By Rod Benson
The Uniting Church in Australia has undertaken many reviews and reorganisations since its inauguration in 1977, but few have matched the breadth or potential significance of the Act2 Project.
Act2 is arguably the most consequential attempt in recent decades to reconsider the structures, governance, theological formation and mission of the national Church. Its significance lies in testing whether structures inherited from Union still embody the Church’s theological identity and missionary vocation in a radically changed social, demographic and cultural context. The stakes are high. Successful reform could redirect authority, people and resources towards more sustainable and missionally responsive forms of church life. Failure, or merely marginal adjustment, could leave parts of the Church carrying structures whose demands increasingly exceed their capacity to sustain them.
Act2 began when the Assembly Standing Committee commissioned the project in March 2020 to explore sustainable structures, practices and ways of working for the decades ahead. An initial task group conducted surveys, consultations and national conversations, producing Act2: Considering Afresh our Life Together in 2021 and Act2: On the Way for the reconvened 16th Assembly in May 2022. That Assembly affirmed the importance and urgency of the work and commissioned a much larger phase of national discernment. The resulting process engaged councils and communities across the Church. Its principal collective discernment involved 223 groups representing 2,028 participants, supplemented by 108 individual responses, 77 written submissions and 37 papers and reflections on theological culture.
The final report, Act2: The Gift of the Spirit, came to the 17th Assembly in 2024. The Assembly adopted three broad visions concerning life-giving communities of faith, a national network for theology, formation and leadership, and the ordering and resourcing of the wider Church. It established national commissions for Theology, Formation and Leadership and for Governance, Resourcing and Administration, while further work began on more flexible local governance and membership arrangements. Act2 was therefore both a completed phase of national discernment and the beginning of a longer reform process whose most significant structural outcomes remain unresolved.
Its purpose should not be reduced to institutional contraction, financial rationalisation or administrative efficiency. A deeper dimension is ecclesiological: to identify forms of common life that enable the Uniting Church to worship God, follow Jesus, form disciples, sustain communities of faith and participate faithfully in God’s mission. The Assembly’s 2026–31 strategy reinforces this orientation through the themes of Flourishing Faith, Thriving Communities and Liberating Justice.
From Union to Act2
The strongest historical comparison is with the process that produced the Uniting Church itself. Beginning in the mid-1950s, Congregational, Methodist and Presbyterian representatives undertook sustained theological and constitutional work that eventually produced the Basis of Union and culminated in the inauguration of the Uniting Church on 22 June 1977. The participating churches relinquished, combined or transformed inherited structures and identities in pursuit of a larger ecclesial vision. Act2 is not a second church union, but the analogy is illuminating. The generation that formed the UCA asked what ordering was required if three churches were truly to become one; the present generation must consider whether structures developed around Union still serve that Church almost fifty years later.
There is an important historical irony here. The Uniting Church was born through willingness to relinquish inherited arrangements for the sake of unity and mission. It must now determine whether that same reforming freedom can be exercised towards structures that have themselves become inherited by a new generation. This is not to suggest that the settlement of 1977 has failed. Conciliar government, shared responsibility, theological rigour, ecumenical vocation and the conviction that congregations belong within the wider Church all remain important strengths. The issue is whether particular institutional forms continue to express those principles effectively.
Conditions surrounding the UCA have nevertheless substantially changed. The four councils of Congregation, Presbytery, Synod and Assembly developed in a Church with a larger base of congregations, ministers and voluntary leadership than many parts of the UCA now possess. Contemporary circumstances are uneven. Some congregations, agencies and culturally diverse communities flourish, while others contend with declining participation, ageing membership, demanding property responsibilities and increasingly complex expectations concerning safeguarding, employment, finance and regulation. Act2 itself arose from concern about the sustainability and effectiveness of the Church’s structures and ways of working.
The situation should not, however, be reduced to a narrative of decline. Vitality and fragility coexist. Some communities possess considerable inherited resources but limited capacity for new mission, while newer or growing communities may have fewer financial and institutional resources. Australian religious life has also changed markedly since 1977, weakening many assumptions associated with strong denominational affiliation and established Christian social influence. The task is consequently not to recreate the Church’s former social position but to develop forms of Christian life and witness suited to contemporary Australia.
Structural renewal without theological and missional renewal would therefore be inadequate. Act2 will have achieved little if it merely enables institutional contraction to be administered more efficiently. Its more constructive possibility is to support communities in which worship, discipleship, sacramental life, evangelism, justice, service and Christian belonging can begin to flourish.
Ecclesiology, communities and ministry
The Uniting Church is not organised as a simple hierarchy in which authority flows from a national headquarters. Its councils exercise different responsibilities within the government of the one Church. Act2 must therefore distinguish enduring principles from the particular arrangements through which they have historically been expressed. Conciliarity, mutual responsibility, oversight, participation, discernment and interdependence remain fundamental, but it does not follow that every boundary, committee or present allocation of responsibility possesses equivalent theological permanence. The Basis of Union itself describes the responsibilities of different councils while presenting the Church as a pilgrim people continually dependent upon God’s guidance.
Different structures may embody enduring principles in new ways. A principle resembling subsidiarity is useful: responsibilities should ordinarily be exercised close to the communities they affect, while matters requiring wider expertise, accountability or common action properly belong to wider councils. The objective should be a more deeply connected Church rather than centralisation for its own sake.
Consequently, Act2 envisages more flexible, fit-for-purpose governance for communities of faith, changes to membership arrangements and more intentional approaches to communities beginning, changing and ending. Work on new Regulations was continuing through 2025–26. These proposals recognise that UCA communities now include large congregations, small rural churches, culturally specific fellowships and emerging forms of Christian community that do not necessarily require identical governance.
Flexibility should reduce unnecessary administrative burdens without weakening accountability. Neither numerical size nor financial independence is an adequate measure of Christian vitality. Small communities may sustain important ministries; where congregations conclude, their buildings, resources, traditions and relationships can become legacies that support future mission. The Assembly’s current strategy explicitly treats both the formation of new communities and the faithful reception of the legacy of ending communities as part of its vision for thriving communities.
Questions of structure are inseparable from ministry. The UCA relies upon Ministers of the Word, Deacons, pastors, lay leaders and varied forms of shared, part-time and team ministry. Different rural, suburban, intercultural and emerging communities may require different patterns of leadership and oversight. Greater flexibility must nevertheless remain connected with theological formation, ministerial standards and healthy accountability.
Theological formation is consequently one of Act2’s most concrete areas of change. The Commission for Theology, Formation and Leadership is developing the national network authorised by the 17th Assembly and has been investigating movement towards a common higher-education provider for UCA theological colleges, alongside new governance arrangements and broader work on formation, mission and ministry. As of September 2026, that work remains consultative and developmental rather than a completed national consolidation.
Perhaps no institutional issue is more consequential than the status of Presbyteries. These councils exercise significant responsibilities for congregations, ministers, candidates and pastoral oversight, yet their capacities vary greatly. The central issue is therefore not simply whether Presbyteries should survive in their present form, but which functions are ecclesiologically essential and where those functions can most faithfully and sustainably be exercised.
The 17th Assembly established the Commission for Governance, Resourcing and Administration to investigate both three-council and four-council models. The Act2 report expressed a preference for exploring a three-council model, but the Assembly deliberately commissioned feasibility work on both alternatives, including their risks, consequences and opportunities. The Commission is to bring proposals and an implementation roadmap to the 18th Assembly in July 2027. Fewer councils are therefore not a predetermined outcome.
Common life, Covenant and a national Church
Resources may prove equally consequential. The 17th Assembly adopted a vision of “deeply connected councils” acting as faithful stewards of their common life and wealth and called the Church to prioritise sharing resources for the benefit of the whole. The detailed principles contemplate financial redistribution, possible minimum resource standards for councils and greater use of shared administrative functions. “Common wealth” is therefore more than rhetorical language; it opens significant questions about how money, property and institutional capacity should support mission across the whole Church.
Such redistribution must nevertheless be handled carefully. Local communities often possess profound historical and spiritual attachments to assets accumulated through generations of sacrifice. Greater sharing will require transparency, consultation, trust and a persuasive theology of stewardship. The strongest case for common wealth is not that distant institutions should control local resources, but that resources entrusted to one part of the Church may sometimes serve the mission of the whole.
The Covenant with the Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress must remain constitutive rather than peripheral. Act2 explicitly identifies Covenant as central to UCA identity while acknowledging the Church’s struggle to live it fully. Any structural settlement should therefore take seriously Congress participation, First Peoples’ self-determination, authority and resourcing rather than treating these matters as secondary to administrative efficiency.
The same applies to the UCA’s multicultural and intercultural identity. The Church formally declared itself multicultural in 1985 and has subsequently deepened its commitment to cross-cultural and intercultural life. Act2 acknowledges that the Church still struggles to embody this identity fully. Communities shaped by Pacific, Asian, African and other traditions therefore offer more than demographic diversity; their theological and communal gifts may help reshape structures historically formed within predominantly Anglo-European Protestant traditions.
A genuinely national Church need not be a centralised or uniform Church. Australia’s geographic and cultural diversity requires contextual flexibility alongside common identity, mutual responsibility and effective communication. Act2’s challenge is to strengthen connection without assuming that identical arrangements must operate everywhere.
Structural reform also redistributes power. Decisions about councils affect authority over property, ministry oversight, finances, theological education and institutional priorities. No organisational model is neutral. Reform must therefore confront both entrenched interests and the danger that excessive centralisation could diminish local participation. Conversely, institutional inertia may preserve arrangements that no longer serve well. The UCA’s consensus tradition means durable reform will depend upon trust and broad ownership as well as technical competence.
Act2 also retains an ecumenical horizon. The Basis of Union explicitly situates the UCA within the wider Church and declares a continuing desire for deeper cooperation and union with other churches. A renewed UCA should therefore resist institutional introspection. In a changed Australian religious environment, cooperation in ministry, chaplaincy, theological education, property, public witness and community service may become increasingly valuable.
A second act
Act2 should nevertheless be judged with realistic expectations. No governance model can generate spiritual renewal, reverse secularisation or guarantee congregational vitality. Better structures can remove obstacles, release resources, improve accountability and create space for experimentation, but they cannot replace worship, prayer, Scripture, sacraments, discipleship, evangelism, pastoral care, justice and service. Its legitimate task is not to save the Church through restructuring, but to ensure that structures serve rather than obstruct its calling.
Nor is the process complete. As of September 2026, it appears that implementation work continues across all three Act2 streams. The governance commission has entered the phase of developing proposals and a resourcing model for the 18th Assembly in July 2027, while work continues on local governance, theological formation and other reforms. The outcome therefore remains genuinely open.
The strongest historical comparison remains between 1977 and 2027. In 1977, three churches relinquished inherited institutional arrangements because they believed unity and mission required something new. Fifty years later, the Church they created must now consider whether fidelity to that same reforming impulse requires further institutional change. Act2 is best understood not as dismantling the achievement of Union, but as seeking forms capable of expressing its enduring ecclesiological commitments in a very different age.
The enduring measure of Act2 therefore lies beyond organisational economy. Its success will depend upon whether reform enables faith to flourish, communities to thrive, Covenant to deepen, theological culture to strengthen, intercultural leadership to grow and resources to serve mission more freely. The stakes are substantial, but so is the opportunity: the UCA still possesses significant theological, human, institutional and material resources with which to shape its future in the providence of God.
That is the larger promise and test of Act2. The first act brought the Uniting Church into being. The second may enable a Church born through reform to reshape its institutional life once again in the service of the gospel and the vocation it was called to embody.
Five takeaways
- Act2 is about mission before machinery. Its best reforms will be those that release people and resources for worship, discipleship, evangelism, justice and service.
- The UCA has a history of courageous change. The willingness that made Union possible in 1977 provides good grounds for confidence that institutional reform can strengthen rather than diminish the Church’s identity.
- Local communities stand to gain. More flexible governance, stronger formation and better sharing of administrative burdens could give congregations and emerging communities greater freedom to concentrate on their Christian vocation.
- The Church’s diversity is a resource for renewal. Congress, intercultural communities, rural and remote ministries, theological colleges and varied forms of leadership all bring gifts that can help shape a more genuinely national Church.
- Act2 creates a significant opportunity. Structural reform cannot manufacture renewal, but it can clear space for it. Thoughtful decisions in 2027 and beyond could equip the UCA to enter its second half-century more connected, generous, adaptable and confident in its calling.
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: stock photo
All Told 