Embracing Inclusivity: A Response to Concerns Over Changes in Perth's Faithfulness in Service

Recent discussions within the Anglican Diocese of Perth about proposed amendments to the "Faithfulness in Service" document have sparked considerable debate among church members and leaders. David Ould’s article, "Archbishop to Decide as Perth Synod Weakens Faithfulness in Service," critiques these changes as a potential moral compromise that threatens the church's integrity. However, it’s important to approach this conversation from a broader perspective, considering the evolving landscape of ethics, sexuality, and the church’s role in contemporary society.

David Ould voices strong concerns about the Diocese of Perth’s direction under Archbishop Kay Goldsworthy, suggesting that proposed revisions to "Faithfulness in Service" could signify a departure from traditional values, potentially jeopardising the church’s ethical framework. He likens these changes to igniting a theological firecracker, arguing that they represent more than minor adjustments—they're a significant retreat from foundational Christian principles, akin to replacing a sturdy lighthouse with a flimsy lantern in a storm. Ould’s sharp critique aims to rally support for the old guard, but his rhetoric risks alienating those willing to engage with evolving societal understandings of sexuality and relationships. While many in the church see adaptation as an opportunity for growth and relevance, Ould’s passionate defence of tradition may leave some congregants wondering if they’re still on the same path or merely spectators in a game of backyard cricket with ever-shifting rules.

The evolution of church teachings on sexuality is not new; it has been part of the Anglican tradition for centuries. The church has historically adapted its stances in response to societal changes, reflecting its commitment to relevance. The urgency of these discussions was underscored by the 2017 amendment to Australia’s marriage definition, which followed a national survey indicating overwhelming public support for same-sex marriage. In September 2017, the General Synod passed a motion encouraging respectful dialogue on marriage and same-sex relationships, resulting in essays that addressed theological issues and the implications of the state’s definition of marriage.

Ould has publicly noted differing opinions within the church on same-sex marriage, akin to past debates over the ordination of women. He also highlights the financial struggles of Perth's theological college, linking them to current leadership and theological stances. While this raises valid questions about sustainability, it overlooks broader trends affecting churches across various denominations, where declining attendance reflects a societal shift away from traditional practices.

His personal anecdotes of success from his own church, while illuminating, risk oversimplifying complex issues. A significant focus of Ould’s critique is the proposed language changes to sections 7.2, 7.4, and 7.7 of "Faithfulness in Service," which he interprets as a dilution of moral standards. Advocates of these revisions, however, aim to promote a more inclusive and compassionate understanding of human relationships.

The foreword to the Essays from the Doctrine Commission emphasises the need for respectful conversations within the church, noting that many in the LGBTQ+ community already feel marginalised by existing teachings. This underscores the importance of sensitivity in discussions about how the church can remain true to its teachings while being a welcoming space for all individuals.

Additionally, Bishop Jonathan Holland highlights the importance of humility in these discussions, reminding us that differing views within the church reflect our finite understanding of God’s will. Ongoing dialogue and shared experiences can help identify common ground, affirming that all people are created in God’s image and welcomed in the community of faith.

As discussions around the proposed changes continue, it is crucial for church members to engage in thoughtful dialogue rather than framing the situation as a battle between tradition and modernity. The church must adapt its teachings and practices to remain relevant and faithful in a changing world. While this process of adaptation is challenging, differing opinions are natural in any community. Embracing these conversations can lead to a deeper understanding of faith and more meaningful engagement with the world around us.

Ould’s critique raises important concerns about the church’s direction, but it’s vital to recognize that adaptation and growth within religious contexts are complex processes. Rather than viewing change as a threat, the church can approach it as an opportunity to enrich its mission and better serve its community.

I have been an advocate for amending the Faithfulness in Service code since 2021. On February 16, 2021, I published a document titled “Report into Misconduct in the Anglican Church Southern Queensland & Urgent Recommendations to Synod.” This report aims to assist the Church in revising its national strategy to address bullying, sexual harassment, and abuse by clergy and church workers. It argues that the current code of conduct for personal behaviour and pastoral ministry does not sufficiently protect Church members, especially those in the LGBT+ community, and offers important insights for improvement. Unfortunately, I did not receive a response from the then-Archbishop Phillip Aspinall.

A few months ago, I attended a vocations event in the Diocese of Melbourne, where I asked Bishop Kate Prowd about the ordination of queer individuals in training. While her response was not definitive, she referenced a married gay couple who had been ordained, indicating some level of openness within the diocese. However, our conversation quickly shifted to the National Code of Conduct, "Faithfulness in Service," which adheres to traditional views of chastity and marriage.

The existing guidelines that restrict queer individuals to civil partnerships instead of marriages underscore the church's ongoing struggle with inclusivity. Bishop Prowd’s comments hinted at a "don’t ask, don’t tell" approach, which falls short of fostering genuine acceptance. This raises a crucial question: how can the church authentically embrace its LGBTQ+ members while adhering to such restrictive guidelines?

Looking ahead, it is imperative for the church to engage in meaningful conversations that validate queer identities. Data indicates that many students in Anglican schools are grappling with questions about their sexuality or gender identity. If the church does not affirm these individuals, what message are we sending to future generations? We must learn from history and recognize the harm caused by suppressing diverse identities.

The proposed changes to "Faithfulness in Service" are crucial for allowing the church to navigate these complexities. By passing these changes, the Perth Synod would signal a commitment to a more inclusive and compassionate approach to sexual ethics, aligning our practices with the evolving understanding of human relationships. Such changes can provide a framework that embraces and uplifts LGBTQ+ individuals, ensuring they see the church as a safe and affirming space.

As we move forward, let’s prioritise constructive engagement over division, seeking to understand diverse perspectives while remaining committed to the core values of our faith. In doing so, we can foster a vibrant, inclusive church community that truly reflects the love and grace central to our beliefs.

We reached out to David Ould for a comment but did not receive a response. We will share an update on this story after the Archbishop of Perth has reached her decision.

Photo: Kay Maree Goldsworthy AO is an Australian bishop of the Anglican Church of Australia. She is the current archbishop of Perth in the Province of Western Australia