(a) upholds the sanctity of all human life and agrees with the statement made by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in his 2006 Common Declaration with Pop Benedict XVI that Anglicans are called to co-operate in “promoting respect for life from conception until natural death”
(b) echoes the 1998 Australian General Synod call to our Federal and State legislatures “to uphold the rights of the unborn child, provide and support adequate programs of human relations education, pregnancy support and care for single parent families”
(c) commands all disciples of Christ within the Diocese to develop a biblical response to issues that threaten human life, and to engage in and/or support ministries which protect the unborn, the aged, the infirmed and the weak.
This motion was debated in the 2008 Melbourne synod on Saturday.
People spoke for and against the motion until someone suddenly got up and moved that the “motion not be put”. That motion was passed by about a 12 votes majority and the debate ceased, dead in the water.
Apparently the Melbourne Diocese does not support the sanctity of life.
If you read the Melbourne Diocese’s submission to the law reform commission about abortion law reform, you’ll find that the Melbourne Anglican Diocese doesn’t know when life begins, and favours a “gradualist” opinion of the importance of life in the womb. The seven-woman committee — including an obstetrician, a medical ethicist and a theologian — was appointed by Archbishop Philip Freier, “who felt men had said enough”, one member said.
The Melbourne parliament passed laws last Friday that see abortion on demand up to 24 weeks, for any reason, and after that up to full term if two doctors say its OK.
Hugh
I’m guessing that you have more info on the Melbourne Diocese’ position than the two bits you’ve given us. It would be unfair to reach the conclusion that the Diocese “does not support the sanctity of human life” on the basis of a motion being carried that a motion “be not put”. There could be a variety of reasons why people who do indeed support the sanctity of life might feel that it was not the right motion or not the right time to vote on the motion.
Regards,
Bob
If I may have my two pennies worth from the sideline.
The problem is the Melbourne Anglican Social Responsibilities Committee which takes a very liberal (i.e. secularist) line on abortion, homosexuality, IVF, Stem Cells and cloning. I imagine they led the opposition to the motion referred to by Hugh.
In Victoria because the Victorian Council of Churches and Heads of Churches are infected with similar thinking to a larger/lesser degree, it became necessary for orthodox Christians to form an Ad Hoc Interfaith Committee drawn from Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant constituencies together with the Australian Christian Lobby and Family Values Australia (formerly Festival of Light) to make submissions to politicians.
Included amongst the signatures to our (i.e. Ad Hoc Committee) submission on abortion and despite the inadequacies of the original Anglican submission to the Law Reform Commission as described by Hugh, appears the signature of Anglican A/B Freier. Generally speaking our submissions on euthanasia, abortion, IVF for single women/lesbians and surrogacy have gained the signatures of the heads of Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran and various Orthodox jurisdictions plus those of big church Pastors and also representatives of the confessing movement within the Uniting Church.
There is a good representation of Melbourne evangelical Anglicans on the Ad Hoc Interfaith Committee.
At least with the Church of Rome you get a straight answer.
However didn’t the Archbishop of Sydney say he was not an absolutist on abortion?
Much better to have the right answer than a straight answer - the two are not always the same thing. The Melbourne Diocese is very much at odds with the Sydney Diocese in many ways, so coming on to this particular thread and taking small swipes at ‘Anglicanism’ as a professing Roman Catholic is a tad inappropriate. There are other threads available where Roman Catholics and Protestants can have it out.
Personally I have no idea if Peter Jensen has said he’s not an absolutionist on abortion. I suspect he would be very conservative, but not absolutionist. But either way, that would hardly come to bear on the issue at hand. If we hold the Melbourne diocese to have done something wrong in not allowing the motion, then we do so on the basis of the teaching of Scripture alone, which is one of the purposes Anglicans would use forums such as these. This is also why bible-believers will take caution in denouncing the Melbourne Diocese for their decision without first looking at other possible reasons (as Bob Cameron helpfully pointed out). We’re not looking for what one particular Christian has to say about the issue, but about what the bible teaches, in the hope that our denomination (in all the diocese’s) would be consistent with it.
It was a very close debate and extremely disappointing outcome (for me anyway).
I suspect if the motion had been put it would have been passed.
You should also be aware that Melbourne Synod is not necessarily representative of the views of “the diocese”. For example, more than a quarter of all people in the diocese are in the largest 20 parishes - mostly evangelical. These people are represented by less than 15% of all the lay Synod reps. If you want the gory details about Synod representation in Melbourne, they’re in a paper I wrote on www.masg.net.au
The other thing to note was that this motion was the last of the Synod, it had been a long and tiring day, and a reasonably large number of people had left. I personally noticed that quite a lot of younger evangelicals had gone by the time the vote came up. This was another reason I was so disappointed since the loss was by only 16 votes (177 to 161).
Encouragement from the Melbourne Synod: lots of younger clergy and younger lay people getting up to move motions and speak to motions. The motion in the OP of this thread was moved and seconded by a couple of younger clergy in the diocese. Many of the speeches in support were from people below the average age of synod members. Two recently ordained curates put up a motion about youth ministry on Friday night that passed easily. There was a lot of positive stuff being discussed and plenty of hope for the future.
thanks Jenny for that clarification. It is exciting to hear that there are great young leaders emerging among the Anglicans in Melbourne.
By the way, at least the Melbourne Anglicans managed to get a motion about the sanctity of life to the synod floor. One denomination I know did even get that far
The other thing to note was that this motion was the last of the Synod, it had been a long and tiring day, and a reasonably large number of people had left.
Hi Jenny,
Alas too true.
Victorian Presbyterians had their General Assembly last week - starting Monday night, Tuesday 9.30am to 9pm, Wednesday ditto, Thursday 9.30am to 8.30pm. I retired exhausted 5.30 pm on the Thursday when numbers were down by two thirds. However we had a good Assembly, doing lots of good things. Fortunately we have a strong financial base, even allowing for current stock market turmoil, to plant/grow new congregations as well as support struggling ones.
Hugh
I’m guessing that you have more info on the Melbourne Diocese’ position than the two bits you’ve given us. It would be unfair to reach the conclusion that the Diocese “does not support the sanctity of human life” on the basis of a motion being carried that a motion “be not put”. There could be a variety of reasons why people who do indeed support the sanctity of life might feel that it was not the right motion or not the right time to vote on the motion.
Regards,
Bob
Bob,
Yes that’s true, however, what is ‘seen’ by the outside world is that there was a motion supporting the sanctity of life, and we were found wanting.
Now don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of godly people in the Melbourne diocese, but more & more it reminds me so much of the church of Laodicea - neither hot nor cold. Diversity is all well and good, but when the gospel is held up to ridicule, that’s another matter.
H
Q: Why did the Anglican cross the road?
A: To get to the middle.
David Palmer’s post at #4 is rather full of sweeping generalisations and is diminished in its impact by them. Jenny George’s post clarifies the situation well. We have just had our synod in Perth and I had the difficult experience of speaking to the second-last motion of the agenda - one that was offered late, as may well have been the case in Melbourne. Members of Synod need lashings of grace to be able to deal meaningfully and respectfully with any serious business at that time.
Sadly, Hugh’s observation about the way this matter is seen by outsiders is correct.
This will always be the case, however, because we speak such a different language at times.
John
I’m not quite sure what your problem is with David’s post. It does contain some opinions (which are not the same things as generalisations) but that is hardly a fault. Can you clarify what it was that irritated you?
Bob
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
