CodeOfConductDiscussionDec2016

Code of Conduct Discussion Dec 2016

This page is intended to provide background to the discussion on a Congregational Code of Conduct (appended below) at the Congregational meeting in Dec 2016.

Proposal

The proposal carried forward from the July meeting is:

That the Congregation reject the Church Council’s Code of Conduct for Members and instead publish an Advice to Members about the Civil Law relating to the Prevention of Abuse.

The code is included below.

July discussion

At that meeting, GraemeFrecker as proposer made the following points, and DavidMorgan as Church Councillor on the SafetyTeamGroup, replied with the text in italics

This is a personal response, as one who saw this Code develop. Let me first say that I respect Graeme's questions. If Graeme thinks that we have got it wrong, we need to take that seriously. I hope that will be clear from what follows.

This code was published by the Church Council without reference to members of the congregation. The Code declares that it applies to all members of the congregation, though it cannot be imposed. It is the Council’s advice about relationship behaviour.

There was considerable consultation, and substantial changes made as a result of that consultation. It was mainly informal, and could have been wider. We will try to do better.

The code apparently derives from the current public focus on the prevention of abuse of children and the vulnerable. It is based on the secular civil law used by the Synod for employment contracts. Significantly, the Bible is omitted from the list of secular legal documents supporting the Code of Conduct that are given as References.

It actually arose historically from the Council wanting to avoid the bad behaviours that led to the resignations of Rosemary & Greg. The new Council sought to inspire itself, and then the congregation, to be better than we had been during that time. Council sought examples from the wider church, and modified the UCA version to be more biblical.

The code is limited in its scope; it falls far short of a comprehensive summary of the behaviour expected of the disciples of Jesus. A complete code would encompass many more aspects of life from the Christian perspective. Read Galatians 5 for example.

Everything is limited. Again, the historical context was the aim to be better than we had been.

The code attempts to marry together ‘prevention of abuse’ (‘badness’) with development of a ‘culture of mutual respect’ (‘goodness’). These aims are opposite sides of a coin and ought be considered separately. Society can use the secular civil law to punish ‘badness’ (e.g. bullying) but society cannot make a law to compel goodness (e.g. compassion). Surely the Holy Spirit prompts us to ‘go the second mile’ of compassion.

Other parts of the Safe church program are about prevention of abuse, and apply mainly to organisational structures and responses, rather that individual behaviours. The Code is all about culture, not about punishment.

So what purpose does this Code of Conduct serve? Is a code really needed to reinterpret the attitudes seen in the life of Jesus Christ? How would our congregation impose proper behaviour? Who would ‘cast the first stone’ if a disciple is accused of not measuring up? Read John 8:1-11.

We all wish that it was not needed. But the accusations of bullying and harassment that Council receive, and the historical context of this congregation, show that it is. Again, we seek to inspire each other to be better, not to set up any system of ecclesiastical courts.

Section 4.1 of the Code says that members should set a standard of behaviour higher than the community norm, whatever that is. People outside the congregation would see this statement as arrogant. Surely disciples aspire to the behaviour seen in the life of Jesus. We do not set life’s standards, Jesus does. Every human is flawed, and disciples are not in a competition to be ‘better than others’. Read Luke 18:9-14.

But we interpret it. Remember that the church and society have in the past condoned slavery, burning of heretics, witch trials, torture, child labour and many other things that we would see as contrary to the teachings of Jesus. And all the issues of the status of women, including exclusion from ministry. I do not see the Code as a basis for competition, but rather as a covenant to inspire each other to more Christ-like behaviour.

The code is to be reviewed in November of each year, which suggests that standards of behaviour may be altered as the Church Council sees fit. Does this mean that acceptable behaviour for disciples is changeable, and does not depend on Jesus’ teaching?

The comments on the last point apply. But more particularly, I see the common theme in Graeme's comments as being the perception that the Code is intended as an instrument of punishment rather than inspiration. That is not how it was developed, it is not Council's intention, and I would suggest the text is very poor for that purpose. Like most codes of conduct, it is long on what we should do and very short on the consequences of not doing it. But if Graeme read it as being about punishment, then it is clearly badly written, and needs to be reviewed and improved. Council is committed to doing that, and including wider consultation in that process. Perhaps it even needs a change of name, a "Behavioural covenant" perhaps. There is certainly new material from Assembly that needs to be considered. So I would like to affirm the code, while acknowledging its imperfections, and encourage all members to become involved in its revision.

The Code of Conduct is based on secular civil law, has limited scope, and cannot be imposed. Governments have legislated to prevent abuse, so the Church Council might prepare advice on the relevant legislation for members instead, if really necessary.

Proposal: That this meeting affirm the Congregational Code of Conduct, while acknowledging its imperfections, and encourages all members to engage with the revision process.

Discussions with Synod since the meeting

One of the uncertainties in July was the UCA and legal requirements for Codes of Conduct, and what happens if we do not have one. DavidMorgan has since spoken with Josh Woolett from the Culture of Safety Unit of the Synod of Victoria & Tasmania. There are codes of conduct required for ministers, employees and lay leaders by the Synod and Assembly in response to legislation, mainly dealing with protection of children and vulnerable adults. We are required to comply with them. There is also an Assembly policy on vilification and harassment.

There are no requirements for us to have any document on how we treat each other.

Progress with revision

Council decided to engage an outside facilitator to involve the congregation in revision or replacement of the code. Council and Ministry team members had a series of meetings with staff from Bethel Counselling Centre, aiming to have the first of a series of workshops on November 30. However, the Bethel staff have asked for more planning time, delaying the workshops to the new year.