Home » News & Views »

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

This letter puts my position in relation to the proposed amendments to the UCA constitution, including its Preamble. I apologise if this letter appears to ramble, it is simply that the proposed amendments have so many points that I wish to address. My views are that of a lay representative to Sydney Presbytery.

I believe that the issues can be condensed into the following observations:

"As the Church believes God guided it into union, so it believes that God is calling it to continually seek a renewal of its life as a community of First Peoples and of Second Peoples from many lands, and as part of that to: "

"2. Through this land God had nurtured and sustained the First Peoples, the Aboriginal and Islander peoples, who continue to understand themselves to be the traditional owners and custodians (meaning ‘sovereign' in the languages of the First Peoples) of these lands and waters since time immemorial."

. I am in agreement with the first phrase: "As the church believes God guided it into union". This is in full agreement with 1Corinthians 1:10 (NIV) " I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." It is clear from this passage, that God wants us all to be part of one body united in Jesus Christ. That is, all the races of the earth, united in Jesus Christ. The Aboriginal people are included in this call.
. I feel that the use of the terms First and Second people tend to create an unnecessary division that Jesus is seeking to extinguish. That is, it goes against the teachings of Jesus. It is my understanding that before God, there is no first, second or third people, we are all created and treated equally.

. I do agree that God created the Earth and provided the food in both plants and animals for man to sustain themselves. God gave this to all mankind, not just the Aboriginals.

"3 The First Peoples had already encountered the Creator God before the arrival of the colonisers. The Spirit was already in the land revealing God to the people through law, custom and ceremony. The same love and grace that was finally and fully revealed in Jesus Christ sustained the First Peoples and gave them particular insights into God's ways."

4. "The Spirit was already in the land revealing God to the people through law, custom and ceremony."

. It states clearly "the Spirit" (Is this the Holy Spirit) revealed God through their law, custom and ceremony. My understanding of Aboriginal religion is that it is steeped in spirits residing in various places such as the Earth, the Sky, the rocks, the different animals, etc. Is the Assembly asking us to believe that the Aboriginal "Dreamtime" is an example of the Holy Spirit communicating God's wishes? What is the Assembly's understanding of the practice of "Pointing the Bone" or "Singing" a person to death? My personal feelings about "Pointing the Bone" and other spiritual rituals are that they are closer to being under demonic influence rather than the Holy Spirit influence.

"The same love and grace that was finally and fully revealed in Jesus Christ sustained the First Peoples and gave them particular insights into God's ways." This sentence implies that the Aboriginal religion is on the same level of spiritual and theological validity as Jesus in our Bible. Can I ask where the substantive evidence that fully justifies this statement is? In reality, these statements relating to the revelation of God to the Aboriginal people prior to them learning about Jesus are unsubstantiated and should not be accepted as fact without full justification. I cannot believe the Assembly is saying that an Aboriginal does not have to believe in Jesus to be saved and that they are already saved, but that is the inference.

Do the people that are promoting this wording believe in the adage that "All religions are pointing to the same God"? That Muslims can believe in Allah, Hindus can believe in whatever they want, etc. That it does not really matter which religion you belong to, in the end, all roads lead to God and God will be gracious. In Exodus 20:3 & Deuteronomy 5:7 it clearly states that "You shall have no other gods before me." But isn't our salvation the whole reason we believe in Jesus Christ as our Saviour and Lord. It is not written in Isaiah 53:7 that Jesus will first come as a sacrificial lamb and later in Revelation 5, 6 talking about the "wrath of the Lamb" to judge all mankind. Is it not in the Lord's Prayer, "Save us from the time of Trial"? Isn't that why we want people to come to know Jesus as their personal Savior, to save them from the time of Trial?

"5. Many in the uniting churches, however, shared the values and relationships of the emerging colonial society including paternalism and racism towards the First Peoples. They were complicit in the injustice that resulted in many of the First Peoples being dispossessed from their land, their language, their culture and spirituality, becoming strangers in their own land.
6. The uniting churches were largely silent as the dominant culture of Australia constructed and propagated a distorted version of history that denied this land was occupied, utilised, cultivated and harvested by these First Peoples who also had complex systems of trade and inter-relationships. As a result of this denial, relationships were broken and the very integrity of the Gospel proclaimed by the churches was diminished.
7. From the beginning of colonisation the First Peoples challenged their dispossession and the denial of their proper place in this land. In time this was taken up in the community, in the courts, in the parliaments, in the way history was recorded and told, and in the Church."

. The history of the human race is full of conquest and battles. Typically, wars are used to redefine ownership of countries. Once a country has been "defeated", the previous inhabitants lose the right of ownership to it. Do the "first" inhabitants of Briton now have a "right of claim" on England? I agree that the Aboriginal people were here before the "white man". The fact the white man came and took possession is not in dispute. Because of the way it was done, it has left the door open for an ongoing legal battle by Aboriginal people. I believe that this is currently being dealt with by our civil legal system. I believe it is not in the long term interests of the UCA to enshrine "an admission of guilt" in the Preamble to our Constitution. I believe this admission of guilt will open the door for legal claims by aboriginals for UCA property.

As I go through the detailed document, other questions arise:
· Who does it advantage to make the distinction between the First & Second Peoples in the Definitions section within Clause 3? I do not see a long term benefit in making this clear distinction. In fact, I foresee it as a wedge that will forever separate the main body of the UCA and the Aboriginal and Islander peoples of Australia. Christ calls us to be one in unity. 1Corinthians 1:10. Anything else does not edify Christ.

Section 49A. (d) and if the Regional Committee remains unsatisfied the Assembly may direct the Synod to make the transfer of some or all of the specific rights, powers, duties and responsibilities of a Synod or Presbytery as requested by the Regional Committee.

· This new sub clause appears to give the Assembly the power to require the Synod or Presbytery to hand over property, rights and claims, etc. to whomever the Regional Committee wants to have them. If my understanding is correct, then the following is a valid example. If a congregation within the United Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress (UAICC) request that they have unrestricted access of a property currently used by an existing "Second People" congregation, the Regional Committee can force the current users out and give it to the UAICC congregation.

· The Assembly is proposing amendments to Clause 39 to implement a 6 month timeframe to accept a dissenting vote regarding an Assembly decision. The fine print is that there would have to be at least 50% of either Synods or Presbyteries in favour of a dissenting vote, all noted and files back to Assembly within 6 months. This is totally impractical given the disparate meeting times and allowing for sufficient notice to read the documentation, forms an opinion, meet, discuss, pass a resolution, and convey that to other Presbyteries or Synods all within 6 months. I believe the Assembly is simply creating a situation to force the passing of its resolutions.

· Another point I wish to make is that this new Preamble has come from "above". That is; it has come from an Assembly subcommittee. It is not a document that has originated in the normal process. That normal process is an exhaustive one, where the ideas and words are discussed and agreed by a Presbytery, then discussed and agreed by a Synod and lastly discussed and agreed by the Assembly. In this case it has not been through the normal process of refining with full, wise debate from the floor of the Presbytery. Presbytery has been ignored. The Presbytery's involvement in this matter has been reduced to a "rubber stamp". Is this a wise process and decision?

· I believe the advocates of this new Preamble are well-intentioned, but unfortunately demonstrate a lack of understanding of the potentially very significant long term "ripples" that will, I believe, adversely affect the UCA for many years to come. The UCA wants to show an image of unity and inclusiveness to the world. I feel the world perception of UCA will be different. Because of the lack of debate, and speed of "pushing" this document through the Assembly, this Preamble leaves the door open to the perception that the UCA is advocating pantheism and potentially leaving itself open to significant legal claims on UCA property. That is why I prefaced this letter "The Road to Hell is Pathed with Good Intentions".

If these amendments are passed, the UCA will never be the same again. The long term effect of these well intentioned changes could bring about an irreparable split within the UCA.

As the option to edit the Preamble is not available, I wish to register my strong vote against the acceptance of this new Preamble to our UCA constitution and would respectfully ask every clear thinking member of a UCA Presbytery to vote in the same way.

1. Vote No for the acceptance of the new Preamble.
2. Vote No for acceptance of the new Clause 49A.
3. Vote No for the acceptance of the new Clause 39 (b) (i) through (iv)

Thank you for reading this letter,

Blessings,
David Lewinsohn
For reference, below is the current Preamble to the UCA Constitution

WHEREAS the Congregational Union of Australia, the Methodist Church of Australasia and the Presbyterian Church of Australia, through their properly constituted Councils and Courts, have expressed the belief that they have been called by God into an organic union AND WHEREAS the Joint Commission on Church Union constituted by the three churches
aforesaid, after earnestly and prayerfully seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit as to the Basis upon which they were being led into union and after due consultation with the churches concerned, published ‘The Basis of Union' in its final form in 1971 AND WHEREAS the union of the three churches on ‘The Basis of Union' has been approved and agreed upon by the appropriate Councils and Courts of the three churches AND WHEREAS the Basis of Union recognises that the responsibility for government in the Church belongs to the people of God by virtue of the gifts and tasks which God has laid upon them and provides that the Uniting Church in Australia shall so organise her life that locally, regionally and nationally, government will be entrusted to representatives, men and women, bearing the gifts and graces, with which
God has endowed them for the building up of his Church and therefore shall be governed by a series of inter-related councils, each of which has its tasks and responsibilities in relation both to the Church and the world AND WHEREAS in the Basis of Union it is acknowledged 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 her law, the aim of which is to confess God's will for the life of his Church AND WHEREAS the Uniting Church in Australia pledges herself to keep her law under constant review so that her life may increasingly be directed to the service of God and man, and her worship to a true and faithful setting forth of and response to the Gospel of Christ IT IS DECLARED THAT pursuant to the powers conferred upon it, the first Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia meeting at Sydney on the 22nd day of June 1977 has adopted this Constitution as the Interim Constitution of The Uniting Church in Australia for the organisation of her government and administration as from the 22nd day of June 1977 until amended in accordance with the provisions made in that regard or until repealed and replaced by a new Constitution in accordance with the relevant decisions of the Assembly.