There were many interesting items on Monday which got our blood pumping faster:
- an amendment to our Solemnisation of Marriage Canon
- a discussion of the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant
- an attempt to amend section 63 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia
- a motion regarding Defence Force Chaplaincy
- a motion regarding caring for creation.
The greatest drama occurred with Bishop Glenn Davies’ bill to amend our Marriage Canon to permit Anglican clergy (if their diocese also accepts the legislation) to marry couples if neither is baptized. Currently the Anglican law of the land requires at least one intending party to be baptized. The Provisional Canon being moved for final acceptance had already “done the rounds” of the individual dioceses and most had passed it.
It was illuminating to hear how many have a very different understanding of marriage as a sacrament. Still there was dispute among the ‘catholics’ whether this alleged sacrament could be applied only to the baptized or also to the unbaptized.
Tellingly, one Anglo-Catholic made this analogy: being born in Australia makes you an Australian (though you might be a good or bad Australian). So also being baptized makes you a Christian, though you might be a good or bad one. Evangelicals know there are plenty of baptized atheists and agnostics running around, and aren’t so convinced by this sort of baptismal regeneration!
I won’t rehash the debate, except to say there was a strong feeling from many that marriage was a creation ordinance available for all, not just to believers. And strong missional reasons were repeatedly advanced for not refusing marriage in an Anglican Church simply because neither couple is baptized.
The drama came at the vote, which our Constitution required should occur via houses: laity, then clergy, then bishops; requiring a two thirds majority in each. It passed 89/111 in the laity, 78/108 by the clergy, but was lost 14/23 in the house of bishops. After the tea break however, it emerged that the two indigenous bishops had been confused by the somewhat complex process of how to vote yes or no, and had inadvertently voted no, when they both meant yes.
It was a very sensitive issue—should we just say tough luck to those less familiar with Western parliamentary style decision-making culture and let the decision stand? Instead the Synod graciously decided to recommit the vote on another day. And so, as they say, anything could happen!
The discussion of the Anglican Communion Covenant used a procedure which allowed small group discussion with people from other dioceses. The question was whether to send it to all the dioceses for discussion. In the end we decided not to ‘welcome’ it, but to ‘receive’ it, but still to send it round for discussion.
However, I think the overall mood—ironically both from liberals and conservatives—was to see it as problematic. Some think it’s too little too late and the horse has bolted with the dispute over same-sex relationships precipitated in North America. Others see it as a centralist and legalistic a way of dealing with conflict.
Personally I consider the opening affirmations of the Covenant considerably weaker than those of our ACA’s Constitution in its Fundamental Declarations and Ruling Principles. For example, instead of being our “authorised standard of worship and doctrine”, the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles become “historic formularies … acknowledged and appropriated in various ways” which merely ‘bear witness’ to the faith.
The very next section of the Covenant also moves subtly from saying the Holy Scriptures are the “rule and ultimate standard of faith” to saying we must teach and act in line with the “teaching of Scripture and the catholic tradition”. The latter smells to me like a move away from the former.
This debate produced one of my favourite interchanges of the day. Bishop A suggested that we must not allow people from a pre-modern world (i.e. code for those in Africa etc. opposed to same-sex relations) to dictate how we must minister in our post-modern society. Bishop B replied that he was not convinced that the post-modern will inherit the earth! Amen to that.
Neil Cameron from our Diocese made a valiant attempt to revise section 63 of our Constitution to reduce the ways in which appeals could be made to our Appellate Tribunal for opinions on various contested matters of theology and law. We’re talking controversial matters such as the ordination of women as priests and later, their consecration as bishops, along with the status of lay and diaconal administration of the Lord’s Supper.
Concern was expressed that the multiplication of such appeals in recent years was not anticipated by the shapers of the Constitution. The debate also noted questions existed as to whether the Tribunal’s determinations of opinion in these matters are binding or merely advisory.
The Bill to amend failed to pass, but succeeded in alerting the General Synod to the deep dissatisfaction that existed with a resort to legalities as a blunt but ineffective stick for trying to resolve theological conflict.
There was an important motion affirming the role of the Anglican Defence Force Chaplains. It was discussed fairly briefly, because we all agreed on the enormous value of their work.
We heard from a young first-time Sydney Synod rep, Caitlin Hurley, who spoke movingly about the importance of this ministry to members of her family and others in the military, especially those who were dealing with the death and injuries of our soldiers in action abroad. We were especially encouraged to pray for the Defence Force and our chaplains in the ADF on Defence Sunday (this year on November 7).
A very long day ended with consideration of a motion about caring for creation in the light of our serious environmental challenges. There was much good in this motion, but as it originally came to us, it identified overpopulation as the fundamental problem. Its initial vibe was implicitly unfriendly to welcoming any population growth by the birth of children. It also had overtones of being anti-immigration.
There was much praiseworthy compromise by discussion ‘offline’ and the revised motion currently before the Synod makes it clear that the birth of children is always to be welcomed, and more clearly identifies greed as problematic. I certainly think Scripture says this is the basic problem. There had also been no theological reflection provided to indicate that the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth had been abrogated or fulfilled.
I am currently also attempting to insert a small paragraph calling upon Anglican Christians to have confidence in the gospel of Jesus Christ to address environmental challenges as it calls people to turn from human selfishness and greed. We will not effectively change people’s consumption levels by legislation, but by heart persuasion, and this ultimately only comes from the gospel’s call to turn away from serving idols like greed or Mammon or our stomachs and to trust Jesus and his cross instead.
“Pre-modern world” … how sad.
Yep, it seemed a bit patronising.
There was a young Sudanese brother from Melbourne on the volunteer Synod service team. I wonder how he would have felt about his African culture being described as pre-modern, if he’d been listening at the time.
Hello Sandy, thanks for these updates, it is valuable to get a sense of what is going on to those not present.
I was wondering why you have chosen not to identify certain speakers in your comments above (eg Bishops A and B). I have also noticed this in some other writers from the Synod. Is there some expectation of confidence about proceedings, is it difficult to identify speakers at all times, or is something else?
thanks,
Jane
Hi Jane, thanks for your comments.
I do not always identify speakers, because unlike published articles or prepared sermons, comments made in Synod are often not from prepared speeches, but are given off-the-cuff and on-the-fly, and so it may not always appropriate to quote someone as their settled and precise position. Also in a blog post like this, I try to respect the context, but I am generally not able to quote in full context, and so sometimes it seems more discrete not to name people.
That’s my judgment any way.