly is not in line with our “Basis of Union”! The 1971 UCA Basis of Union for the UCA states: the church’s “faith and obedience are nourished and regulated” by the unique testimony of the Old and New Testaments. Further, the church’s preaching will be “controlled by the Biblical witnesses”.
I believe in “unity in diversity” but this decision, taken “to honour diversity among its members” is a decision that disturbs me and many ordinary UCA members. On a matter of such importance that has the potential to split the church, I believe, that before such a decision was made, all members should have been given much more opportunity to have their voices heard.
By allowing individual Ordained Ministers to choose for themselves whether to “marry” a couple of the same sex in a Uniting Church, we have created a situation that is already causing division within the church and I believe could, eventually, even split the church in two. As well, the fact that the Uniting church has “gone it alone” could greatly hinder any ecumenical co-operation and efforts towards unifying the denominations of the Christian Church.
This is not an issue of gay rights but an issue of the sanctity of marriage within the Christian Church. Pastor Bill Hawkins: Port Hunter Uniting Church