Rod Benson
The Uniting Church does many things well. It advocates for justice, runs major community services, supports vulnerable people, promotes reconciliation, addresses ecological responsibility and contributes to public debate. Yet its breadth and diversity mean that activities undertaken as expressions of Christian mission may, over time, acquire sufficient institutional momentum to reshape the mission they were intended to serve.
That is the danger of mission creep. It does not mean that the Church should do less, retreat from public theology or abandon social engagement. Nor does it imply that the UCA has lost its theological centre. The sharper concern is whether its theology adequately governs its public reasoning. The Church’s rhetoric may remain visible and identifiable while the operative assumptions, priorities and conclusions empowering its mission are increasingly supplied by professional, political or cultural frameworks that lack adequate theological grounding.
The central thesis of this article is that the UCA’s greatest vulnerability is the possibility that public engagement may become progressively less accountable to the theological grammar that supplies its Christian meaning. Mission expansion is faithful when new activities remain governed by the Church’s calling in Jesus Christ. Mission creep begins when the pragmatic tail wags the theological dog, and accumulated activities, institutional demands and external frameworks begin to govern the primary calling of the Church.
Public theology, social justice and community service are not distractions from some supposedly purer or more authentic core Christian mission. They have belonged to the Church’s identity from its inception. At its inauguration in 1977, the Statement to the Nation declared Christian responsibility to society fundamental to the Church’s mission. The Basis of Union likewise places the Church within God’s reconciling purposes for the whole creation. The issue is not whether these commitments belong within Christian mission, but whether they continue to be ordered by Jesus Christ, Scripture, worship, discipleship and participation in the mission of God.
Public witness and mission expansion
The Uniting Church engaged in public theology from its inception. Indeed, the Church’s antecedent traditions had developed substantial resources and processes for public engagement with society. Methodism included traditions of social holiness, compassion and reform. Congregationalism cultivated concerns for conscience and civic responsibility. Presbyterianism brought Reformed emphases on the sovereignty of God and the moral seriousness of public life. These inheritances overlapped and were internally diverse, but together they contributed to the ecclesial culture from which the UCA emerged. They were also shaped by the twentieth-century ecumenical movement, which increasingly connected Christian unity with peace, justice, racial reconciliation and international solidarity.
More importantly, the theological basis for public witness lies within the Basis of Union. The Church confesses Jesus Christ as the risen crucified One in whom God was reconciling the world. In raising Christ, God has reasserted the divine claim over creation and established the representative beginning of a new order of righteousness and love. The Church is called to serve the coming reconciliation and renewal of creation as a fellowship of reconciliation and an instrument through which Christ bears witness to himself. Public responsibility is therefore not extraneous to UCA theology. At its best, public theology begins with God’s reconciling action in Christ and asks what forms of personal, communal and social life might correspond to that reality.
Contemporary UCA justice resources continue this theological orientation. They speak of God’s good creation, human beings made in the image of God, the life and mission of Jesus Christ, reconciliation and the coming reign of God. The issue is therefore not an absence of Christian language. The challenge is to ensure that these convictions are genuinely formative. Theology must do more than explain why Christians care after a conclusion has been reached; it should help determine what Christians care about, how they interpret competing claims and how they decide what faithfulness requires.
This is where the distinction between mission expansion and mission creep becomes important. Mission expansion occurs when the Church encounters new needs, circumstances or opportunities and develops fresh forms of activity that remain clearly connected to its governing purpose. A congregation may establish a refugee ministry, an agency may respond to new forms of disadvantage, or the Assembly may address ecological or technological questions that earlier generations could not have anticipated. The work is new, but the mission is not being replaced. Mission expansion asks: given who we are in Christ and why we exist, what does faithfulness require now?
Mission creep develops differently. It occurs when activities that began as expressions of mission gradually acquire enough autonomy that they begin to influence, obscure or redefine the mission itself. Mission expansion remains governed by the mission; mission creep begins when accumulated activities start governing the mission. Both may involve new programs, staff and greater complexity. The decisive question is what governs what.
This distinction is especially important in mature organisations. Younger organisations often retain a vivid memory of their founding purpose. Mature organisations inherit structures, programs and habits whose original rationale may no longer be obvious. Practices become traditions, traditions become expectations, and expectations can become obligations. An activity may continue because it has become part of institutional life rather than because its relationship to mission has recently been examined.
Complexity intensifies the risk. Different parts of a large Church may quite properly operate with different proximate purposes. Congregations focus on worship, pastoral care and discipleship. Community-service agencies attend to client outcomes and regulation. Policy units seek influence on government. Boards attend to finance, risk and governance. Each purpose may be legitimate, but specialisation can make the proximate purpose of one part appear increasingly self-sufficient. The challenge is to maintain a strong theological account of the whole so that specialised activities remain connected to a common mission.
Mission creep is therefore seldom the result of a deliberate decision to abandon theology. It is more likely to develop gradually through institutional momentum. Programs generate budgets, staff, reporting structures and constituencies. Partnerships create expectations. Success produces reputation. Funding arrangements establish measurable outcomes. Each development may be reasonable. Yet together they can make an activity progressively harder to question, even when its relationship to the Church’s central mission has become less clear.
Moral urgency can have a similar effect. Churches constantly encounter worthy causes, and declining involvement can seem irresponsible. Yet no institution can respond comprehensively to every legitimate need. Without disciplined theological and strategic prioritisation, mission can gradually become synonymous with everything important. At that point the concept no longer provides much guidance. Mission expansion requires discernment; mission creep occurs when accumulation itself begins to set the agenda.
When theology governs public reasoning
One way to sharpen this question is to distinguish public theology, public ethics and advocacy. Public theology asks how Christian truth illuminates shared social life. Public ethics brings those convictions into conversation with evidence, social analysis, moral reasoning and prudential judgement. Advocacy then seeks particular social, institutional or political outcomes. These activities naturally overlap, but they should remain distinguishable because each performs a different task.
Theology does not provide technical answers to questions requiring economics, climate science, law, public health or social research. Christian faith does not supply a tax rate, emissions target or migration quota by itself. Public reasoning therefore requires serious engagement with disciplines beyond theology. The danger lies not in such engagement but in allowing those disciplines, or the moral assumptions accompanying them, to become the sole determinants of Christian judgement.
Theology governs public reasoning when it helps establish the moral architecture within which technical knowledge is interpreted. It asks what constitutes the good of persons and communities, what forms of power are legitimate, what obligations are owed to strangers, how wrongdoing should be understood, what reconciliation requires, and what limits should constrain desirable ends. Facts matter profoundly, but facts do not decide every moral question. They must still be interpreted within an account of what ought to be valued and why.
This means theology must remain capable of changing the answer. If Christian reasoning invariably produces the conclusion that prevailing political allies would have reached independently, the Church should at least ask whether theology is functioning critically enough. The point is not that Christian positions must always be distinctive. Christians often share moral insights with others. But the gospel should retain sufficient independence to confirm, deepen, complicate or sometimes overturn assumptions received from surrounding culture.
The idea of a distinctively Christian grammar is useful here. Grammar refers to the network of convictions through which Christians interpret reality. Creation, sin, covenant, grace, neighbour, kingdom, cross, resurrection, reconciliation, judgement, forgiveness and new creation are not merely religious synonyms for concepts available elsewhere. Together they form a particular account of God, humanity and the world. They teach Christians how to understand dignity, recognise evil, interpret power, imagine hope and respond to enemies, strangers and neighbours.
Reconciliation provides an obvious example. In ordinary political discourse it may refer to restored relations between estranged groups. Christianly understood, reconciliation is shaped by God’s action in Christ. Truth and grace belong together. Enemies are called into transformed relationships. Forgiveness does not require pretending injustice did not occur. Reconciliation also points beyond immediate political settlement toward the renewal of creation. Christian reasoning may therefore overlap significantly with secular accounts while also bringing distinctive questions concerning repentance, forgiveness, enemy-love and restored communion.
The same applies to justice. Christian theology will often affirm contemporary concerns about equality, dignity and protection of the vulnerable. Yet its grammar may also complicate them. Sin challenges claims to moral purity. Grace resists reducing people to their wrongdoing. Enemy-love unsettles political tribalism. Forgiveness challenges permanent exclusion. Creation limits consumerist accounts of flourishing, while resurrection prevents political failure from becoming ultimate despair. Such convictions matter only if they are allowed to operate within the reasoning itself.
Mission creep becomes more likely when Christian categories remain visible but cease to perform this critical work. Theology then becomes adjectival: Christian justice, Christian inclusion, Christian sustainability, Christian advocacy. The adjective identifies the speaker but does not necessarily alter the substance of the concept. Vigilance requires asking whether the theology behind the adjective actually reshapes the noun.
Translation is nevertheless indispensable. The Church participates in a plural democracy and cannot expect governments or neighbours to accept policies because a synod invokes Scripture or the kingdom of God. Christian public reasoning should engage evidence, reason and shared human experience. It should ordinarily be intelligible to those who do not share Christian convictions and should be willing to cooperate with people who reach similar conclusions from different foundations.
The difficulty arises when translation becomes reduction. Creation can be translated simply as sustainability; reconciliation as belonging; sin as harm; salvation as flourishing; mission as advocacy; justice as inclusion. None of these translations is necessarily wrong, but each captures only part of a thicker Christian concept. Public theology therefore needs to be bilingual. The Church must learn the languages of public policy and democratic deliberation without forgetting the theological language through which it understands why these matters are significant.
This challenge becomes especially important in large and professionalised institutions. Experts properly bring the languages and standards of their disciplines. Lawyers think legally, economists economically, social workers professionally, scientists empirically and risk managers institutionally. The problem is not expertise but the possibility that professional frameworks become the principal frameworks through which the institution understands itself. Categories such as stakeholders, impact, compliance, inclusion, sustainability and measurable outcomes are useful, but they should remain open to interrogation by thicker ecclesial concepts such as vocation, discipleship, witness, reconciliation, sin, grace and hope.
Funding and measurement can exert further pressure. Government contracts, grants and partnerships often require specific reporting structures and performance indicators. Such requirements may be appropriate, but what can be measured can gradually acquire greater organisational significance than what is central but difficult to quantify. Mature organisations therefore need deliberate practices of recollection and reordering. Institutional continuity alone cannot establish that an activity remains central to mission.
Recovering the theological centre
The capacity to exercise such vigilance depends upon formation. Christian grammar cannot govern public reasoning if it is not deeply learned within the Church. It is formed through Scripture, preaching, prayer, sacrament, hymnody, theological education and the disciplines of Christian community. The Basis of Union understands Scripture as nourishing and regulating the Church’s faith and obedience, and Word and Sacraments as gifts sustaining the pilgrim Church. Public theology is therefore downstream from worship and discipleship.
Theological depth cannot therefore be secured merely by adding theological paragraphs to policy documents. The question begins earlier. Are ministers and laypeople being formed deeply enough in Scripture and Christian doctrine to recognise when theological convictions have implications for public reasoning? Are congregations learning to think theologically about power, money, creation, conflict and hope? Are institutional leaders familiar enough with the Church’s theological identity to understand why their work belongs within a church rather than merely a values-based organisation?
The christological centre of the Basis of Union provides the most important point of orientation. The UCA is not constituted principally by a set of values. It is constituted as a Church by Jesus Christ, whom it confesses as Lord and living Head. Values such as justice, dignity, compassion and inclusion are significant, but they take Christian shape only within this larger confession.
A christological public theology therefore asks not only whether a cause is just but what forms of power, solidarity, truthfulness and reconciliation are compatible with the crucified and risen Christ. It asks what enemy-love requires within political hostility, how solidarity with people who suffer can avoid demonising opponents, how justice and forgiveness belong together, and what resurrection hope means when political projects fail. These questions do not dictate policy, but they shape the moral imagination through which policy is assessed.
The doctrine of sin provides another indispensable discipline. Public debate understandably focuses on harmful structures and unjust systems, and Christian theology can recognise institutional evil. Yet sin also runs through reformers, churches and advocacy movements. No political coalition possesses moral purity and no church speaks from outside judgement. This conviction should produce neither passivity nor moral equivalence but humility. The Church may speak strongly against injustice while remaining capable of asking how its own assumptions and interests require repentance.
The Basis of Union embodies this posture by acknowledging the incomplete obedience of the churches entering union and anticipating continuing correction. Such humility offers an important model for public theology. A Church that expects God continually to correct it should develop institutional practices through which uncomfortable questions can be heard.
Scripture is central to that task, but its role is deeper than supplying quotations. Scripture should generate moral imagination. Israel’s memory of slavery shapes concern for strangers. The prophets connect worship with justice. Jesus intensifies neighbour-love into enemy-love. The cross exposes assumptions about power, and resurrection sustains hope beyond conventional measures of success. These themes do not mechanically resolve questions of economics, migration, ecology or war, but they influence which possibilities Christians can imagine and which compromises they should distrust.
The same vigilance is needed in relation to ideological capture. The relevant question is not whether the UCA is too progressive or too conservative. Christian communities across the spectrum face the same temptation. Conservative churches can allow nationalism, family politics or religious-liberty campaigns to dominate their public imagination. Progressive churches can allow environmental, inclusion or identity frameworks to become equally controlling. The issue is whether the gospel retains sufficient freedom to question the political configuration into which Christians have settled.
A useful test is whether theology can still produce surprise. If a church’s public position on almost every disputed question can be reliably predicted from its place within secular political culture, further theological examination may be warranted. The gospel does not exist to provide unpredictability for its own sake, but neither should it become merely the religious expression of a pre-existing political identity.
Eschatology provides a final discipline. The Church works for justice because history matters to God, but it does not identify any political program or social settlement with the kingdom of God. Every achievement remains partial and every institution vulnerable to corruption. Resurrection hope therefore permits sustained engagement without political absolutism. The Church can work urgently without believing that salvation depends upon the success of its campaign.
Embodying, testing and reordering mission
Public theology is not only what the Church speaks into the wider society; it is also what the Church becomes. The Church becomes the embodiment of its explicit or implicit public theology. Congregations that practise hospitality, care for vulnerable people, welcome strangers, reconcile conflict and sustain communities of forgiveness are themselves forms of public witness. The credibility of Christian advocacy therefore depends partly upon whether the Church is learning to embody the goods it commends to others.
This provides another form of theological testing. Calls for reconciliation should influence the handling of ecclesial conflict. Economic justice should inform employment, property and financial decisions. Ecological responsibility should affect buildings, purchasing and consumption. Inclusion should be accompanied by genuine hospitality, including patience toward those whose convictions differ from the majority. The point is not that the Church must attain moral perfection before speaking publicly, but that public theology should remain connected to the Church’s own discipleship.
The ideal response to possible mission creep is therefore not mission contraction. The Uniting Church should not retreat from public theology, abandon advocacy or reduce Christian mission to evangelism narrowly conceived. Its foundational documents offer no warrant for such a retreat. The challenge is to keep the Church’s many activities properly ordered within its participation in the mission of God in Christ.
One diagnostic question captures much of what is at stake: if the Uniting Church ceased to exist tomorrow, but every one of its public-policy positions continued to be advocated successfully by other organisations, what would Australia have lost? The answer should be more than another advocacy voice. It should include communities centred on Jesus Christ, formed by Scripture, prayer and sacrament, proclaiming reconciliation with God and one another, practising forgiveness and repentance, serving their neighbours and bearing witness to the renewal of creation.
The central danger, then, is not that the Uniting Church has abandoned its theological centre. Nor is it that its public theology has become too public. The danger is subtler: theological convictions can remain formally present while exercising progressively less influence over the reasoning by which the Church reaches public conclusions. That possibility requires vigilance rather than suspicion, theological confidence rather than defensiveness, and continuing self-examination rather than retreat from the world.
Such vigilance should become part of the ordinary life of the Church. Assembly, Synods, Presbyteries, agencies and congregations could periodically undertake forms of mission review that ask more than whether programs are effective, financially sustainable or publicly valued. They could ask how particular activities arise from and contribute to worship, witness, discipleship, reconciliation and participation in Christ’s mission. Mature organisations need occasions when established activities are required to justify themselves afresh in relation to foundational purpose.
Theological reflection should also occur near the beginning of policy formation rather than principally at its conclusion. Biblical scholars, theologians, ministers and lay leaders should work alongside scientists, economists, lawyers, social researchers and policy specialists while questions are still being framed. This is not a claim that theology should control technical expertise. It is an insistence that the moral assumptions shaping technical reasoning should themselves remain open to theological examination.
The need for discipline
The Church also needs habits of theological self-criticism. Major public positions might be tested by asking what account of the human person they presuppose, what view of freedom and responsibility they employ, what understanding of power they assume, what voices may be missing, and what unintended consequences might arise. Christian doctrines of sin, grace, creation, reconciliation and hope may reveal dimensions of an issue that would otherwise remain unnoticed. Such questions may make advocacy more disciplined and persuasive.
Theological literacy among leaders also matters. Those who exercise significant responsibility in the name of the UCA need not all be professional theologians, particularly within agencies requiring specialist expertise. Yet familiarity with Scripture, the Basis of Union, UCA ecclesiology and Christian ethics should be regarded as an appropriate aspect of ecclesial leadership. Professional competence and theological formation should reinforce rather than exclude one another.
Congregations play an especially important role because Christian grammar is chiefly sustained through local worship and discipleship. Justice initiatives should arise from the same ecclesial life as preaching, prayer, sacrament and pastoral care. A congregation addressing poverty, refugees, ecological responsibility or reconciliation should ask not only what it ought to do but how Scripture, Christ and Christian hope illuminate the issue. That approach does not guarantee consensus, but it helps ensure that public engagement remains part of Christian formation.
Congregations should also make room for serious disagreement. If every contested moral or political question becomes an implicit test of belonging, theological discernment can easily give way to ideological conformity. Convictions can be strongly held while differences are treated charitably. The issue is not perpetual neutrality but the capacity to recognise one another primarily as sisters and brothers in Christ rather than representatives of competing political identities.
There will also be occasions when vigilance requires pruning. Programs and campaigns naturally acquire histories, constituencies, staff structures and institutional investment, but not every worthy activity must continue indefinitely. A mature organisation must be able to ask whether an activity still serves its original purpose, whether another organisation now performs it more effectively, whether circumstances have changed, or whether resources are being diverted from neglected dimensions of mission. Ending an activity does not mean that undertaking it was mistaken. Discernment includes recognising when a particular expression of mission has completed its work.
This willingness to prune is especially important because mission creep can arise from success as readily as failure. Successful ministries develop reputations, infrastructure and constituencies that make them difficult to reconsider. Their value may be genuine, but institutional success does not by itself establish indefinite theological priority. Mission expansion remains healthy only where the Church retains the freedom to reorder its activities around its primary vocation.
Theological integration
Mission is not simply a collection of worthwhile activities undertaken by an organisation that happens to be a church. It is the ordered participation of the Church in the reconciling and renewing work of God. Ultimately, the best defence against mission creep is not administrative reduction but an integrated theology of mission. Worship, evangelism, discipleship, justice, reconciliation, service, theological education, ecological responsibility and public advocacy should not become rival constituencies. They belong together insofar as each participates in God’s reconciling work in Christ. The task of a mature Church is not simply to accumulate expressions of mission but continually to discern their proper relationship and ordering.
The Uniting Church in Australia has a strong and legitimate tradition of public theology, justice advocacy and social engagement. The danger of mission creep arises not when the Church addresses public issues, but when theological convictions cease to govern its reasoning deeply enough. Christian language may remain present while policy assumptions are increasingly shaped elsewhere. The Church therefore needs sustained theological vigilance, ensuring that Scripture, Christology, sin, reconciliation, resurrection and the Basis of Union genuinely shape public judgement. The goal is not narrower mission, but a more coherent one in which advocacy, service, worship and discipleship remain integrated.
Rev Dr Rod Benson is General Secretary of the NSW Ecumenical Council and a minister of the Uniting Church in Australia serving at North Rocks Community Church in Sydney.
Image source: Synod of South Australia, Uniting Church in Australia
All Told 