Uniting Church President: challenge to same-sex marriage vote unsuccessful

In a Pastoral Letter to members of the Uniting Church of Australia, the Assembly President, Dr. Deidre Palmer explains that the numbers needed to challenge the Assembly’s same-sex marriage decision last year were insufficient:

“Seven Presbyteries chose to exercise their right to notify me as President, that, in their opinion, the matter was ‘vital to the life of the Church and there was inadequate consultation prior to the decision.’ There were five Presbyteries in Queensland, one Presbytery in the Northern Synod and one Presbytery in the Synod of NSW and the ACT. On Saturday the 5th of January 2019, the Presbytery of South Australia met, and decided that the majority of members did not support the proposal that the Fifteenth Assembly marriage decision was a ‘matter vital to the life of the Church and there was inadequate consultation prior to the decision.’

This means that the threshold for the suspension of the Assembly decision has not been reached.

As a result, the Assembly decision on marriage stands …”

– Read the full letter here.

Doubtless, members of the Uniting Church of Australia who hold to a high view of Scripture, would value your prayers for wisdom.

Conversations with John Anderson — Featuring Os Guinness

Former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson has been publishing some fascinating Conversations on his website.

Recently, he spoke with Christian author and social critic Os Guinness. Watch the video of his 38-minute conversation here. (Direct link to the video here.)

And see the other conversations already published.

Letter to the Archbishop of York on Liturgy celebrating ‘Gender Transition’

“Your Grace, This letter to you is respectfully to express concerns about the liturgy commended by the House of Bishops in celebration of gender transition in local churches. As a member of Church Society, I would support the concern expressed by its director, Dr Lee Gatiss, about the use of the existing rite of affirmation of baptismal faith for this purpose.

He wrote: ‘The repurposing of liturgy like this is troubling. As a church whose doctrine is derived from Scripture and expressed in our liturgy, transitioning the meaning and purpose of liturgy looks like changing our fundamental doctrine by stealth’.

The theological reasons for the concerns about this liturgy have been well expressed in the various resources which Church Society has published and so there is no need to rehearse those arguments here.

But the specific issue I would like please to raise with you, if I may, relates to the potential misuse of the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy against frontline ministers who cannot in good conscience celebrate gender transitions.

Clause 2.4 of the Guidelines states quite rightly that ‘clergy should always be conscious of the power dynamics involved in their pastoral care, noting both the position of trust which they hold and the power which they exercise’. Clause 12.3 also states that ‘pastoral care should never seek to remove the autonomy given to the individual. In pastoral situations the other party should be allowed the freedom to make decisions that may be mistaken’.

That individuals must never be coerced or manipulated in pastoral conversations should not be in dispute. But gently inviting individuals in the light of the Holy Scriptures to think about the consequences of decisions they may be contemplating and lovingly warning them of the spiritual dangers of disobeying the Bible’s teaching should not, according to the Ordinal, be viewed as wrong. The Ordinal clearly enjoins clergy ‘to be messengers, watchmen, stewards of the Lord; to teach and to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord’s family’.

The use of already canonically authorised liturgy for the purpose of celebrating gender transitions presents a new set of circumstances under which frontline clergy minister. So, the current uncertainty over whether the sensitive expression by clergy of spiritual and moral concerns about gender transition might be treated as an abuse of pastoral power poses a threat. Doubt about this would seem to leave clergy, who believe as a matter of deep theological conviction that gender transition is not in accordance with God’s good and loving will for people made in his image and who cannot in conscience affirm such transitions, vulnerable to having complaints of misconduct upheld against them under the Clergy Discipline Measure (2003).

As a parish incumbent, I ought to take my spiritual and moral accountability to my chief ministers under the infallible Word of God in the Bible very seriously. I should accept their ‘godly admonition’, which the Ordinal exhorts ordained presbyters to.

So, I think it is my duty to be clear with you as the senior pastor of the Province in which I minister that I would be morally bound to contest any CDM action brought against me for expressing concerns about gender transitions and not using the new liturgy. I would also be duty-bound to support any other licensed minister threatened with CDM action for following his or her biblically-informed conscience on this.

I believe I should show this letter to the Oughtibridge PCC so that they know where I stand on this issue as their servant in the Lord Jesus Christ.

This letter to you is also being forwarded to the Bishops serving Sheffield Diocese. It would be good to meet with them in the New Year, if they wanted, together with other colleagues who share these concerns.

With all Christian good wishes,

Julian Mann – Vicar, the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, in the Diocese of Sheffield.”

– The Rev. Julian Mann has sent this letter to the Archbishop of York. (Photo: Archbishop of York John Semantu.)

See also:

Church of England’s plan for transgender baptisms outrages bishops – The Telegraph.

Accommodation is not Guidance

“On Tuesday 11th December the House of Bishops published ‘Pastoral Guidance for use in conjunction with the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith in the context of gender transition.’ Whilst sharing the desire to show pastoral care, the content of the Guidance causes me deep concern and I support the request from the Bishops of the Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda for the reception of the Guidance to be reviewed. I note too the personal reservations expressed about it by the Chair of the House of Bishops’ Delegation Committee, The Rt Rev’d Julian Henderson, and commend the recent critiques produced by the Church Society and the Church of England Evangelical Council.

The Guidance represents a way of accommodating the request from the General Synod that the House of Bishops consider devising a liturgy for the welcome of transgender people. However, in doing so it has raised many more questions than it answers. These include:

Accordingly, I would support any move to change the status of this Guidance so that it is seen as a contribution to the LLF Project, rather than a finished product of the House of Bishops.”

– Bishop of Maidstone Rod Thomas has posted this statement on this website.

Earlier: Bishop Andy Lines on the Church of England’s guidance on liturgies to celebrate gender transition.

Ruddock Report response (part 3)

“In my former posts (here and here), O Friend of Law and Religion, I have dealt with all that the Ruddock Report covered in recommendations 1-12 and 15, along with the official Government Response to those recommendations.

In this post I aim to cover recommendations 13-14 and 16-20. These deal with important issues of the law of blasphemy and religious free speech, along with State discrimination laws, collection of data, education on religious freedom, the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the exercise of leadership in the area by the Commonwealth. …”

– Associate Professor in Law, Neil Foster, has just posted part three of his response to the Ruddock Report.

He concludes, in part, “… my general response is that the Report is a sensible document which takes religious freedom seriously, and hopefully the actions promised by the Government will be implemented with due speed”.

Bishop Andy Lines on the Church of England’s guidance on liturgies to celebrate gender transition

“… The sacrament of baptism is designed to signify the new identity that is given to us in union with Jesus Christ through his death and resurrection, so we were dismayed that this guidance commends using the same service to “recognise liturgically a person’s gender transition.”

In doing this, the House of Bishops has denied the teaching of Jesus Christ, not least by rejecting his words, ‘He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,’ (Matt 19: 4) in favour of celebrating a self-created identity. …”

– Bishop Andy Lines is quoted on the GAFCON website.

See also:

Pastoral Guidance for use in conjunction with the Affirmation of Baptismal Faith in the context of gender transition (PDF file, Church of England).

Anglican bishop who hailed transgender rite as biblical calls it flawed in shambolic U-turn – Rebel Priest.

Wisdom and folly: the bishops’ guidance on transgender welcome – Ian Paul.

Ruddock Report summary and responses (Part 2)

“Following my previous post giving comments on Recommendations 1, 5-8 and 15 of the Ruddock Report and the Government Response, I will comment here on another set of recommendations (Recs 2-4, 9-12) and the likely outcome. Comments on recommendations 13-14, and 16-20, will (hopefully) be made in Part 3! …”

– More from Neil Foster at Law and Religion Australia.

The Ruddock Report has landed! (Part 1)

“The long-awaited Religious Freedom Review: Report of the Expert Panel (chaired by the Hon Philip Ruddock) has now been released publicly, along with the formal Government Response.

After the prior leaking of its 20 recommendations there were no major surprises as to the final conclusion, but there is much interesting background to the recommendations (and in one or two cases the full Report seems to have a significant impact on how one should read the language of the recommendations.) It is also important to see the announced intentions of the LNP Government as to how they will respond.

In this first post in response to the full Report I will comment mainly on recommendations 1 & 5-8 and recommendation 15, with the other recommendations to be left for part 2 or later. …”

– Neil Foster provides his first response, at Law and Religion Australia.

Transitioning a Liturgy

“The House of Bishops of the Church of England has issued guidance on the use of liturgy to mark and celebrate a person’s gender transition. This follows a statement from the Bishops in January (responding to a motion at General Synod in July 2017) that the existing rite of affirmation of baptismal faith could be used for this purpose.

Church Society and other groups responded then, as we also have on previous occasions (see below for examples). We continue to have extremely serious concerns.

The bishops start by affirming that all people are welcome at church and celebrating the diversity of the body of Christ. Those are things that every evangelical Christian would want to endorse enthusiastically. Our astonishment at God’s amazing grace, that embraces even a sinner like me, drives us to want others to share in that too.

However, this guidance is highly problematic for a number of reasons …”

– Church Society’s Lee Gatiss examines the newly released guidance from the Church of England.

‘Men Have Forgotten God’: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1983 Templeton Address

To mark the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The National Review has republished an article adapted from his 1983 Templeton Address.

Among his remarks are these words –

“Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions.

Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails the destruction of faith and nationhood. …”

– Read it all.

Photo: US Library of Congress, via The National Review.

‘Nobody wants to expel gay kids’

John Howard has blasted the “maddening” debate over religious freedoms in Australia …

“Nobody wants to expel gay kids and to my knowledge it’s not happening. I mean, this is the greatest red herring imaginable…”

– former Prime Minister John Howard, in The Australian. (Subscription.) ABC photo.

Debate to be resumed on Sex Discrimination Act amendments on Wednesday morning

“Despite the deferral on Monday of a Bill introduced in the Senate to amend balancing clauses applying to religious bodies in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), the Bill has now been rescheduled for debate in the Senate on Wednesday, December 5, between 11am and 12:35pm.

The Senate Notice Paper for December 5 contains the following entry, listed for 11 am …”

– Associate Professor Neil Foster has the latest. (Emphasis added)

Result of Senate debate on amendments to SDA

“A brief update on Parliamentary developments. The Senate debate on the ALP-sponsored Bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 took place today. While initially the Bill had been subject to a tight time limit which meant it would have passed today if not actually voted down, at the last minute a Government motion amended this arrangement. The result is as follows:

Debate on this bill will continue at a later date.

It seems that the bill [reportedly identical is likely to be referred for consideration to a committee, and the debate will presumably be picked up in the New Year.

There was a similar Bill, however, introduced into the House of Representatives this morning by the Leader of the Opposition. At the moment it is not clear whether this Bill will be debated again this week. More updates will be provided when more is known.”

– Thanks to Assoc-Professor Neil Foster for this update.

Photo: Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Shorten, who has introduced a similar Bill into the House of Representatives.

Contacting Parliament on sex discrimination amendments

“A number of Christian and other religious organisations are deeply concerned about the proposals in the ALP-sponsored private Bill due to be debated in the Senate on Monday Dec 3. As I have discussed in previous comments (here and here) the Bill, which started out as an agreed measure to stop religious schools from expelling gay students on the basis of their “orientation” alone, has a number of other serious consequences for religious freedom, not only for schools but for churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious organisations (such as, for example, University student ministries.)

The Bill amends the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to remove some clauses which have previously provided protection for Christian organisations to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs. …

I have been asked how concerned citizens can contact their Parliamentary representatives. …”

– Associate Professor Neil Foster shares some points you might make to your Parliamentary representatives. (Emphasis added.)

Why Australian Religious Freedom is under legal threat

“Religious Freedom in Australia is under immediate legal threat.

A new bill introduced into the Senate last week (due to be debated this Monday, December 3rd) will, if passed unamended, severely erode Religious Freedom in our land. Especially for religious schools. …”

At the Gospel Coalition Australia, Akos Balogh urges Christians to pray and act, and explains why.

← Previous Page — Next Page →