Big news! The Uniting Church has a recent history of significant internal dissatisfaction with the actions and policies of ACCESS Ministries. Two days ago, the UCA Synod of Victoria and Tasmania presented ACCESS with an ultimatum. It will withdraw as one of ACCESS Ministries’ twelve Supporting Churches from 1 July 2015, unless ACCESS shows “positive responses” to these requests: “1. A commitment to changes in the governance practices and structures that facilitate the full participation of members of the Council of Christian Education in Schools (trading as ACCESS ministries) in the policy development and direction setting of ACCESS ministries.” -This is a clear reference to the unrepresentative fundamentalism that ACCESS Ministries has increasingly espoused in the last couple of decades. “2. Increased and transparent communications with the General Secretary of the Uniting Church Synod of Victoria and Tasmania.” -Which is to say that communication between ACCESS and at least one of its Supporting Churches has been desultory at best. Or in other words, that ACCESS has essentially been acting without oversight by or accountability to at least one of its Supporting Churches. “3. An inclusive and consultative approach to the development of the Special Religious Instruction (SRI) program materials, a commitment that these materials will be theologically broad and pedagogically sound and that this is reflected in the training of SRI instructors.” -This would seem to validate the deeply negative theological and pedagogical reviews, by Maddox and by Zyngier respectively, of ACCESS Ministries’ fundamentalist “Religion In Life” program. “4. The removal of the compulsory nature of the Partnership Program payment.” -Each SRI volunteer must pay ACCESS about $350 per year in order to be allowed into the public school mission field. This policy tends to select for volunteers with a) money; and b) missionary zeal. This UCA request also contradicts ACCESS Ministries assertion that its a myth that volunteers who provide SRI are being told they must fund AM. “5. A conversation with the UCA Centre for Theology and Ministry (CTM) about the possibility of the CTM’s involvement in the training of SRI instructors.” -Which is another reference to the theologically simplistic and literally cartoonish nature of ACCESS’s current SRI materials. Now, what do we think will happen? We know that ACCESS is used to saying one thing in order to maintain its privileges, while doing the exact opposite. We hope that the Uniting Church sets a high bar for judging responses to be “satisfactory”, and that deeds, not promises or lies, are the measure of what is judged to be a “positive response” to each of the five requests. Remember, ACCESS requires their volunteers to sign a contract that obliges them not to present statements of belief as fact, while simultaneously requiring those volunteers to use course materials which present statements of belief as fact. Will ACCESS be allowed to get away with this kind of unsubtle sleight-of-hand this time? Now, what happens to ACCESS Ministries if one of its Supporting Churches withdraws its support?
Posted on: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 03:22:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015