"Uniting Faith and Sexuality"

The Uniting Church in Australia

Assembly Task Group on Sexuality

Quotations from "Uniting Sexuality and Faith"
are Copyright 1997 The Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia
and used without permission. Paragraph numbers are shown in parentheses
following each quotation. In quotations, emphasis is theirs except
where indicated.

Understanding the report

In order to get the most out of this report, you
must keep a few things in mind. First of all, what the document
is not.

`We were not asked to conduct a survey of opinions
of members of the Uniting Church nor undertake market research
to discover how the Uniting Church might present the most palatable
approach to sexuality for the contemporary world. Instead, we
have been asked to _assist church members to make faithful decisions
relating to sexuality_.’ (0.11)

I would add to this that it is not a document on
exegesis, despite the many references made to Scripture throughout
the report. No great attempt is made to provide Scriptural analyses,
except in one or two cases where there was significant concern
from responses to the "Interim Report" which required
a response. I will deal with this section below.

Secondly, before reading the report as a whole, read
the definitions given. I can’t stress this enough, because many
terms are used in different ways to almost everyone else. For
example, see the following `definition’ of sexual harassment:

`A dehumanising misuse of power, where a perpetrator
torments a victim verbally, mentally, emotionally or physically
with regard to their gender, physical characteristics, sexuality
or relationships.’

In the real world, a large proportion of sexual harassment
cases _in the legal definition of the word_ are unintentional
on behalf of the perpetrator, and may be caused by insensitivity
or plain old misunderstanding. The task group understands this
and there is a disclaimer to the effect that these definitions
may not be appropriate in other contexts. Be aware of what the
task group means by a term when they use it.

Thirdly, there is not much that is `new’ in this
report, and very little of the report results in recommendations.
Rather, the report shows the point of view of the task group members,
and admits that the task group itself was not united on several
of the findings.

`Ultimately, it is for the Christian community as
a whole to decide upon these things.’ (0.12)

Chapter 1: `Living as the Church’

When God created the world, he saw it was very good.
Because of the good gift of sexuality, this chapter affirms that
we are living in a covenant with God and humanity `finds its fulfilment
in being transformed by the Spirit into the likeness of Christ.’
(1.7)

It treats sin as `the failure to become what we are,
to be in the image of God’ (1.11). The sin of humanity in the
story of the fall (why didn’t they mention Satan’s sin which is
the same?) is `seeking to be like God.’ (1.13)

The report makes an attack on gnostic dualism, which
may well still be prevalent throughout congregations, and emphasises
that sexuality is a good gift from God.

`The fundamental question, then, for this Report,
and for the Uniting Church, is how are we to be God’s people,
living in the way of Jesus Christ in anticipation of the Reign
of God in the context of changing patterns of human relationship
and sexual activity?’ (1.38)

Chapter 2: `Living with the Biblical story’

`We affirm that interpretation of Scripture properly
takes place within the believing community, informed by the Holy
Spirit and the theological tradition of that community.’ (2.5)

Our approach to theology is based on what Wesley
described as the `quadrilateral’ of Scripture, tradition, experience
and tradition. Some would add other influences such as `culture’
and `revelation’. (See Dicker’s "Faith with Understanding"
for an introduction to the Uniting Church perspective on theological
influences.)

While different theologians would place different
emphasis on the various influences, all are unanimous in the primacy
of Scripture. In responses to the Interim Report, the Task Group
found at least two distinct approaches to Scripture:

`One approach takes the literal textual authority
of the Bible as the starting point which is then brought to bear
on the present situation.’ (2.8)

`Another approach regards the Bible as being historically
and culturally conditioned. Major themes have to be identified
and examined in order to address the present situation. This approach
assumes that different interpretations of particular texts will
be given by different people in differing situations.’ (2.9)

Please note that this is not "evangelical"
versus "liberal", which is a distinction largely about
Bible _interpretation_. This is first and foremost a distinction
about Bible _application_.

`In this Report we will endeavour to approach Scripture
in a way that includes both a deep concern for fidelity to the
original message and a dynamic understanding for God’s activity
in relation to the world.’ (2.10)

In my opinion the Report is not fair to either point
of view. It makes several assertions about the Biblical authors’
intended interpretation without references or any kind of justification,
in some cases merely citing `recent research’. While the Report
is not meant to be an exegesis, I do not consider this fair to
the Biblical witness. But more of that later.

In the approach to the Old Covenant laws:

`The Uniting Church claims in Jesus Christ the freedom
not to accept all of the Law of the Old Testament as obligatory
for its life and witness. Jesus, while affirming the centrality
of God’s law, recognised and practised the process by which certain
teachings and perspectives take precedence over others. Jesus
distinguished between the laws of God and the additions which
had been made to them over the years by scholars (Mark 7:9–13)
and he deepened the interpretation of the law (Matthew 5:21–22).
Jesus identified _love of God and neighbour_ as the pre-eminent
commandments which form the basis of all the Law and the prophets
(Matthew 22:34-40).’ (2.12)

The report specifically mentions Paul using Scriptures
as justification against the `circumcision party’. (Acts 15:6–29)

As for cultural influences, the Report asserts that
the Bible was written in patriarchal cultures, and most Biblical
interpretation has been done by men and `reflects male perspectives’
(2.13). The task group does not attempt to define or analyse what
a `male perspective’ is.

One of the more interesting assertions is that `many
of the laws of the Hebraic Scriptures relating to sexuality cannot
be understood apart from the `populate or perish’ context in which
those writings emerged.’ (2.14) It cites as examples that polygamy
is never explicitly forbidden (Deut 21:15–17). Suggests that
purity laws, prohibitions on homosexual intercourse, bestiality,
contraception (citing Genesis 38) and masturbation (citing no
Biblical reference) must be understood in part as `forbidding
the wastage of sperm meant for reproduction.’ (2.15)

The last two are the most puzzling. The plainest
reading of the story of Onan would seem to indicate that it is
about neither contraception nor masturbation, but disobedience.
No mention is made of Deuteronomy 25:5.

Perhaps someone who knows more about Orthodox Judaism
could let me know whether there is such a `prohibition’ on contraception
or masturbation?

At any rate, based on this assumption, paragraph
2.16 recognises that the current population explosion and the
fact that men and women contribute equally to new life mean a
rethink of traditional approaches to sexuality.

Chapter 3: `Living in God’s image and Grace’

The report emphasises connection with sexuality and
spirituality (3.6).

It defines sexual ethics as based on character, based
on the work of Stanley Hauerwas (3.19). The most puzzling part
of this chapter, however, is that a model of character is developed
that is based totally on _behaviour_, with no mention of attitude
or the heart, as affected by the fall. I would have thought that
this was such a basic concept — that sin in its essence is not
what you do but who you are — that I am extremely surprised
that they neglected it.

Chapter 4: `Living as friends: seeking right relationships’

Like the interim report, this report appeals to the
notion of `right relationships’. Nothing particularly new here,
work with friendships based in love (John 15:12–15). Friendship
must be _inclusive_, including our enemy (Luke 10:25–37). `Jesus
is saying, in effect, there are no longer enemies, there are only
neighbours and friends and to be such is our calling and the gift
we receive.’ (4.3)

The report notes that in Jesus’, in his teaching,
`brought into the centre of the Kingdom those who were normally
excluded:- the lame, the blind, the mentally disturbed, the leper,
the haemorrhaging woman, little children, the poor and sexually
outcast.’ (4.4) It appeals to the parable of the banquet (Luke
4:15–24) in particular.

On the Greek words for love (*agape*, *eros*, *philia*
and *storge*), the report speaks of the influence of `some influential
scholars in the 1950’s’ (4.8) who argued that *agape* is fundamentally
different from the other kinds of love, however the Task Group
argues that the LXX interpretation of the Hebrew words *aheb*,
*ahabah* and *hesed* `do not support such a hard distinction between
divine and human love’ (4.9), since the LXX uses no word for sexual
love as opposed to other kinds of love.

Once again, an interesting assertion. I think this
is more closely related to an early notion of `formal translation’,
as exemplified in Aquila’s OT text. I agree that this may call
for a rethink of what we mean by *agape*, however I believe that
NT context does indeed justify differentiating its use from *philia*
or *eros*, even if the distinction is not quite as wide as we
have thought for the last 40 years. At any rate, I would like
to have seen the task group go through a more thorough justification
for this.

In paragraph 4.13, the report, noting that `our whole
lives are directed to giving glory to God as faithful disciples’,
draws the following implications implications:

– We are not called to uphold rules and regulations,
but are free for `responsible living’, whatever that means.

– We are not bound by community rules which do not
honour the needs of uniquely different individuals.

– God’s love is for absolutely everyone and we are
called to be a community which is open to all people.

The report also deals with the elements of a `right
relationship’. I do disagree with this wording, as `right’ doesn’t
sound like it could apply to anything in this fallen world.

Chapter 5: `Living alone, living together’

This is the longest and most controversial chapter.

It first covers childhood, adolescence, singleness,
celibacy and chastity, of which nothing is really new, so I won’t
deal with it here, but rather get on to the controversial bits.

First, some selected quotations, unashamedly out
of context.

On engaging in sexual activity:

`The Task Group believes that the decision on whether
or not to engage in sexual activity involves searching for an
answer to this primary question: How can our actions in this situation
best reflect the love, faithfulness and grace of God that comes
in Jesus Christ?’ (5.20)

On unmarried living together:

`Because reliable contraception is available many
are sexually active while they work through the meaning of commitment.’
(5.21)

This does not make a value judgement. This, however,
does:

`For others who wish neither to observe sexual abstinence
nor be promiscuous with all its attendant risks and abuses, the
possibility of a stable sexual relationship is important.’ (5.22)

The phrase `living in sin’ is an alienating concept
that fails to take seriously the situation and the questions that
people are asking today. […] It can even lead to a denial of
ministry to people within the reality of their everyday experiences.
(5.23)

The possibility of denial of ministry is an extremely
serious one IMO. Even those Christians who disapprove of unmarried
living together should not exclude those people from fellowship,
love and healing.

On homosexuality:

There is `no exclusive evidence to fully explain
how sexual orientation develops.’ (5.27)

`Most homosexual people come to an awareness of their
orientation over many years.’ (5.28)

On the church’s experiences with gay and lesbian
people (5.29) (abridged):

– Some homosexual people `hear God’s call to ministry’.

– Some are chaste and celibate.

– Some believe that `to live as a homosexual person
is sinful and that sexual activity is contrary to the will of
God.’

– Some seek healing and change through prayer or
`deliverance ministry’, or perhaps through psychological counselling.
Some can remain chaste or live in hetero relationships. In some
cases, these are short term, for others no change takes place.

– Some apparently hear the call to ministry.

Task group believes that `at their best, these different
approaches involve a genuine search for a faithful way to honour
God both in personal relationships and as Christian community.’
(5.30)

Incorrect attitudes to homosexuality found by the
Task Group were disturbing, such as (5.32):

– "gay men are predatory, promiscuous and molest
children" – "homosexual people are anti-family"

– "all homosexual people choose to be homosexual"

– "homosexual people want to recruit others"

– "you can pick them by the way they dress and
act"

– and so on

To see how ludicrous these are, replace `homosexual’
with `alcoholic’. (This is an analogy which the task group did
not use, either.)

`Many gay and lesbian people within the Church and
wider community are looking to the Church to celebrate before
God and their friends their faithful, long term relationships.
This needs to be given careful consideration if the Church believes,
as do _most_ Task Group members, that the appropriate context
for genital sexual expression is a committed, long term, mutually
faithful relationship.’ (5.37) Emphasis mine. More on those dissenters
later.

On the Bible and homosexuality:

`Many people who responded to the Interim Report
expressed their frustration that the Task Group had not addressed
the passages of Scripture which traditionally have been regarded
as relevant to homosexuality.’ (5.40)

`The Task Group believes that agreement about Biblical
interpretation of these particular passages is not the central
challenge for the Church. The continuing challenge is to understand
that, in the light of our faith, the duty we owe to one another
is the duty to love (Romans 13:8–10). It is in this context that
we make our decisions.’ (5.41)

`While accepting the need to consider specific passages
of Scripture the Task Group believes that they must be seen within
the context of the Gospel. The New Testament declares that all
have sinned and are saved by grace, through faith in the life,
death and resurrection of Christ.’ (5.42)

`It is clear to us that some of the passages frequently
cited in responses to the Interim Report are, in fact, not helpful.’
(5.43)

This last point is undoubtedly true. Of those which
were `frequently cited’, the following are the most important:

– Sodom (Genesis 19:1–19, Judges 19–21). `There
is a surprising lack of disapproval expressed about Lot offering
his virgin daughters instead, to protect the visitors.’ (5.44)
This is brutal behaviour and does not talk about the committed
relationships which the task group is dealing with here.

– Deut 23:17–18 is about temple prostitutes and
so isn’t really relevant either.

– 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10 is unclear whether it’s
about `passive’ and `active’ same-sex partners or prostitutes.

Plus `The meaning of the word found in these two
references — _arsenokoites_ — is much disputed.’ (5.46)

No references for this `dispute’ are given, despite
assuming that this refers to male prostitution is the novel interpretation,
and certainly not the strict etymologcial meaning. This reminds
me of an episode of "Yes, Minister" when they are discussing
how to discredit a report. "Say that some of the findings
have been questioned." "What if they haven’t?"
"Then question them!"

*malakos* means `soft’ or `effeminate’. In Greek
literature is `used occasionally as the slang word for the `passive
homosexual partner’ […], it is also used of men who eat too
much, read too many books or engage in heterosexual sex too often!’
(5.47)

The references which _are_ unequivocal are:

– Leviticus 18:22; 20:13. The report writes this
off as understading that `the male semen contained the seed of
life and the woman’s role was that of incubator’ (5.50). In this
case, homosexual acts (along with contraception) would be tantamount
`to abortion or murder’. However the report does admit that `whatever
the reason for their formulation, these texts leave no room for
discussion. Persons committing sexual acts with same-sex partners
are to be executed.’ (5.52)

They get around this by saying that it’s arbitrary
to emphasise these but ignore those regarding clean and unclean
foods, women and menstruation or Sabbath observance. This is despite
no mention of, say, Colossians 2:16 which does away with two out
of the three.

– Romans 1:26–27. `The wider context shows that
Paul is not prescribing ethical standards in Romans 1–3 so much
as describing what he sees as the fallen condition of humanity.’
(5.56) `We don’t know whether Paul was aware of the distinction
between homosexual orientation and activity. He seemed to assume
that those to whom he referred were heterosexuals who were acting
contrary to their nature.’ (5.57) `Paul admits here that he is
arguing from nature; therefore new knowledge of what is natural
is relevant to our thinking.’ (5.58)

Extending the analogy given earlier, knowing that
some people are born with a predisposition to alcoholism does
not make expressing it by drinking heavily `natural’. In addition,
girls are physically able carry children from the age of 12. Should
they? The fallacy here appears to be that what is natural does
not make a good ethic.

On the wider Scriptural context:

`The position of Gentiles in the early church is
similar to that of homosexual people in our Church today, where
engaging homosexual activity is still regarded by some as sinful.’
(5.68) On violence and homophobia:

Mentions homophobia (but watch the definition used
— it is not the same as definitions useful in other contexts
such as legal).

`Such discrimination is closely associated with a
heterosexual view of the world by people who believe that male-female
relationships are inherently superior.’ (5.72)

Bisexuality:

Task Group has not had time to deal with it in depth.
`Much of what we have said in relation to gay and lesbian people
applies equally to bisexual people.’ (5.74)

It is hard to see how expressing bisexuality in the
obvious way would make for a committed, long-term _monogamous_
relationship, but the report does not mention this.

On transgender people:

`That many transgender people have overcome massive
trauma and change and live productive, fulfilled lives is a tribute
to their believe in their own identity and their need to bring
together that inner reality with their physical gender make-up.’
(5.76)

On marriage, there is a long section. Mostly nothing
new, except I should note this:

`To date the Uniting Church has not made any direct
policy statement on its understanding of marriage.’ (5.79)

The report does _not_ recommend creating a task group
to specifically deal with this area, despite the face that this
report does not approach the subject sufficiently.

On divorce and remarriage:

`That many people in church and community divorce
and remarry is a reality to be faced.’ (5.92)

This is most certainly true, as Luther would say.

`Prior to union the Presbyterian, Congregational
and Methodist churches made strong statements affirming the ideal
of marriage yet recognised the need to deal with the reality of
divorce.’ (5.93)

`While pastoral sensitivity is essential, the Task
Group believes there is a place for more _liturgical resources_
as a way of assisting those who divorce and remarry. […] There
is… a need to consider liturgical forms to assist people going
through divorce, whether they remarry or not.’ (5.99)

They also mention that the Anglican APBA has such
liturgical resources. A quick search did not reveal this. Perhaps
someone who knows their way through it could point it out to me?

Summaries of the beliefs of the task group.

All believe (5.110):

– the Bible is silent about homosexual orientation;
[Note: ORIENTATION, not ACTIVITY]

– being homosexual or heterosexual is not, of itself,
morally good or bad. It is not our orientation but what we do
with our sexual nature that constitutes right or wrong;

– heterosexual and homosexual people are brothers
and sisters in Christ;

– all are welcome in the Church community;

– all are welcome at the Lord’s table;

– all who believe in and wish to follow Christ are
welcome in membership of the Church.

Some believe (5.111):

– Homosexual acts are contrary to the will of God
as expressed in the Bible;

– while homosexual relationships may express genuine
love, faithfulness and companionship, they remain as part of a
disordered world that is in rebellion against God and therefore
should not be endorsed by the Church.

Some believe (5.112):

– the same standards apply to both homosexual and
heterosexual relationships;

– that loving, faithful, long-term homosexual relationships
can be blessed by the Church.

As you’ve probably guessed so far, I’m pretty much
in category 5.111. 🙂

Chapter 6: `Living as God’s people’

On attitudes to church leadership and sexuality as
found in responses to the Interim Report (abridged):

– Some reject homosexual orientation as contraty
to God’s will and would not make Church leadership appropriate.

– Some accept homosexual orientation but reject homosexual
activity, would `welcome leadership from someone who chooses a
life of chastity’ (6.26) [Once again, my category.]

– Some accept committed long-term homosexual relationships.

– `There are others who have reservations about ordaining
homosexual people in that it might place an obstacle in the way
of future moves into closer union with other churches, or undermine
unity with the Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress
or the ethnic congregations with whom we are linked.’ (6.28)

– `we are not talking in the abstract, but about
real people for whom Christ lived and died, who are offering their
gifts in the service of the Uniting Church.’ (6.29)

– `We believe strongly that homosexual people, already
in ministry who have been chosen in this way, must have their
position and ordination respected.’ (6.30)

On the maxim `Celibacy in Singleness and Faithfulness
in Marriage’ (Assembly Standing Committee minute 87.46(c)):

`The Task Group has concerns about this statement.
This is not so much because we disagree with what is being advocated
in such a standard. We are concerned that it underestimates the
complexities of human sexuality and the way in which it might
be used unjustly against certain people.’ (6.32) Finally, quotes
Colossians 2:6–19.

Chapter 7: `The Way Forward’

Recognition:

`All members of the Church hold strong personal convictions.
These enrich our lives, but sometimes frustrate us and cause deep
division. The unity of Christ is our highest concern. However,
an appeal to the unity of Christ can sometimes serve to mask our
differences.’ (7.9)

Reconciliation:

`Only a renewed committment to understanding one
another and our faith through the various filters we bring to
the Bible and sexuality can take us forward.’ (7.10)

Bible Study:

`The Church should continue to encourage the study
of Scripture, not only on issues of sexuality, but also on the
broad range of issues before the Church. It is important that
appropriate resources, particularly for the study of questions
about sexuality and marriage may be developed.’ (7.12)

Relationship Enrichment:

`As part of the educational process, programs of
relationship enrichment are a constructive step forward, declaring
the intention of the Uniting Church to encourage and bless those
in committed long term relationships.’ (7.17)

Moving on together:

`We are moving forward. We are a people on the way.
We are a people, seeking to live faithfully in the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.’ (7.19)

Finally, the most controversial recommendations being
sent to Eighth

Assembly:

9. Request the Commission on Liturgy to facilitate
the development of liturgical resources both to recognise the
end of a marriage and assist in the process of grief, repentance
and moving on in God’s grace.

10. Request the Standing Committee to appoint a group
which includes gay and lesbian members to consider and bring recommendations
to the Ninth Assembly on how the Church may respond to lesbian
and gay people who wish to have their commitment to a life-long
faithful relationship affirmed by the Church.

13. Request the Standing Committee to prepare guidelines
on how the councils of the Church can more sensitively and effectively
handle the application and processing of those standing for leadership
positions in the Church, including the way in which people understand
and express their sexuality.

No doubt, recommendation 10 is what the media will
latch on to. It should be noted that it is just a recommendation
to set up a committee to talk about stuff. If the Assembly accepts
it, it will be interesting to see what its terms of reference
are.

I would also be very surprised if the entire task
group agreed on this particular recommendation.

It is also puzzling that this report was released
BEFORE the summary of responses to the Interim Report. When that
comes out, I’ll attempt to do a summary such as this.