The first question in an inclusion debate is not moral outrage. It is authority.
My view is simple: inclusive-faith arguments in Australia usually fail, or turn toxic, because people start with sentiment and skip governance. Michael Kirby’s legacy matters here because he modelled something rare in public life: moral seriousness tied to institutional seriousness.
If you want a church to change its teaching, bless a relationship, alter its disciplinary approach, or protect dissenters, the first question is not whether your position is compassionate. The first question is: who, in this church, can lawfully and doctrinally do what?
Reasonable people disagree with that. Many think process is a stalling tactic. Often it is. But in churches, process is also where power sits. Ignore it and you lose, even when your moral case is strong.
That is as true in faith communities as it is in companies, charities and public controversies I deal with through law and justice commentary and governance work.
The common mistake: treating a church like a social movement
Most Australians discussing inclusion make one basic error. They treat a church as if it were just a brand with followers and messaging. It is not.
A church is usually some combination of:
- a theological body with formal doctrine;
- an incorporated association or company limited by guarantee;
- a charity regulated by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC);
- a property-holding trust structure;
- a disciplinary system for clergy or office-holders;
- a liturgical system with rules about authorised services.
That matters because inclusion battles are rarely about one thing. They are usually about at least four things at once: belief, worship, governance and risk.
A parish council may pass a motion. That does not mean it can alter doctrine. A bishop may issue a statement. That does not mean it binds a national church. A charity board may want a more inclusive posture. That does not mean it can ignore its constitution or stated charitable purpose.
Counter-intuitive point: the loudest public argument is often the least legally relevant one. The real question is buried in a constitution, canon, trust deed, ordinance, or disciplinary rule.
The Michael Kirby lesson many people miss
Michael Kirby is often invoked as a symbol of inclusion, and fairly so. But the part worth copying is not symbolic. It is method.
He took words seriously. He cared about legal architecture. He understood that rights talk without institutional mechanism is thin gruel. In church disputes, that means asking not just, “What is just?” but also, “What instrument governs this body, and what does it permit?”
That is one reason his legacy still bites. He did not confuse compassion with vagueness.
If you want a church to become more inclusive, that legacy points to disciplined work: identify the rule, the decision-maker, the threshold for change, and the likely forum of challenge.
The four-document test before you argue for change
Before anyone writes an open letter, launches a petition or denounces a minister, check these four documents.
- The constitution. Look for amendment clauses, doctrinal commitments, powers of national assemblies, synods, conferences, dioceses, presbyteries, parish councils or boards.
- The governing statute or incorporation record. Many church entities sit under state or territory incorporation law, corporations law structures, or special property trust legislation. The ACNC register can help identify the legal entity and its subtype.
- Authorised liturgical and disciplinary rules. In some traditions, the question is not “Do people agree?” but “Is this form of service authorised?” In others, the issue is whether clergy discipline can be triggered by conduct contrary to doctrine or order.
- Property and trust documents. If a congregation wants to leave, merge or repurpose buildings for an inclusive ministry model, trust restrictions may decide the matter before theology does.
If you cannot put your finger on those four things, you do not yet have a reform strategy. You have a sentiment.
What to check in Anglican and Uniting contexts
Concrete examples help.
In the Anglican Church of Australia, debates often intersect with the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, diocesan powers, national canons, and the continuing significance of the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. People regularly assume a diocese can simply decide anything for itself. Sometimes it has room to move. Sometimes it plainly does not.
The practical question is narrower: is the proposed change doctrinal, ceremonial, disciplinary, or pastoral? Those are not the same category, and the valid decision-maker may differ.
In the Uniting Church in Australia, the Basis of Union matters. So do the powers of councils of the church and the actual placement of authority across congregations, presbyteries, synods and the Assembly. Again, many public arguments flatten the structure and end up misstating who can do what.
That is not a technicality. If you get the category wrong, your campaign can fail even if a majority agrees with you morally.
The legal check most activists skip: the ACNC and charitable purpose
If a church body is a registered charity, the ACNC is relevant. Not because the ACNC decides doctrine. It does not. But because boards and responsible persons still have governance duties.
Under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission framework, registered entities are expected to comply with governance standards. That includes acting consistently with the charity’s purpose and governing rules.
So here is the practical point: if you are pressing for institutional change, ask these questions.
- What is the entity’s stated charitable purpose on the ACNC register?
- What do its governing rules say about doctrine, worship and ministry?
- Who are the responsible persons for the entity?
- Would the proposed change require a constitutional amendment before a board could lawfully implement it?
Many reform campaigns fail because they pressure the wrong body. A local board may be sympathetic but powerless. A national body may issue fine words but lack control over local property, appointments or liturgy.
A six-point inclusion audit any church member can run
If you are trying to assess whether an inclusion proposal is real, lawful and durable, use this test.
- Name the exact change sought. Blessing service? Ordination standard? Membership rule? Employment policy? School enrolment practice? Anti-bullying protocol? Sermon guidance? If you cannot state it in one sentence, the proposal is not ready.
- Identify the exact decision-maker. Parish? Session? Vestry? Church council? Presbytery? Synod? Bishop? National assembly? Charity board? Trustee company?
- Find the source of power. Constitution, canon, regulation, by-law, trust deed, or policy. “We have always done it this way” is not a source of power.
- Check the amendment threshold. Ordinary resolution, special majority, assent by another body, episcopal authorisation, or a formal review process. If the rule requires a special process, a press release changes nothing.
- Test conflict risk. Would the change collide with doctrine, authorised liturgy, school or charity constitutions, employment contracts, or property trusts?
- Write the implementation document. This is the part almost everyone skips. If the proposal cannot be reduced to a draft motion, draft canon, policy amendment or authorised service text, it is not yet a serious reform.
That last point matters most. A slogan cannot be voted on. A document can.
Scripture does not remove the authority question
Christians who want a more inclusive church often go straight to Galatians 3:28, Acts 10, or John 13. Christians resisting change may go to Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, or Jude 3. Those texts matter. But proof-text trading does not settle who may alter practice in a given denomination.
Even appeals to conscience need structure. Romans 14 is often cited in disputes about disputed matters, but the practical question remains whether a church’s constitutional and doctrinal standards permit diversity on that issue.
That is where many arguments become unserious. They assume that because a biblical case exists, an institutional power must also exist. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it does not.
I touched related themes in Revitalizing Christianity: renewal without structure usually collapses into noise.
If you want reform, stop making these three avoidable errors
- Do not confuse pastoral accommodation with formal change. A kind local practice can be reversed overnight if it lacks lawful footing.
- Do not threaten litigation before reading the rules. Court action over church governance and property can be expensive, public and brutally technical. If you have not read the constitution and trust documents, you are not ready.
- Do not smear opponents as if process proves bad faith. Sometimes process is obstruction. Sometimes it is the only thing preventing a void decision that later hurts the very people you claim to protect.
That final mistake matters beyond church life. Once disputes spill online, reputations are damaged fast and often unfairly. If a matter has already tipped into publication, search harm, or false accusation, there are practical content-removal options through takedown and reputation repair channels before people make it worse.
The hard truth: inclusion that ignores governance rarely survives
I take a blunt view. If you want inclusive faith in Australia, stop outsourcing the work to slogans, headlines and emotional pressure. Lasting reform requires text, votes, authority and lawful implementation.
That is not cold. It is how institutions change without collapsing.
Michael Kirby’s public legacy deserves better than decorative citation. The serious way to honour it is to argue carefully, identify the lawful path, and insist that compassion be translated into structures that endure.
General information only, not legal or theological advice for your specific matter.
Need help with a church, governance or reputation dispute?
If you need a clear view on governance, public controversy, online harm or a difficult institutional dispute, book a consultation with Shane St Reynolds at https://shanestreynolds.com/contact.
You can also email [email protected] or call 08 6263 6236.