The World Council of Churches uses consensus procedures as of the last Assembly (2006 in Brazil, the one I was at). The Orthodox and to a lesser extent the so-called "Global South" (I detest the term, as well as some of the attitudes) felt that they could have a greater voice using consensus procedures.
It's because of the consensus method that the Uniting Church is able to have the current policy on sexuality. The Assemblies in 2003 and 2006 have had more than a 60% majority, I'd say, who if push came to shove would have said "Right, let's go, let's make a flat out policy and if the conservatives don't like it they can lump it." In the Victorian/Tasmanian Synod (state level, although that crosses two states, it would currently be 90%, I'd say). But we don't want to ride roughshod over the minority, because we understand that they have deeply held beliefs that we're wrong. We have an equally deeply held belief that they're wrong, but we don't feel the need to impose our views on them to the extent of saying "you must believe this". (Sidebar, "we" did that in the early 80s on infant baptism: Ministers in the UCA must accept the validity of infant baptism. That was under the Westminster System. Now, occasionaly people slip through, but generally, that's been a pronouncement, that's doctrine, people have to deal.) If we were still using the Westminster system? We *would* have ridden roughshod over the conservatives on the sexuality issue (and charis_kalos would have been ordained by now. ~grumble~. Most of the time, I'm really, really proud of us for being a diverse church. Some of the time I'm so terribly frustrated that we're so damn diverse, that the LGBT people are the ones continually bending over backwards so the conservatives don't have to leave (even though they've got other churches they can go to and be welcomed. We... kind of don't.)
Um, I kind of went overboard and still didn't answer the comments...
no subject
It's because of the consensus method that the Uniting Church is able to have the current policy on sexuality. The Assemblies in 2003 and 2006 have had more than a 60% majority, I'd say, who if push came to shove would have said "Right, let's go, let's make a flat out policy and if the conservatives don't like it they can lump it." In the Victorian/Tasmanian Synod (state level, although that crosses two states, it would currently be 90%, I'd say). But we don't want to ride roughshod over the minority, because we understand that they have deeply held beliefs that we're wrong. We have an equally deeply held belief that they're wrong, but we don't feel the need to impose our views on them to the extent of saying "you must believe this". (Sidebar, "we" did that in the early 80s on infant baptism: Ministers in the UCA must accept the validity of infant baptism. That was under the Westminster System. Now, occasionaly people slip through, but generally, that's been a pronouncement, that's doctrine, people have to deal.) If we were still using the Westminster system? We *would* have ridden roughshod over the conservatives on the sexuality issue (and
Um, I kind of went overboard and still didn't answer the comments...