On General Elections and General Synods
Ordinary Sunday 28: 10th October, 2004
Fr John Davis, Vicar of St Peter's, Eastern Hill
The morning after the night before. Unsettling times on all fronts. Frustration and bitterness for some, relief and satisfaction for others. All of us who are eligible would have exercised our democratic rights and responsibilities yesterday and voted. Perhaps many of us were very clear in our hearts (or perhaps even more viscerally) that there were some really important and fundamental issues at stake. These are the sort of issues that we might consider to be fundamental about what it is to be an Australian, which will shape the future place of Australia in the world and determine just what sort of society we are going to be living in together. And so we voted and then waited for the results last night.
The same might be said for the somewhat more remote and rarefied procedures of our once every three years General Synod. There too there were issues considered that are pretty fundamental to just what it is to be an Anglican and potential indicators of where we might head. In our case though, especially in the highly federalised structure of the Church in Australia, this is also a matter for the local diocese and even more basically the local communities of faith to consider and respond to. That process of responding to these big issues will certainly go on.
For a significant change to get legislation in place – such as matters like a new Prayer Book or who may exercise what roles as clergy, our Church constitutional arrangements are heavily weighted on the side of the status quo. The same of course applies nationally in secular debates. If we want to change the commonwealth constitution we know that a referendum needs a majority of people overall and a majority of states. That is another way of making major change a measured process.
In General Elections or in General Synods, we are dealing with an adversarial method of coming to decisions. Speeches are made, policies are presented, voters are influenced one way or another and then a vote is taken. Then there are going to be those who have won and those who have lost. That is the way it is going to be; if the issues are big and the stakes are high, there are going to be some bruises or some very great relief.
Of course there is going to be lots of talk. Households will have divided down the middle. No doubt in the Federal election, the Senate count will take a long time and provide us all with continuing diversion. And we will be talking Church politics too. That will certainly be the case for people in the pews here at St Peter's today, for example on the big issue of women bishops. Just what did happen in Perth?
The legislation to approve of a canon to allow for women priests to be consecrated as bishops in the Australian Church did not get the required two-thirds majority. The votes in the three houses of synod were in favour of this measure – 74% in the bishops, 64% in the laity and 60% in the clergy. So the vote was close to the required two thirds, but not enough. All three houses need 67%. In the normal course of events, the next time for this to be considered nationally would be at the next General Synod in three years.
The synod also discussed a number of resolutions under the heading of 'Sexuality and gender relationships'. Media reports completely missed what in the careful language of synods was in fact a moderate and middle of the road approach. The press for instance did not pick up the nuances of the synod merely 'noting' the Lambeth 1998 resolution on this topic rather than for example 'endorsing' or 'affirming' it. This was very significant. On the specific issues under discussion, where direct condemnation or outright rejection could have been expressed, instead the synod rather declared that it 'did not condone liturgical blessings of same sex unions or the ordination of people in open committed same sex relationships.' In addition, the resolutions both began with the preamble that 'this is a matter of ongoing debate and conversation in this church and that we all have an obligation to listen to each other with respect'. It would seem then that the General Synod has approached this one with care and sensitivity and invited us all to do the same. For a diocese like Melbourne, which has a long tradition of tolerance and liberality, and for all parishes particularly in the catholic tradition, this is very much a live pastoral issue.
There was a very interesting analysis in yesterday's Australian about the increasing 'tribalisation' of Australian Anglicanism. Putting it another way, the Australian Church is becoming increasingly polarised. In the context of this reflection on General Synod, this is well worth a read. In our Australian Church we have, as we said, deliberately embraced a parliamentary and therefore potentially adversarial model of decision making in our representative synods. This has much in its favour. But here we have the added very substantial difference that the largest diocese of all, Sydney, brings to our particular processes. There is something remarkably different and very special about the diocese of Sydney. It is quite unique within the Anglican Communion with its radical fundamental evangelicalism and its power and influence. It is superbly led, theologically coherent, well organised, well trained, very rich and very large. By comparison the rest of our Church looks pretty amateurish.
Some Anglo Catholics have been happy to make common cause with Sydney diocese because of their opposition to women bishops, though not on the Sydney grounds of the inherent appropriate subordination of women to men. But on just about every other contentious theological, ecclesiological or social issue one could think of, Sydney would be the complete ideological opponent of what our Anglo Catholic tradition would stand for. This is something to be remembered when political alliances are considered.
In a highly regionalised and poorly led organization, if one substantial part has its act together and the others do not, or just cannot agree, then this has some pretty clear organisational implications. It should go without saying that this is also what faces this diocese of Melbourne in the forthcoming election process for a new Archbishop at the end of next year.
As I noted at the beginning, there are going to be some strong feelings about the defeat of the women bishops legislation in particular. There remains the real and dangerous possibility that diocesan level frustration with this political fact of the virtual veto of such a measure by Sydney in the present structures of the Anglican Church in Australia will result in a breakdown. Some dioceses may consider going it alone, if they can get away with it, just indeed incidentally as the Diocese of Sydney is already doing itself on the question of Lay Presidency at the Eucharist. We are in for some bumpy times ahead as the implications are digested.
So, where might we go from here? There are some things we cannot do much about at the parish level – any more than a local government area can determine foreign policy. But a general synod cannot vote in or out some very important qualities. Could I propose generosity of spirit, faithful service, loving worship, care, mutual respect and welcome, for a start? Those are the things, in a sense, we vote on every day we come here, every smile or greeting we offer, every time we look beyond ourselves to someone who is different or in need. And those are the sorts of things visitors will be scoring us on. Perhaps Almighty God as well.
The Lord be with you.
|
Views is a
publication of
St Peter's Eastern Hill, Melbourne Australia.
|
