At Brisbane within Church Offices on 9 March 1994 on which the Commission of the General Assembly being duly constituted.
INTER ALIA:
Minute 14
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody – Appointment of Representative of PCQ to the Australian Council of Trade Unions: The Clerk laid on the table communications from the Public Questions and Communications Committee and moved that they be received. Rev L.J. Percy was invited to explain the matter to the Commission.
It was moved, seconded and approved:
(a) That the Presbyterian Church of Queensland decline the invitation by the ACTU to be involved in their Committee on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
(b) That the letter from the ACTU and the issues relating to the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody be referred to the Public Questions and Communications Committee.
Minute 15
Queensland Law Reform Commission:
(i) Female Genital Mutilation and
(ii) Routnine Infant Male Circumcision
The Clerk laid on the table material from the Queensland Law Reform Commission and communications from the Public Questions and Communications Committee and a response from the Rev Peter Bloomfield and moved that they be received.
The Commission noted that the Church had been granted an extension of time until 18 March for a submission to the Queensland Law Reform Commission.
It was moved, seconded and approved, that the Commission:-
Adopt the response from the Rev P.J. Bloomfield, with the addition of a new clause 5 under “Male Circumcision” as follows:-
“5. However, not withstanding this, we are aware that medical opinion is divided on this matter, and we are also concerned about the gradual dilution of parental authority in our society today.
Accordingly, we believe that parents should be informed, but that should they elect to proceed with circumcision for their son, no impediment should be placed in their way.”
EXTRACT MINUTE
At Brisbane within the Ann Street Church on 26 May 1994 on which the General Assembly being duly constituted.
INTER ALIA:
Minute 159
Ad hoc Committee on Education and Schooling
The Report of the ad hoc Committee on Education and Schooling was laid on the table and received. Clause 1 was approved. Clause 2 was approved.
Minute 160
Deliverance as a whole, Ad hoc Committee on Educations and Schooling
The Deliverance as a whole was approved as follows:
That the Assembly:-
1. Continue the authority of the committee.
2. Re-appoint the committee as follows – Dr I Scott, Rev. Prof. I. McIver, Revs P. Bloomfield, D. Secomb, D. Bound and Messrs E. Woodward and G.S. Rutherford.
Minute 199
The deliverance as a whole was approved as follows:
That the Assembly:
1. Advise the Church that –
i the most effective response to offensive material in the Media is the response of individuals and groups directly to the Media outlet and also to advertisers who support programmes; and
ii a member of the Public Questions & Communications Committee is available to meet with interested persons to assist in responding to offensive material in the Media;
iii a member of the Public Questions & Communications Committee is available to act as a contact with Ministers of the Church in cases where interviews are sought.
1. Appoint Convener Rev L.J. Percy, Mr G. Dunkley and Mr A. Newman as members of the Board of Directors of the CTA Queensland Ltd.
2. Request the Public Questions and Communications Committee to bring a report to the November Commission of Assembly on the desirability of maintaining our financial membership of the Christian Television Association beyond 31 December 1994.
3. i Give thanks to God for the gospel centred witness of CTA through the media of TV and radio.
ii Give thanks to God for the expertise and dedication of Mr G. Gardiner and his staff in producing the various witness spots and shows on TV and radio.
iii Urge our Charges to pray for the directors and staff of CTA that God would give them wisdom in all future decision making.
iv Urge our Chargs to join the CTA’s 200 Club and request the CTA to provide details of that Club to the Church Office so that these details may be forwarded to Churches through the Church Office Bulletin.
5. (i) Note that the Board of Directors of the CTA of Queensland Ltd resolved:
“That the Board recommend to the Member Churches that the Lutheran Church, the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Westminster Presbyterian Church and the Churches of Christ be invited to consider membership of CTAQ.”
(ii) Recommend to its representative at the Annual General Meeting of the CTA Queensland Ltd on Monday 30th May that he support the recommendation of the Board to invite the Lutheran Church, the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Westminster Presbyterian Church and the Churches of Christ to consider membership of CTAQ.
6. Encourage Sessions and Committees of Management to support our National Journal “APL – Living Today” through the use of bulk subscriptions to the journal.
7. Advise the Commonwealth Minister for Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services, with copies to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, the Premier, the Queensland Minister for Education, the Leader of the Queensland Opposition, the Leader of the Queensland Parliamentary Liberal Party, and the Media, that the Assembly views the HIV/AIDS Educational Package “Friends for Life”, which is to be placed in Queensland State Schools by the Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services, as unacceptable for the following reasons:-
i. Explicit sex education material is being presented to primary school children.
ii. This sex education material is being presented apart from the positive Biblical ethical standards of chastity before marriage, and fidelity in life long, heterosexual monogamous marriage, to the exclusion of all other sexual preferences and practices.
iii. The situation for class consideration is the non-representative one of a man who has just died of AIDS, leaving a wife who was infected by him with HIV, who in turn infected her daughter in the womb, as well as a teenage son who is not infected.
iv. There is a failure to identify the degree of risk that there is to be found in the community, by advising the number of HIV/AIDS infected persons in Australian in each of the following categories:-
- homosexuals/bi-sexuals - intravenour drug users
- medically acquired - heterosexually acquired
- child of infected mother - other
v. While rightly identifying abstinence from sexual activity (vaginal/anal/oral) as safe sex, the use of condoms is claimed to give infection free sex, even though holes in condoms are larger than the HIV.
8. Concur with the Statement of the Moderator, Clerk of Assembly and Convener of the Public Questions & Communications Committee on Sex Education in Queensland State Schools (Appendix A) and incorporate a copy of the Statement in the record.
APPENDIX A
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF QUEENSLAND
Office of the Moderator
12th October 1993
The Hon Pat Comben Moderator
Minister for Education Rev G Kettniss
Parliament House 68 Charlton St.
George Street ASCOT Q 4007
BRISBANE Q 4000 (07) 268 4151
Dear Mr Comben,
Re: Sex Education in Queensland State Schools
Firstly I would like to commend you on your actions reported in the Courier Mail (8/10/93) which you took in condemning the action of a worker from the Queensland Aids Council, who gave obscene material to students as the Dakabin State High School.
Secondly we wish to draw your attention to other material which has been distributed within Queensland State High Schools, such as Trinity Bay High School (Cairns) on 15th October 1992, and the Newmarket State High School on the last school day for 1992. This material was also prepared for distribution by the Queensland Aids Council and DEET.
The Queensland Presbyterian Church expressed its deep concern that you as the Minister do not seem to have any control over what is issued in the State Schools of Queensland, and we do not think it is sufficient that you simply abrogate your responsibility with the statement ‘that it is no longer the role of the Central Office of the Department of Education to specify what resources are used in schools, provided broad policy guidelines are met.’ (Your letter of 20th March 1993, to Mr G Cook – Ref 014710). We would like to point out that you as the Minister for Education have a responsibility to safe-guard the moral and spiritual well being of our children – children who have been entrusted into your care by their parents – and not allow anything which would jeopardize their future physical and mental well being. For these reasons, we appeal to you to exercise your authority in ensuring that material as mentioned above, be no longer permitted to be distributed in the State Schools of Queensland.
Please find enclosed statements relevant to this issue as determined by The Presbyterian Church of Queensland.
Yours faithfully,
(Rt Rev) G K Kettniss (Very Rev Dr) K J Gardner
MODERATOR CLERK OF ASSEMBLY
Copies: Premier of Queensland
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party
Chairman of the Queensland Aids Council
STATEMENT BY THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF QUEENSLAND ON SEX EDUCATION AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS
THE ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH –
(a) Regards instruction in human sexuality to be primarily a responsibility of parents, to be given within the Biblical constraints of chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage, to the exclusion of all other sexual practices and preferences.
(b) Affirms that:
(i) The living, active, knowing presence of the One true and living God (Father Son and Holy Spirit) whose commands and precepts in the 66 canonical books of the Christian Scriptures are the duty of every person (without any exception) to obey with love.
(ii) This is irrespective of whether a person believes, likes or has any other attitude about the existence or person of the God of the Scriptures.
(iii) No person who ever has been, is or shall be created is excepted from this duty to love and obey.
(c) Affirms that all homosexual practice is an utter defiling abomination before the holiness and goodness of God, never in any circumstances to be justified, and totally opposes homosexuality (including lesbianism) as a legitimate alternative lifestyle.
(d) Believes the only true solution to the problem of sexually transmitted diseases, including A.I.D.S., is for each individual and the nation, as a whole, to uphold the Biblical standard of chastity before marriage and fidelity within heterosexual marriage to the exclusion of all other sexual practices and preferences.
(e) Encourages Ministers and Elders to minister to A.I.D.S. sufferers with sensitivity and compassion, endeavouring to present newness of life through the Lord Jesus Christ.”
9. Reaffirm 1989 BB Min.279.14:
“Regard instruction in human sexuality to be primarily a responsibility of parents, to be given within the Biblical constraints of chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage, to the exclusion of all other sexual practices and preferences.”
10.(a) Commend the discussion paper “De-facto Couples Seeking Marriage in the Christian Church” (Appendix B) to all marriage celebrants within the Church for their consideration, and incorporate a copy of the paper in the record.
APPENDIX B
DE-FACTO COUPLES SEEKING MARRIAGE IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
What should our policy be? What is the consistent Biblical position? This paper proposes the answer and deals with common objections. The sad thing is that in our interface with the world the church does not have a consistent Bible-driven policy and because of this inconsistency, we lose integrity.
The following three observations are foundational to a Biblical response:
1) Sexual union before marriage is immoral. It is the sin of fornication.. Presumably this does not require proof here.
2) "De-facto" marriage is not true marriage! It is still fornication by another name. It is lamentable that so many "Christian" teachers defend the notion that although fornication committed once or twice or ten times is an immoral act which God promises to judge (Heb 13:4), yet if you decide to "shack up" with someone and continue the same activity on a more permanent basis, it has now ceased to be sin. Indeed, it has become the beautiful thing called marriage!
There are very weighty criticisms of that opinion. First, it makes not attempt to argue Biblically. The Bible plainly sees marriage as a solemn covenant (involving witnesses). De facto marriage seeks the benefits of a covenant without entering the lifelong obligations. Since marriage is a picture of the unreserved commitment of Christ to His bride the church, then de-facto relationships smear and dishonour that most gracious covenant, striking at the very essence of Christianity. Thank God that Christ did not enter into a mere de-facto arrangement to love us as His bride but with no firm commitment to keep it that way! Secondly, the philosophy of the case is impossible to defend. It is a sort of "metamorphosis" idea analogous to the grub changing into a butterfly. It is impossible to argue logically that the sin of fornication committed several times by two people living in different homes now becomes legitimate once they shack up together. A regular plan and determination to sin does not legitimize sin! Indeed, it aggravates it.
Moreover, think what advice we would logically have to give de-facto couples. Let's tell them that they don't need to get married because they are really married. Let's tell them they have no sinful immoral relationship to repent of, and that what they are doing is just as proper and acceptable to God as the union of a lawfully married husband and wife. And let's dispense with marriage services altogether. They are, on this basis, an expensive and unnecessary thing. What on earth is the meaning of marriage vows, commitments, and witnesses if, after all, you can just live together? We should reflect on texts like John 4:18 where Jesus tells the woman at the well that, though she has previously had five husbands, "the man you presently have is not your husband". A de-facto relationship is illegitimate.
3) The issue is not whether de-facto couples should marry. They can marry because marriage is a creation ordinance for non-Christians also, and a civil celebrant could legitimize their relationship. The real issue is whether the Christian church should marry them. In particular, should the de-facto couple be allowed to continue living together right up to their "wedding day"? Does the Church have higher standards than civil celebrants?
THE PROPER POLICY
Whilever they continue to live in an immoral relationship, they show a very clear dishonour for the sanctity of marriage and they run foul of Hebrews 13:4: "Let marriage be held in honour among all and let the marriage bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge". Therefore the church should counsel them accordingly, carefully and patiently explaining these things to them, not with the view of denouncing them, but of helping them to face up to conduct that dishonours God and marriage, and exhorting them to cease the de-facto relationship, and only if that condition is met should the church proceed to marry them.
Some objections answered
1. "They'll only go to liberal churches or to civil celebrants who'll do it anyway."
Notice that this makes no attempt to argue Biblically: it is simply pragmatic. We are not responsible for the unbiblical actions of other churches. Our policies on marriage and everything else are to be fashioned on what God's word says, not on how people will react. In any case, if we lower the Biblical standards we ourselves become more like the liberal churches! Shall we also baptize anything that moves, hold "blessing the pets" services, and even marry homosexuals? The liberal "churches" do those things too.
2. "We have lost the chance to evangelise them: We didn't even open the Bible with them."
That is not true. The very fact of carefully explaining the Biblical ethics is opening the Bible with them. In explaining the sin of fornication we should explain also that Christ is a Saviour willing and able to forgive that sin too, and that He will do so on the basis of sincere confession of it (owning up to it) and repentance (turning away from it). That is evangelism! But if they refuse that offer, then they have once again refused Christ on His own gospel terms. If they still want to get married we should point them to a civil celebrant, exhort them not to take God's name in vain in some "church" marriage, but under no circumstances should we lower the standards of Scripture. We cannot provide Christian blessings to those who high-handedly flaunt Christ's ethical standards.
3. "We are imposing Christian moral standards upon them before they're even Christians.
What standards do you expect the Christian Church to impose? (Non Christian standards?) Anyway, they are moral standards for all men, not just for Christians. If they reject Christian standards of marriage then they show utter contempt in coming to the Christian church for marriage! If Christian standards are not to their liking then let them marry without the church. How can we allow them to step immediately out of a relationship of immorality which dishonours true marriage and then waltz into the aisle of a church building the next minute and pay lip service to "THE HONOURABLE STATE OF MARRIAGE"? And how can we escape the charge of hypocrisy? In reality, it is the world which is imposing its standards onto the church!
4. "Even if they separate their addresses they can still keep up a sexual relationship. You will not know, so what's the point?"
The fact that there are ways around the law does not argue for dispensing with law. The fact that there are limits to the maintenance of Biblical standards does not mean we surrender those standards. We have to do all that is reasonable, and thus we ask for their solemn word of promise that the de-facto relationship is truly ended. If they deliberately lie then they incite the wrath of God. We can do no more and any guilt beyond that is on their heads.
5. Not all de-facto situations are identical. Do we require all couples to separate?
No. I am not advocating an inflexible policy. The following examples will help.
1. Suppose there are children involved, either born to the de-facto couple or from a previous "marriage" by either partner. Separation would now involve extra factors, even traumas. I would not normally require separation, but I would require a sincere owning up to the sinfulness of their previous lifestyle and a willingness to learn of the forgiveness of Christ through faith. On that condition I would proceed to marry them with a clear conscience.
2. Suppose a plausible case is presented such as..."we are not cohabiting, only sharing the house together in order to economise living expenses." The male did not want to share a house with another male because of the appearance of homosexuality which he abhors, and similar reasons for the female. What policy should the church make? Again, great care should be taken, but it is conceivable that the case is not normal and, carefully handled, the overseers of the church might in good conscience permit the marriage.
3. Consider an elderly couple (now aged 75 years) who have been "shacked up" together for 50 years and now wanting to marry. I would not insist that they separate. The two old people have grown to depend on each other so much that separation would be traumatic. However, we should still insist on a genuine acknowledgment that their previous arrangement was wrong. If they will not agree with Christian ethics then let them go to a celebrant who does not require Christian standards: a civil celebrant.
6. This policy is hypocritical and unfair.
The absurdity of this claim is clear from two observations. First, hypocrisy occurs when a person is deliberately inconsistent: When what is done is not in line with what is believed or taught. The real hypocrisy occurs when the weak church claims to believe the Bible but doesn't apply Biblical standards in its interface with the world (be it for marriage, baptism, etc). The hypocrisy of the church amounts to it saying, in effect, "we don't approve of putting our stamp of approval on your immoral relationship, but we'll do it anyway. We don't approve of you coming and dictating standards and rules for marriage in the church, but we'll go along with it anyway. We in the church are subject to the rules of King Jesus, but we'll bend those rules in your case because you don't care two hoots for His authority." There is also breathtaking hypocrisy on the side of de-facto couples who come to the church requesting marriage without the slightest intention of ceasing their present dishonouring of marriage. It is analogous to a non-member of your golf club saying: "That's a nice picturesque little clubhouse you have there. We want to celebrate something there. We want your office-bearers to officiate at our celebration on your property at the date we choose, and by the way, we dislike the rules and standards of your club. We don't believe those things. They are too restrictive. So we demand that you change the rules, and give us what we want, when we want it, in your premises on our terms."
Second, as for the charge of "unfairness", consider the following case. Two communicant members of your church ask their Minister to marry them. They are regular, active, useful members. Everyone is excited...until the bombshell drops. It is discovered that they are having a sexual affair, though not living together. The evidence for the fornication is undisputable. Question: What do you expect the church to do? What is the Biblical responsibility of the Elders? Obviously, they would counsel the couple from Scripture and exhort them to confess and repent and desist. If they sincerely did so, the marriage could go ahead. If they refuse then not only would it be wrong to marry them, but persistence in the sin would disqualify them from the privileges of church membership. The Biblical steps of church discipline are to be followed, even to the point of excommunication if the couple become hardened in contumacy. How grossly unfair then if "outsiders" can live lives even more flagrantly sinful and still get married "in the church". That's where the unfairness really lies! It means non-members will have more privileges than members! This makes membership both meaningless and odious.
7. This turns people off Christianity and makes the church irrelevant to people.
This wrongly implies that sinners are either "on" Christianity, or neutral about it. My Bible tells me they are "off" Christianity from their mother's womb. They are born godless, hostile, rebels against the rule of Christ. As for being "relevant" or not, the church has one main mandate, namely to preach the Gospel honestly and to exhort sinners to flee from sin and to Christ. Whilever we maintain Biblical standards we are relevant. We are showing them the way out of hell and into heaven. As soon as we cave into worldly standards and demands, we cease being relevant. We cease being the church. We become the world by another name.
8. What about "common law" marriages?
"Common law" marriage means a couple have vowed themselves to each other privately, in which case it is sometimes assumed that it is not identical to a de-facto relationship, but that it is real marriage. But this is problematic. While it is true that a religious ceremony is not needed to establish a true marriage, the question remains: why would such a couple then approach the church for a wedding if it can be argued that they are already married in common law? If it is because of Christian convictions, then they will have no trouble meeting the Christian standards for a church wedding. If it is on other grounds, we have no business being a party to it. However, the truth is that according to the Bible, marriage is a covenant, and the essence of a covenant is oaths and vows made in the presence of witnesses. Without witnesses there is no proof of a covenant. If couples are serious about covenanting together as man and wife until death parts them, then let them put it in writing before sober witnesses who also sign the covenant deed. Why do they do it in private without documentary or human witnesses?
Sadly, there are now civil ceremonies where the couple vow to be husband and wife "as long as we still love each other". What a difference this is to the Biblical model. If the church of God does not uphold the standards of marriage, who will?
With the earnest desire that the church of Christ would be faithful
To the glory of God in His holy bride
Peter Bloomfield.”
10.(b) Remind all Marriage Celebrants within the Church of 1989 BB Min.279.14:-
“Regard instruction in human sexuality to be primarily a responsibility of parents, to be given within the Biblical constraints of chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage, to the exclusion of all other sexual practices and preferences.”
11.(c) Appoint Mrs M Taylor as Observer to the Queensland State Executive of the Australian Famly Association.
12. Concur with the action of the Moderator, Clerk of Assembly and Convener of the Public Questions and Communications Committee in submitting a statement on behalf of the Church on Cannabis and the Law in Queensland, (Appendix C) and incorporate a copy of the statement in the record.
APPENDIX C
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF QUEENSLAND
Office of the Moderator
Mr R S O’Reagan QC Moderator –
Chairman Rev G Kettniss
Criminal Justice Commission 68 Charlton St
557 Coronation Drive ASCOT Q 4007
TOOWONG Q 4006 (07) 268 4151
Dear Mr O’Reagan,
Re: Cannabis and the Law in Queensland
Please find enclosed a statement by the Presbyterian Church in Queensland on its opposition to the legalising the use of marijuana apart from any medically prescribed purposes.
Yours faithfully,
(Rt Rev) G K Kettniss (Very Rev Dr) K J Gardner
Moderator Clerk of Assembly
Copies to: Premier of Queensland
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party
“STATEMENT BY THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF QUEENSLAND ON MARIJUANA AND OTHER DRUGS
BIBLICAL GROUNDS FOR PROPER USE OF DRUGS:
1. (a) The Gospel of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of justification by faith alone through grace (WCF) Ch.11) are absolute in the salvation of man from the curse and from sin, for the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16) and "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved". (Acts 4:12).
(b) Man is saved by faith alone and good works by necessity are the fruit of this living faith alone for "faith without works is dead". (James 2:17) (WCF Ch.16).
(c) The doctrine of Christian freedom and liberty of conscience is set forth in the Word of God - 1 Cor. 6:12, Colossians 2:20 ff, Romans 14, Galatians 5:1. (WCF Ch.20).
(d) Care must be taken to properly exegete scriptural texts used to demand or encourage abstinence from or use of alcohol, Scripture being its own interpreter. (WCF Ch.1).
THE BIBLICAL INJUNCTION TO CARE FOR OUR BODIES AND OUR NEIGHBOUR:
2. We recognise that Scripture does point to the fact that::
(a) Our bodies are the temples of the Living God (1 Cor.6:19).
(b) We are commanded to love our neighbours and thus to be our brother's keeper. (Mark 12:31, Genesis 4:9-15).
(c) We are not to cause our brother to stumble. (Romans 14:13-15).
(d) We are to shun all appearances of evil. (1 Thess. 5:22).
3. In view of this and in the face of the universal degradation of individual, family and society life through the abuse of alcohol and other drugs, we counsel Christians to:
(a) Abstain from alcoholic beverages and tobacco.
(b) Refrain from the unprescribed use of other drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and the opium derivatives morphine and heroin.
(c) Use all prescription drugs only as prescribed by a competent and reliable doctor.
We would also counsel Christians to refrain from giving the impression that such habits are condoned by Christians, in the light of ultimate judgment. (Matthew 2:3-8).
ORGANIZATIONS AVAILABLE TO HELP:
It is recommended to those who have the responsibility to lead, guide and advise people overcome by the use of the drug, alcohol, that there is a help agency to whom they may be directed, Alcoholics Victorious (sponsored by Drug Arm, the community support arm of the Queensland Temperance League). It is a Christian-based program providing care and support for those seeking victory over alcohol dependence, and those who have already won the victory through the Lord Jesus Christ.
(WCF - Westminster Confession of Faith, a statement of faith, subordinate to the Bible, stating the beliefs of the Presbyterian Church).”
13. Appoint Mr D.L. McCullough, Mr G.S. Rutherford and Mrs J Lees to the Board of Management of Drug Arm.
14. Note the Response of the Commission of Assembly to The Queensland Law Reform Commission in the matters of the Circumscision of Male Infants and of Female Genital Mutilation (Appendix D) and incorporate a copy of the response in the record.
APPENDIX D
“14 March 1994
Mr Wayne Briscoe
Commissioner
Q'ld Law Reform Commission
P.O. Box 312
ROMA STREET, BRISBANE Q 4003
Dear Sir,
Response to the Queensland Law Reform Commission's Research Papers
"Circumcision of Male Infants", and "Female Genital Mutilation".
Preface: We preface our response by sincerely thanking the Law Reform Commission for the clarity and scope of the two excellent Research Papers. We also think it is appropriate to indicate the grounds for our following response. Our standard for assessing right and wrong is the Holy Bible, comprising the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, and whatever may be deducted from the same by good and necessary consequence.
(a) Response anent the circumcision of male infants.
The Presbyterian Church of Queensland advises that:
1) Since male circumcision was the covenant sign for Jehovah-worshippers in the period of Abraham to Christ, being explicitly commanded by God himself, after which it gave way to the bloodless sign of water baptism; and since the inspired Apostles of Christ regarded circumcision thereafter to be a thing indifferent, for which they strenuously opposed the Jewish "circumcision party" for its hardline approach in denying liberty and insisting on mandatory circumcision for God's people; therefore there is no longer any warrant for male circumcision on religious grounds.
2) Therefore we oppose in principle the ritual circumcisions practised by Jews, Muslims, and Australian Aboriginals. The religious warrant for circumcision was fixed in terms of both epoch and culture. It was restricted to the Mosaic epoch of the covenant, and it was intended for the descendants of Abraham together with any proselytes who converted to the worship of Jehovah. No other religions have ever had warrant for circumcision, since they deny the very covenant it signifies.
3) While we believe that therapeutic circumcisions are appropriately left to the decisions of competent medical practitioners operating with informed consent, we see no good reasons for the practice of routine neonatal circumcisions. We therefore concur with The Australian Medical Association, The Australian College of Paediatrics, and The Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, that routine neonatal circumcision should be discouraged.
4) We see no need to change the law at this moment because of the widespread community acceptance of neonatal circumcision and because it is very unlikely that legal action could succeed against a competent medical practitioner operating in good faith and with due care. However, we do commend the suggestion for reform, that medical practitioners be required, either by law or a professional Code of Practice, to inform parents of all arguments for and against circumcision, prior to undertaking the procedure. We also believe that routine neonatal circumcision should be removed from the Medical Benefits Schedule and that a suitable community education programme be started. These two measures would probably greatly reduce the number of circumcisions taking place.
5) However, not withstanding this, we are aware that medical opinion is divided on this matter, and we are also concerned about the gradual dilution of parental authority in our society today. Accordingly, we believe that parents should be informed, but that should they elect to proceed with circumcision for their son, no impediment should be placed in their way.
(B) Response anent female genital mutilation.
1) The Presbyterian Church of Queensland agrees with the Commission's view viz "female genital mutilation is a practice which is totally unacceptable to the Australian community". We regard it as a barbaric, inhuman, and godless practice.
2) Given that there is a question of whether or not the Queensland Criminal Code does, (one way or another), prohibit all forms of this ghastly practice, we believe that there is a need for law reform. We believe that law should contain specific provisions prohibiting female genital mutilation except for recognised medical procedures.
3) We also urge the Commission to consider legislation that would preclude Australian residents travelling overseas in order to have such operations done to themselves or their daughters.
4) We assure the Commission of our sensitivity to the difficulties inherent in a multicultural society where freedom of religion is the right of all its members. That freedom cannot be absolute. There is the question of where to "draw the line". Thus we concur with the Commission: "Although Australia is a multicultural society which recognises that an individual's own cultural values should be respected to the greatest extent possible, there are some practices that are so abhorrent to the wider Australian community that they should not be tolerated. For example, Australians have never tolerated the Indian practice of women throwing themselves on their husband's funeral pyre or Chinese child footbinding."
Likewise, we should not tolerate the pagan rituals (e.g. Moloch worship) which include painful and grossly superstitious acts being done to children or other initiates, even child sacrifices.
We regard some Aboriginal initiation rites as ongoing examples of this pagan superstition. They are in a true sense parallel to the loathsome practice of female genital mutilation. They constitute irreversible, non-therapeutic, maiming, intrusive, procedures with grave risks to the health and general quality of life for the person who suffers them. It is a sad thing that our society shows tolerance to Aboriginal bodily mutilations.
We therefore urge the Commission to be consistent in any decisions it makes regarding female genital mutilation, so that other like forms of body-mutilation, such as Aboriginal initiation rites, are not overlooked.
Respectfully submitted by The Presbyterian Church of Queensland,
Very Rev Dr K J Gardner, O.B.E.
Clerk of Assembly”
15. Advise the Premier, with copies to the Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party and the Media, that The Presbyterian Church of Queensland is opposed to any move that would further liberalise laws relating to abortion in Queensland, and that the position of The Presbyterian Church of Queensland in relation to abortion is as contained in BB 1983 Min.123.20,21 viz:
20. “Affirm that abortion is always unacceptable, except where at least two competent medical authorities (other than the one under consideration to perform the abortion) deem the abortion essential to protect the life of a mother or of her prenatal child (or children), when threatened with immediate death, should the pregnancy continue.
21. Affirm that if and when the rare contingency mentioned in clause 20 should ever arise, everything medically possible also be done to try to ensure the continuation of the lives of all that are thus being threatened.”
16. Advise the Premier, Attorney General, Minister for Health, Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party and the Media that it regards personhood to commence at conception and that it regards the harvesting of body parts from aborted foetuses as an affront to the sanctity of human life.
17. Concur with the actions of the Moderator, the Clerk of Assembly and the Convener of the Public Questions and Communications Committee in writing to the Prime Minister, the Hon. Paul Keating, and the Leader of the Opposition, Dr John Hewson, following their public support for the “Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras” in Sydney, (Appendix E) and incorporate a copy of the letters in the record.
APPENDIX E
An original of the following letter was sent to the Prime Minister, Hon P.J. Keating, with copies to: the Leader of the National Party, Mr T.A. Fischer, and the Premier of Queensland, Hon W.K. Goss, and the media.
“9 March 1994
RE: PUBLIC SUPPORT OF THE GAY AND LESBIAN MARDI GRAS
It is with deep feelings of sorrow that we write to you on behalf of The Presbyerian Church of Queensland, following your public support for the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras held in Sydney last Saturday.
At best, your actions could be considered a cheap exercise in vote buying from a vocal minority in our community At worst it is a public rejection of the Biblical ethics which are so clearly set forth in the Word of God in Romans Chapter 1:18-32.
The practice of homosexuality is a direct idolatrous attach on the authority and Lordship of almighty God.
In this Year of the Family we call on you to support and promote the Biblical position of chastity within heterosexual monogamous life-long marriage to the exclusion of all other preferences and practices.
How long before we can expect you to be giving public support to parades of adulterers, paedophiles, murderers or thieves parading through the streets of our capital cities?
Yours faithfully,
Right Rev. G K Kettniss Very Rev Dr K J Gardner
Moderator Clerk of Assembly”
18. Refer the proposed statement on “The Family” back to the Public Questions and Communications Committee for further consideration, and report back to the 1995 State Assembly.
19.(i) Commend the Government of Tasmania, through the Tasmanian Premier, Hon R.G. Groom, MHA, on its decision to retain the criminality of homosexual practices; and include a copy of the Assembly’s Resolution on homosexualing as found in 1984 BB Min 212.3 and 1989 BB Min. 279.26(b).
1984 BB Min.212:3
”That the Assembly: Approve of the Statement on Homosexuality, as printed in the Report, and commend it to all Sessions for promulgation to Church members.
STATEMENT ON HOMOSEXUALITY
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? ... neither... effeminate, nor homosexuals..."
One of the most disturbing movements today is the pressure being brought to bear for liberalization of the laws about sexual behaviour. While some review is undoubtedly needed, the great cry is for the recognition of a homosexual lifestyle as a legitimate lifestyle, as valid as that of heterosexuality; and the right for it to be put forward, and even taught as such throughout our education system.
As Christians, our task is to -
(i) determine what the Bible has to say on this matter;
(ii) allow the Biblical view to dominate our response.
THE BIBLICAL VIEW
1. The Old Testament in the Mosaic law specifically condemns all homosexual behaviour as an abomination (see Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) and its punishment has no qualification such as is found with rape (Deuteronomy 22:23-29) or killing (Deuteronomy 19:4-13). The act of homosexuality, like bestiality, has no excuse.
2. The New Testament: Christ does not mention it, but we know He did not take away from the force of the Law, but strengthened it, (compare the depth of the Sermon on the Mount with the Ten Commandments), and extended its radical demands for perfection. Paul's writings are clear in condemning homosexuality. In Romans 1:26 it is condemned as a shameful lust. 1 Corinthians 6:9 condemns it without qualification. 1 Timothy 1:10 shows the Law was made to restrain... homosexuals... whose actions are contrary to sound teaching. Revelation 22:15 would imply that homosexuals are among the immoral ones left out.
3. For the Early Church, homosexuality was the unnatural sin, the sin that characterized a world lost in shame.
Facts we should note are:¬
1. Homosexuality is not a mental illness but is a learned characteristic - a socially learned process (Rom.1:24-27).
2. Homosexual activity is in rebellion against God (Rom.1:25-29)
3. Homosexual feelings should be recognised as sin, as too should all other kinds of sinful feelings, and homosexual activity must firmly be disapproved of. Our response should be seen against this background.
So our task is -
(a) To show the sin of homosexual activity is condemned of God.
(b) To stand against any legislation that would allow its free spread as a "legitimate lifestyle".
(c) To reach out with compassion to the homosexual with the loving, transforming power of the Lord, Who is able to cleanse the penitent from sins and renew in holiness.
(d) To warn against the danger, especially of young boys and girls being corrupted by homosexuals and lesbians whom they may meet, and to urge Government authorities to prevent the appointment of, and to remove known active homosexuals and lesbians from teaching and tutoring positions.
1989 BB Min. 279.26(b)
(b) “Affirm that all homosexual practice is an utter defiling abomination before the holiness and goodness of God, never in any circumstances to be justified.”
19.(ii) Forward a copy of the communication and the Assembly’s resolutions to the Leader of the Tasmanian Opposition, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, the Leader of the Federal Parliamentary National Party, the Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party, the United Nations Commissioner on Human Rights, the Media, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Tasmania.
Extracted from the records of the General Assembly by me- (Rev) R Clark- Clerk of Assembly
EXTRACT MINUTE
At Brisbane within Church Offices on 10 August 1994 on which the Commission of the General Assembly being duly constituted.
INTER ALIA:
MINUTE 16
Australian Family Association – Home Maker’s Allowance
The Clerk laid on the table communications from the Public Questions and Communications Committee and moved that they be received.
The motion was seconded and approved.
Rev L.J. Percy was invited to explain the matter to the Commission.
It was moved, seconded and approved that the Commission:-
Note the Submission from the Australian Family Association anent the Home Maker’s Allowance and Rev Robert Carner’s response to that Submission.
MINUTE 17
Matter of Abortifacient – RU486
The Clerk laid on the table a communication from the Public Questions and Communications Committee and moved that it be received.
The motion was seconded and approved.
It was moved, seconded and approved that the Commission:-
Advise the Federal Minister of Family Services, with copies to The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, the Leader of the Federal Liberal Party, the Leader of the Federal National Party and the Media, that:
i The Presbyterian Church of Queensland is opposed to trials of RU486 on the grounds that it is an abortifacient, and out of concern for the health and welfare of the women involved in those trials.
ii The position of The Presbyterian Church of Queensland on abortion is set out in the following minute:
1983 BB Minute 123.20,21
22. Affirm that abortion is always unacceptable, except where at least two competent medical authorities (other than the one under consideration to perform the abortion) deem the abortion essential to protect the life of a mother or of her prenatal child (or children), when threatened with immediate death, should the pregnancy continue.
23. Affirm that if and when the rare contingency mentioned in clause 20 should ever arise, everything medically possible also be done to try to ensure the continuation of the lives of all that are thus being threatened.
iii We request the Minister’s intervention to stop the proposed RU486 trials from continuing.
EXTRACT MINUTE
At Brisbane within Church Offices on 9 November 1994 on which the Commission of the General Assembly being duly constituted.
INTER ALIA:
MINUTE 19
Sexual Privacy Bill
The Clerk laid on the table a communication from the Public Questions and Communications Committee, and correspondence relating to the Human rights (Sexual Conduct) Bill 1994 and moved that they be received. The motion was seconded and approved.
It was moved, seconded and approve that the Commission:-
Advise the Prime Minister (with copies to the Attorney General, the Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Liberal Party, National Party, and The Australian Democrats, the Premier of Tasmania, and the media) that The Presbyterian Church of Queensland has the following grave concern in relation to the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct ) Bill, 1994:-
1. (a) The Bill uses International obligations under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to overarch State Legislation dealing with matters for which no provision has been made in the Constitution of Australia.
(b) The “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” as a secular humanistic covenant is being used to set aside the provision of laws based on the Word of God declared in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.
2. That in enacting legislation which declares:
“Arbitrary interferences with privacy
4.(1) Sexual conduct involving only consenting adults acting in private is not to be subject, by or under any law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, to any arbitrary interference with privacy within the meaning of Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Note: Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is set out in Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.
(2) For the purposes of this section, an adult is a person who is 18 years old or more.”,
the following practices, against the holiness of the declared will of God, viz sodomy, lesbian practices, sado-masochism, beastiality and incest, could become legal between consenting adults in private anywhere in Australia and its Territories.
MINUTE 20
It was moved, seconded and approved that the Commission:-
Forward copies of the above decision to Senator Ron Boswell and the Australian Catholic Bishop’s Conference.
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 6:51PM