It’s really hard in a political environment to accurately assess spiritual progress. Synod is about politics, and I do not mean that negatively.
But it means it’s tempting to assess everything in terms of what you won and lost in the debates. And overall this General Synod has been going pretty well for evangelicals, I think.
Today we almost finished the legislation before us. It was frustrating as we
worked on one bill only to stop while negotiations or editorial work were done
‘offline’. So we jumped to another bill, only for that one to be
‘parked’ while another hiccup was negotiated. Updated or newly negotiated
amendments were reprinted, but not always in well laid out formats. When we
eventually got to the end of a bill, a meeting of minds among lawyers had often
produced something better, it just felt inefficient along the way.
After the legislation, we returned to recommittal of the vote on the
amendment to the Marriage Canon, that was agreed because of confusion among the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Bishops in the original vote. Yesterday I
reported it passed in the Houses of Laity and Clergy, but failed in the
Bishops. Today after some more argy-bargy, we re-ran the vote.
Clearly some people thought we should not revisit the issue, because there
was slippage in the Yes vote in the laity (down from 89/111 to 77/106) and the
clergy (down from 78/108 to 66/111). So the clergy did not reach the 2/3 yes
vote requirement today. Ironically, this meant the vote was lost then and there
and did not proceed in the House of Bishops, so they did not even get to vote
again. The result was disappointing to many, but the process had been honoured,
and the decision was accepted.
Amending bill lost, so no change to the current legislation, thus no change
to my practice. (You can guess whether or not I ask couples inquiring about
marriage at St Michael’s whether at least one of them has been baptized.)
Now we’re onto the motions. The environment one was finally passed and we
got to the major item of the day—consideration of the Jerusalem Declaration which emanated from Gafcon. Mark Thompson from Moore
College in Sydney moved the motion, recommending the Declaration for study
around the dioceses, and outlined the orthodox nature of its 14 points. Richard
Condie, from St Jude’s Carlton in Melbourne, seconded it, and noted the General
Synod tradition of inviting study of different viewpoints.
One Bishop criticized the statement for being a tick-a-box doctrinal
statement. Instead he said the Anglican way was to establish “parameters
clear and defined, but open-ended and invitational”. My dictionaries indicate
that in general use, a parameter is a limit or boundary. So go figure how
parameters can be both clear and defined and also open-ended!?
One well-known liberal theologian said orthodoxy was a precious gift, but
difficult to define. And he didn’t like the “rhetoric of orthodoxy” he
detected in the Jerusalem Declaration! It had a polemical tone because it used
phrases like “true doctrine” (of the 39 Articles) or “unchangeable
standard” (of heterosexual marriage). That was too judgmental. Then this
self-proclaimed ‘lover of orthodoxy’ said we actually really needed to revisit
the question of sexuality to better welcome our gay and lesbian brothers and
sisters.
For those old enough to remember the drink, I think this is Clayton’s
orthodoxy! (Youngsters, Clayton’s was the non-alcoholic drink you have when
you’re not having a drink!)
Many evangelicals, as well as some liberals, gave excellent speeches in
support of the view that we should study the statement even if we did not like
everything in it. Here was an important voice representing the very large and
significant non-western Global South Anglican voice, conservative in theology,
which should be listened to. In the end, this view carried the day, very
strongly actually.
And that’s an example of why I say evangelicals seem to be making progress
at this Synod. Generally, we’ve spoken winsomely rather than stridently, and
have had a reasonable number of ‘wins’ in the debates. But I’m not 100% sure
it’s all progress.
It’s true that the old liberals sounded fairly upset and strident in their
opposition to the statement. One said it was not orthodox at all, but totally
radical because it gave comfort to cross-border interventions (a reference to
Bishops from overseas who offered succour to orthodox Anglicans marginalized by
liberal views on sexuality in the North American Anglican scene). His view of
orthodoxy is institutional, not doctrinal. It’s all about respecting the
provincial boundaries and especially the authority of the bishop of an area, no
matter what completely divergent theology of sexuality might have emerged
there.
However at least the older liberals have the courage of their convictions to
oppose the Jerusalem Declaration outright. We know where they stand. Like us,
they nail their colours to the mast. I disagree. But I like their frankness.
I am a little worried that the more dangerous liberal could be the one who
wants to endlessly listen to and study different points of view, but never make
any decision, let alone actually saying, “No, we agree, this particular
conduct is wrong, and should be condemned”. They are happy to agree that
every perspective has a certain validity. And that means they are often willing
to nod along with you, so long as you will nod along with them and not speak
too loudly against their different perspective in their context.
As one Sydney speaker said, sometimes the time comes for our priests (i.e.
presbyters) and bishops to keep their ordination vows and, to quote the Ordinal
attached to the Book of Common Prayer, to “banish and drive away from the
Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word”.
They gave us a night off, which was filled with an EFAC dinner for Synod
reps (EFAC is the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion). There were reps from at least
9 dioceses, including places where evangelicals are in the minority and are
sometimes marginalized.
It was a great night of fellowship. I got to know some delegates from
Melbourne and Adelaide. Glenn Davies and Peter Jensen both spoke briefly. These
thoughts from Peter struck home for me: the going is often very tough for
Christians in Australia. Churches are struggling. But our only hope is the
gospel. This is not a time to waver!
Thanks for the updates Sandy. It is interesting to hear what is happening.
The Sydney Synod papers arrived in the mail today. You have another lot of synod meetings just around the corner!
Hi Sandy,
Thanks for these blogs, a great read. I have just two general comments.
First: Your observation reminds of what I read today in D A Carson’s book “Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church”.
“One recalls Voltaire’s famous dictum: “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.” In other words, one had to disagree with someone or something before one could tolerate it. But in our postmodern world, tolerance is increasingly understood to be the virtue that refuses to think that any opinion is bad or evil or stupid. One “tolerates” everything because nothing is beyond the pale – except the view that rejects this view of tolerance: for that, there is no tolerance at all.” Page 69.
Second: I live and study theology in a city that has a strong feminist / liberation theology and I continue to be hardened in a reform theology. Not because I am stubborn rather, I am compelled by the Gospel of truth. Continually I find myself having the same debates and issues that you have raised throughout this blog. It is comforting to hear someone else have the same internal dialogue and reaching the same conclusions. So thank you.
@David, thanks for your encouragement, as writing the posts often meant a very late night after a very long day of Synod.
@Graham, thanks for mentioning your context and reminding me of the Voltaire dictum. It’s a big part of the reason why I prefer the old-fashioned liberal who will actually disagree with me clearly and will therefore actually engage in debate!