General Synod 5—Eggshell unity

If there was a theme for today at General Synod, it was the search for
unity.

For example, we sought unity in encouraging a wide variety of ‘fresh
expressions’ of church. In other circles this covers what might be called
church planting and innovation, as well as other initiatives like “Back to
Church Sunday”.

There was an agreed desire to give permission for new and creative Christian
fellowships and ministries. In this, we heard of some impressive and
sacrificial examples of meeting human need. People felt we were talking about
core business.

However the emphasis was all about how to do it, especially on what
leadership skills were needed. Agreement in the gospel was taken for granted,
yet is the very thing that appears to be lacking across the denomination.

As I said at a previous General Synod, this is like discussing how to market
a medicine: what sort of colour and flavour and name and packaging it needs;
but all without ensuring the active ingredient is present and effective in the
pill!

A couple of Sydney speakers pointed this out, that we needed to preach
Jesus, not marketing, and should not downplay theological education. The
muttering and grumbling under the breath from some delegates when these points
were made, especially when a speaker quoted John 14:6, proves the very point
that agreement in the gospel can never be taken for granted.

Another theme for the day was the issue of human rights. The first motion in
this area focused on freedom of religion. It called on federal and
state/territory governments to safeguard religious freedom in Australia,
including freedom to:

• manifest a religion publicly
• appoint people of faith to faith organizations
• teach and uphold moral standards
• discriminate between right and wrong according to one’s conscience
• teach and propagate religion
• change religion.

There was some opposition to this, claiming it was protective of our own
sectional interests, with an attempt to raise the spectrum of the Christian
religious right. As a Christian conservative, who has opposed Fred Nile when he
called for a ban on the burqa and a ten year moratorium on Muslim migration
(despite disagreeing passionately with Islam), I found the accusation of
self-interest that a fairly offensive brush with which to tar those in favour
of this motion. As a non-conservative noted, he did not like what a fringe
Christian group might say but he defended their right to preach whatever rot
they wished, so long as it did not breach criminal or civil legislation. The
motion passed.

A second motion supported better understanding and protection of human
rights more generally. However, Bishop Rob Forsyth moved for the deletion of a
paragraph that would have called for the Federal Government to find ways to
enshrine in law rights from a couple of International Rights Covenants. This
was a push in a direction towards a human rights charter, which many Christians
have been concerned about, and which the Government has already rejected. In a
very close vote, and much to the Bishop’s surprise, the clause was deleted, 111
to 106! However, the motion’s overall thrust about respecting human rights
received great support—the disagreement was in how best to do it.

Returning to the theme of unity, there was considerable debate about a
motion seeking to advance Anglican-Uniting Church relationships via a Covenant
of Understanding. Such inter-denominational dialogue is often welcome. However,
the affirmations of the proposed Covenant were problematic for many. For some
of those of catholic view, the lack of episcopal ordination of Uniting clergy
is deeply problematic. That does not worry evangelicals, but we were concerned
by the facts such as the Uniting Church’s officially permitting homosexual
clergy at the national level—something that has certainly not happened in the
Anglican Church of Australia.

On the other hand, many speakers testified to productive relationships with
individual Uniting Churches, for example in rural areas where stipendiary
ministry cannot easily be supported, and people did not want to lose the
progress from such dialogues. So instead of endorsing the Covenant for
ratification or rejecting it outright, it was decided after amendment and
negotiation, to express appreciation for the work and to refer it to the
Dioceses and our national Doctrine Commission for examination.

One other critical discussion concerned whether a contribution to the
international Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) should be funded through
General Synod compulsory, or voluntary assessments on the Dioceses. It is well
known in national Anglican circles that the Sydney Diocese has chosen not to
pay the voluntary assessments for about 15 years. We don’t like many of the
projects which the denomination chooses to fund at the national level, although
we send a similar amount as would be levied on us to various ministry works
outside our own Diocese. But this independence is a source of pain to many
other Dioceses!

Now there was to be an attempt to make Sydney pay its share for the ACC.
This is the so-called Anglican ‘instrument of unity’ that many conservative
Global South Anglicans have withdrawn from, like Bishop Mouneer Anis of Egypt,
as it has repeatedly failed to discipline The Episcopal Church (TEC) for its
departure from orthodox standards of human sexuality. For example, the ACC
permits TEC’s Presiding Bishop to continue to attend, despite her involvement
in consecrating bishops in same-sex relationships.

In the end it was made politely plain that forcing this issue would shatter
our ‘negotiated fellowship’ among wings of very different theology in the
Anglican Church of Australia. This structural unity was likened to an eggshell,
very fragile, though still intact in Australia, but impossible to repair if
shattered. A liberal bishop won the day by indicating that, although he found
our position abhorrent, he appreciated our plain speaking on this matter,
because that was the only way our differences could be truly addressed. He
realized that bashing us over the head with something like this was not going
to help. The move was dropped and the eggshell continues intact.

I pray more in the Anglican Church of Australia can find or regain
confidence in the active ingredient in the only medicine we have: the gospel of
Jesus Christ, crucified for our sins and risen as Lord of all.