Cairns Emmanuel Uniting Church

The issue is over a homeless shelter that was being run by Emmanuel in one of the UCA’s old aged care facilities – The Good Samaritan Nursing Home but now called The Good Samaritan Ministry Centre. It was a successful ministry utilising about 35 rooms in the huge mainly vacant complex. All approvals needed had been met before the ministry commenced.

After about three to four years, with the ministry running well, Emmanuel made a submission to Synod/Blue Care asking if they could extend the homeless ministry by using some of the ninety or more rooms in the complex that were still vacant.

In order to ascertain whether this could be done while still complying with all relevant regulations, the Church commissioned a building certifier and the fire department (QFRS) to inspect the facilities and issue their reports.

Both reports were duly issued, each pointing out work that needed to be done to comply with all relevant regulations. The congregation prepared a plan for the implementation of the directions of both the building certifier and the QFRS. The plan was submitted to Blue Care with the expectation that they would go ahead with the necessary rectification (Emmanuel agreed to fund all expenses).

The question then arose as to what would happen to the homeless people already in residence in the Ministry Centre while the necessary rectification was being carried out. A task force relocation team was commissioned to try to find the homeless residents other places to reside in temporarily. Eventually, all except ten (10) of the residents were relocated.

The congregation decided that in view of the fact that the professionals had found part of the building safe and insurable, they would allow the ten homeless residents to stay there while the building work was going on.

Synod disagreed and, with very little consultation, ordered the congregation to arrange for the immediate removal of the ten residents. It followed with an act that in its lack of pastoral sensitivity and absence of Christian compassion, is unworthy of councils of the Uniting Church. It ordered eviction of the ten homeless residents through a real estate agent and called the police to assist.

The congregation, shocked by the harsh action of the Synod and the apparent compliance of the Presbytery, immediately sought legal advice. Their lawyer sent Synod notice that the attempt to force eviction had not followed due process, and that the order to vacate the Ministry Centre would therefore be resisted.

The Synod sought its own legal advice and informed the congregation that according to that advice, one part of the church cannot take another part of the same church to court. That seems very dubious advice. If that were so, a church could engage in the most flagrant breach of its own constitution, rules and regulations, and no member or Council of that church could issue a challenge in a civil court. This would enable despotism of the worst kind to go unchallenged -–a result that surely no legal system in a democracy would countenance.

Not being satisfied with evicting ten homeless persons, Synod proceeded to breach natural justice by bringing discipline proceedings against Hedley. It did so without going through the normal discipline process in Presbytery and Synod laid down in the regulations. That process places great store on pastoral counselling and every attempt being made to reach an amicable settlement of a complaint against a minister.

The Discipline Committee severely disciplined Hedley over an issue which could surely have been settled by pastorally sensitive consultation and counselling. While believing that he was treated unjustly by the Committee, Hedley complied with the Order made against him. He then expected to return to his ministry with the Emmanuel Congregation which was right behind him throughout the whole of this miserable business.

To his complete amazement and the amazement of his congregation, family and friends, the Synod and Presbytery proceeded to pile more punishment upon him. Without consulting with the congregation, the Church Council, or Hedley himself, they terminated Hedley’s placement at Emmanuel. This, despite the fact that he is much loved by the congregation and is fulfilling a valuable ministry among them. 

The Synod and Presbytery have not taken into account the important principle that compels both the congregation and Hedley to make a stand on this issue. They believed with utter conviction that it would have been morally wrong to refuse to house the ten homeless people in premises that had been certified as safe and insurable by qualified persons. They could not in good conscience bring themselves to cast them out into the street from which they had rescued them. One would have thought that councils of a Church that has always regarded social justice and solidarity with the disadvantaged as gospel-based imperatives, would have commended Hedley for his actions, not punished him.