Home » News & Views »

Making a preamble a post anything amble?

Assumption: That the reader has read both the original Preamble to the Constitution and the amendment (replacement) put to the 2009 Assembly of the UCA held in Sydney.

1. Both the Original and the Replacement have an historical aspect, as is usual for a Preamble.

The Original has been written in the lead-up to Union, which is fitting, but the Replacement has been written looking back on events, which no longer fits the purpose of a Preamble.

2. The Original is primarily a theological document, with a political component implied in that 'organic union' involved property owned under Australian law. Debate at the time leading up to Union was often concerned with what would become of particular church properties.

The Replacement begins as a theological document then focuses on political statements centred upon the Australian Aborigines. It is largely a political document, which has as its context the rights of aboriginal Australians, including those in the UCA. Its scope covers areas beyond the Constitution of a Church, though not beyond its responsibilities. (Jesus said to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world" - John 18:36. He also taught His disciples to pray, "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven" - Matthew 6:10).

The Original, being primarily a theological document, is therefore a better fit as a Preamble than the Replacement, being notable as a political document.

3. The language of the Original is inclusive, in that it refers to those who belonged to the three Churches entering Union without attaching any significance to their race, nationality or history. None is 'more equal' than the other. Aboriginal Australians were a part of the three Churches.

The language of the Replacement is discriminatory, in that it refers to two broad categories,' first' and 'second' peoples. This is a weakness and opens up to criticism those who use such language; for example, did aboriginal tribes fight each other and displace one another in the land before white settlement? If one tribe had an advantage over others in terms of weapons, did they or did they not use such an advantage? Has any area of the world ever had only one tribe or nation occupy that territory? Is it the Church's role to repatriate all people to their claimed ancestral lands? If so, how would this work with children of mixed marriages?

4. The aim of the Original is the glory of God through Christ, whose prayer was, "that they may be one" - John 17:11. It is unity amongst Christians that bears a good witness to the salvation Christ has accomplished in our hearts.

The aim of the Replacement appears to be accusatory (even if as fairly as possible) and unforgiving, in spite of the use of words like 'reconciliation'. (It would be better to leave out such words if they are used devoid of meaning.)

The Original is therefore more truly a 'Christ centred' document than the Replacement.

5. The Original is a neat, 'no frills' package, simply about the historical union of 3 existing churches.

The Replacement opens up the possibility that, if a Preamble is to be more than this, then it could and should be modified continually to include a plethora of social and environmental issues. Who can doubt that the 'second peoples' have wrought environmental havoc compared to the 'first' peoples? Should this also be addressed in the Preamble? What about multiculturalism and / or a multitude of faiths?

In other words, inclusion of Aboriginal matters in the Preamble would not be an exclusive list of just one issue. It could / should go on, and on, as history unfolds.

It would become a Post- rather than a Pre- amble and resemble a newspaper or magazine, instead of a brief introduction that gathers together relevant facts surrounding the writing of the Constitution.

Conclusion: Leave the original Preamble as it is and address other matters, such as those raised in the proposed Replacement elsewhere and with appropriate debate.

Nola Stewart 26 / 11 / 2009