“…so that the whole body of believers may be united by mutual submission in the service of the Gospel.”
Paragraph 15, Basis of Union
“If law can be brought into disrepute by too frequent and radical changes, it can also be brought into disrepute – and probably more frequently – by leaving, in the law of the Church, regulations and instructions which no longer open up the way of the Gospel. The dignity and sanctity of the law can be maintained only if we think highly, but not more highly, than we ought to think of particular laws. There is for the Church, as for the community as a whole, no escape from or finality in the exercise of law. When a final sanction is claimed we do a disservice to the very thing we wish to protect.”43
These words from the second report of the Joint Commission on Church Union would morph into paragraph 17 of the Basis of Union on law in the Church:
“The Uniting Church acknowledges that the demand of the Gospel, the response of the Church to the Gospel, and the discipline which it requires are partly expressed in the formulation by the Church of its law. The aim of such law is to confess God’s will for the life of the Church; but since law is received by human beings and framed by them, it is always subject to revision in order that it may better serve the Gospel. The Uniting Church will keep its law under constant review so that its life may increasingly be directed to the service of God and humanity, and its worship to a true and faithful setting forth of, and response to, the Gospel of Christ. The law of the Church will speak of the free obedience of the children of God, and will look to the final reconciliation of humanity under God’s sovereign grace.”
This paragraph became the opening preamble to the decision of the 16th Assembly on the work of Act2.
Throughout the Collective Discernment phase, councils, boards, committees, communities and individuals wrestled with the ordering of our conciliar life through the lens of four Options presented in Act2: In Response to God’s Call. These four Options arose from the insights of the Exploration phase reflected across the whole report.
The engagement of the wider Church with these Options has helped to clarify the diverse contexts and imperatives across our Church and the principles, parameters and priorities of different parts of the Church in how we shape and order our life. As an Act2 team, we believe we have heard from across the breadth and depth of the Church’s life through a variety of engagement mechanisms. We believe we have heard from across the diversity of perspectives.
Below we have synthesised and reflected on many of the themes arising from the discernment. We have then gone on to summarise the quantitative and qualitative response to the four Options. Finally, we have offered our conclusions which give rise to the proposals in Chapter 7 Going Forward Together – A Way Forward.
Reflections on Themes from the Feedback
We have heard a call from the Church to be bold, be ambitious, harness the ambition of our founders in the precarious enterprise of union to renew our collective life for the Uniting Church’s second act. The support for Option 1 from across the life of the Church reflects a call to that boldness. We hear questions like, “will the Assembly really act?”, “when can we get started implementing change?” People are not naïve to the state of the Church or the challenges of implementation. However, they are calling for courage. They see that change for a future focused, flourishing Church is essential. Indeed, it is those parts of the Church facing the most acute challenges which are most supportive of ambitious change.
Davis McCaughy in his commentary (in reference to an ecumenical work of the World Council of Churches, Commission on Faith and Order) points to the role of councils in linking the past, present and future in a single life. Many people have tapped into the hope with which the Church must face the future including those asking what we want to gift the next generation.44 As one group put it ‘…we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to act mindfully and decisively.’ In whatever we do we must keep faith with those hopes and expectations.
“Let’s be bold!”
“We need to focus on
discipleship and mission”
Is a focus on structure and systems a distraction from discipleship and mission? This question has continued to arise throughout this project. Some believe if we just focused on discipleship and mission then the structure and system would take care of itself. Some believe that bold structural and systemic reform will impede and divert us from core tasks of discipleship and mission. Nevertheless, there is a consistent voice, particularly from local communities which says that the current structure and system is already impeding discipleship and mission. Culture and structure are not competing solutions to the problems facing us as a Church, both are essential. It is our choice to allow structural and systemic reform to be either an enabler of discipleship and mission or a distraction from it. How we choose to approach the implementation of change – our posture, attitude and behaviour – will determine our choice.
“Where is the power?”
The dynamics of power within the Church cannot be ignored. The regulations rarely use the word ‘power’, preferring the language of ‘responsibilities’ and ‘duties’. However in any human system power is a reality. The Code of Ethics and Ministry Practice45 points to the place of power in the ministerial role and pastoral relationships. The principles about appropriate and professional use of power ought to extend to the councils, governing bodies, office holders and personnel involved in our decision making.
Power in our conciliar structure follows size and resourcing (both financial and personnel) much more than it follows responsibilities and duties. Davis McCaughey reflects that our conciliar structure rejects the judicial courts of Presbyterianism and the top-down governance of Methodism.46 More recently Geoff Thompson has observed that it is also not meant as an endorsement of bottom-up conciliar structures which is more a feature of Congregationalism.47
Our inter-conciliar model does have inherent distributions of power built into it. It recognises that no one council or individual has ultimate authority. That Christ alone is supreme head of the Church.48 However responsibilities and power are distributed amongst the councils, it ought to be exercised, as D’arcy Wood describes it, prayerfully, consulting together in light of the Word of God.49
It is clear from the feedback and is consistent with the Basis of Union that there should be a balanced distribution of responsibilities and power across the respective councils. There is an inherent suspicion of any one council being too powerful. However, it is also unhelpful if many councils have a decision-making role in the one area or responsibility. This leads to confusion, duplication and ultimately disempowerment. Underlying this is the inherent power that arises from resources (financial and personnel). Irrespective of the allocation of responsibilities as described in the Regulations, those councils with more resources accumulate to themselves more power and therefore a de facto role in many aspects of the Church’s life allocated to other councils. Any way forward must account for and seek to address these realities.
“Are we too tired and set in our ways to tackle bold change?”
We recognised in Act2: In Response to God’s Call that the Church, particularly in local congregations, is tired. The current way of working as a Church is contributing to that tiredness along with the decline in people participating in local communities of faith and the aging demographics of our communities. Therefore we have been encouraged to see the appetite for change which has arisen out of Church Council responses. We also have seen from the meetings of Presbyteries and Synods that there is an appetite for change. To harness the past, present and future in a single life of the councils of the church – it may be those that have had responsibility for our life in the past and present who may find the prospect of significant change a challenge. However as we look with hope to the future – we may find that God does refill our cup, that new and renewed voices may invest in a bold future for our life.
The establishment of statutory property trusts under state and territory acts of parliament were historically the legal entity for the Church to hold property and enter into legal relationships with other entities. The changes in trusts law, challenges amending legislation, shifting reliance on property and proceeds of sale have meant that property trust and the related Synod boards and committees for finance and property have played a more prominent role in the governance and resourcing life of the Church.
This reality needs careful legal and governance consideration. However, it ought not be determinative in the shape of our future. As we have seen, many parts of the Church have departed from using the property trusts as the legal vehicle, particularly in agencies but also in other parts of the Church’s life. UnitingCare Australia in its submission proposes the utilisation of different legal vehicles (including contemporary company structures).50
Ultimately the statutory property trust arrangements are the legacy of Australia’s colonial history and a Christendom model of church. If we are to be a truly Australian church in a post-Christendom world then we need to ensure the property trusts serve us and the mission to which God has called us rather than impede it.
“What authority would the Property Trust have?”
“How will we deal with the different State and Territory laws?”
The property trusts are regularly cited in arguments to retain state-based structures. The other is state based legislation. Expertise in different (but similar and related) legislative areas is important in the Church fulfilling its legal obligations. However there is not a compelling case for why that expertise needs to be attached to a large state based council. National (and international) corporations, charities and other organisations do deal with multiple jurisdictions without needing separate federated structures. Indeed at the moment almost all Synods are working on a multi-jurisdictional basis. Expertise about those different jurisdictions is essential, however it need not be determinative of our structural arrangements.We recognised in Act2: In Response to God’s Call that the Church, particularly in local congregations, is tired. The current way of working as a Church is contributing to that tiredness along with the decline in people participating in local communities of faith and the aging demographics of our communities. Therefore we have been encouraged to see the appetite for change which has arisen out of Church Council responses. We also have seen from the meetings of Presbyteries and Synods that there is an appetite for change. To harness the past, present and future in a single life of the councils of the church – it may be those that have had responsibility for our life in the past and present who may find the prospect of significant change a challenge. However as we look with hope to the future – we may find that God does refill our cup, that new and renewed voices may invest in a bold future for our life.
“Are we really ready to share resources and take a ‘common-wealth’ approach?”
Resource sharing and redistribution has been a part of the life of the church since its origins as described in Acts 2. Equally it has been the case throughout the life and history of the Uniting Church. Congregations have contributed to the wider Church through mechanisms such as Mission and Service Funds. Synods have had a regulated responsibility to collect funds to support the work of the Assembly.51 At various times support has been provided on an ongoing or ad hoc basis between Synods.
However the changing landscape of the Church has meant we have not settled upon a shared, consistent and sustainable approach to resource sharing and redistribution. We are culturally conditioned to see resources we have responsibility and oversight of as ‘ours’. The responses to the joint funding mechanism proposed in Option 4 (good on paper but hard to see it implemented in reality) indicate that we still have a lot more work to do to build the mechanisms and relationships which can sustain our common life together. As Michelle Cook has observed:
“Although the ecclesiology of the UCA is one of unity, fellowship and pilgrimage, there appears to be an inability to view the Uniting Church as a national Covenanting and Multicultural Church that requires the Church to live as a commonwealth holding resources in common and shared with those in the greatest need. To be a commonwealth requires us to apply our ecclesiological identity of unity, reconciliation and pilgrimage to more than our aspirational doctrinal and ecclesiological statements. To fully live out our call as a church in Australia we need to interrogate our failure to address the unequal distribution of material wealth, along with our desire to live as a Covenanting and Multicultural Church.”
This prophetic challenge should continue to shape us as we look not only to the structural ordering of our life but how we use the plentiful gifts God has given us, including our financial resources.
“Who are the culture bearers in our Church and can we change our culture?”
In every part of our Church people point to different places as bearers of our culture. Congregations, seen as the beating heart of our Church, are significant bearers of culture. So too are Synods with their historically significant role in gathering, resourcing and offering leadership to the missional life of many parts of our Church. Presbyteries, particularly in rural areas have been culture bearers as relational pastors and partners in ministry and mission. The Assembly is a culture bearer on matters of core identity particularly through its responsibility for doctrine, worship and government.
There is a shadow side to culture which is also prominent in our life – that we are resistant to change, want to entrench our own power, remote from one another and particularly the local context, divided down theological and geographical lines and unwilling to put the collective interests ahead of our own contextual interests. We are responsible for changing these cultural narratives we tell ourselves. We can change our posture, attitude and behaviour towards one another – and we need to – for the sake of the gospel and our witness to that gospel in our time and place.
Cultivating Our Theological Culture and Education