The Synod of this diocese (i.e., Sydney) began today.  Please keep us in your prayers.  As I said to my congregations yesterday, it’s easy to throw rocks from the sidelines, but serious, sustained prayer is a more difficult (and more valuable) thing.
Bob

Bob,

My concern was with the following:

“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,”

First of all David “imagines” that the failure of the motion had something to do with the people he perceives on the Social Responsibilities Commission as being liberal (ie. secularist).  He offers no evidence that the Social Responsibilities Commission members were involved in securing the failure of the motion, nor does he offer any evidence that their so-called Liberal position is in fact “secularist”.

So far as the VCC and the Heads of Churches group in Victoria goes, David demonstrates a failure to understand that both these bodies are representative bodies with a very diverse membership and regardless of how black and white a moral issue seems to be it is very difficult for them to secure a form of words by way of public statement that all the members agree to.  In such cases nothing is said.  It is not a reflection on the particular views of any of the members that such a statement cannot be made.

The fact that the ad hoc committee was able to make a statement is no reflection on the other representative bodies; it just demonstrates that the ad hoc committee was formed of more closely aligned, like-minded churches on this particular matter.  Just try and get the same group to make a common statement about the authority of Scripture, or sources of revelation.  They will not be able to agree is my guess.

Yes, David was expressing his opinion, as am I, but his statements were gross generalisations that were not based on facts - eg. that a liberal position is equivalent to a secularist position.  Liberal theology has at least some reference to God and revelation (much and all as you might disagree with the opinion) whereas the secularist view is intentionally devoid of any reference to God.

John

Thanks for your reply.  I think that, in part, we have a confusion of language here.  A ‘generalisation’ is the attribution of something to a class of entities (e.g., “Chinese children are more intelligent than Caucasian children"), whereas I understand that your objection to David’s post is that he offered unsubstantiated opinions.  (I do note your final comment, however, about the equation of ‘liberal’ with ‘secularist’ as a generalisation which you reject.)

Having said that, I am inclined to allow Daivd some latitude in his comments, as he has a longstanding and deep involvement in social issues in Victoria, so his imagination is probably more than random guesswork.  I would also suggest that his description of the VCC and the Heads of Churches as “infected” is an accurate summation of the scenario that you describe in more detail.  That is, he did not say, nor imply, that all the members held liberal/secularist views.  The language of infection rather suggests that some members hold such views, which has had an impact on the bodies themselves in terms of what they will or won’t say—which is exactly what you have said.

Regards,

Bob

The word “infected” is, however, unfortunate.  The Christian Church is much larger than just we in the Anglican Church.  It embodies very diverse traditions and theological perspectives, and when churches gather together in such ecumenical forums as the VCC or the Heads of Churches Committee it is entirely inappropriate - indeed deeply disrespectful - to refer to those churches that have a different view to your own on moral matters as being an “infection.”

You may belong to a tradition of church that follows a purity code - ie the major task of its members is to keep the doctrine pure, and those who differ from it out of the church (this is after all what a “confessing” church is all about) but when you meet in ecumenical forums your view has to change from exclusive to inclusive.  It is just a matter of being respectful. 

If you had had any experience in ecumenical forums you would understand that in situations where the members are unable to make a collective statement, the members understand that they are entirely at liberty to make individual statements.  I agree that a collective statement could be more powerful but I find the metophor of “infection” repugnant in such a context.  The reluctance of some members to make a particular statement does not in any way prevent the others from making such a statement - their own position is not compromised of “infected.”

John

I respect your point of view on this, although I don’t entirely agree with your analysis of David’s comments.  But I would submit that:

1 The comment that:

You may belong to a tradition of church that follows a purity code - ie the major task of its members is to keep the doctrine pure, and those who differ from it out of the church (this is after all what a “confessing” church is all about) but when you meet in ecumenical forums your view has to change from exclusive to inclusive.

is itself quite disrespectful to confessing churches.  The only people such churches want to keep out is false teachers, not anyone who disagrees with them.

2 The statement

If you had had any experience in ecumenical forums you would understand . . .

is also somewhat dismissive.  As you don’t know me personally you really have no idea what experience I have or haven’t had in such forums.  And bearing in mind that it was David’s post that initiated our exchange here, perhpas you ought to find out just how much experience he has had in this area.

Regards,

Bob

It was not my intention to be disrespectful to those belonging to “confessing” churches by that comment.  Just an observation that for those in the church who have such a view, participation in ecumenical forums requires a change of stance from that which is normal within their own style of churchmanship.

Similarly, I did not intend to be “dismissive” by my “If you had had… “ comment.  I am sorry that my words conveyed the possibility of that intent.

I, too, would appreciate a bit more information from David in response to the issues I have raised.

Hi John

In response to your post #17

You have made certain assumptions about me to arrive at some conclusions which are way off target.

Firstly, I know what I’m talking about in relation to the Melbourne Anglican Social Responsibilities Committee having crossed swords with their main spokesperson on several occasions including July last year at a meeting of Heads of Churches concerning making a response to a VLRC report on ART, surrogacy and homosexual adoption. This Committee is on the public record as to their position on a number of topics.

Secondly you castigate me for supposedly not recognising that the VCC and the Heads of Churches group in Victoria are representative bodies with a very diverse membership. I understand that full well. You couldn’t be more wide of the mark.

Action or lack of action by Heads of Churches on the issues I nominated in my earlier post resulted from the unwillingness of those from the more liberal wing of the Church to countenance the kind of positions and action undertaken by the Ad Hoc Inter Faith group – effectively stymieing Heads of Churches. (I can give chapter and verse, name names and all the rest, but prefer not to do so on a public forum such as this)

I suggest if you think abortion a bad thing, don’t agree single women and lesbians should be able to access IVF, believe children should have knowledge of their biological parents under surrogacy arrangements, oppose human cloning, then “the fact that the ad hoc committee was able to make a statement” whereas the Victorian Heads of Churches was unable to do so, does amount to a “reflection on the other representative bodies” for failing to speak out.

You say “his (i.e. my) statements were gross generalisations that were not based on facts”. This is nonsense. My linkage between “liberalism and “secularism” was simply to say that in ethics there is a convergence of views between liberalism and secularism on the issues I nominate above, including the issue that has caused the Anglican community so much difficulty, viz homosexuality.

For the record I have for the past 4 years been Convener (Chairman) of the Church & Nation Committee of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria and am one of three persons entitled to speak publicly on behalf of the Church. I have written extensively on ethical issues in Australian Presbyterian and have significant network connexions across the Protestant Catholic Orthodox divide and am engaged politically as well.

Apart from that you are perfectly entitled to criticise positions I may take, as I will be willing to respond if I have anything worthwhile to say.

John,

For your benefit and others, in assessing the Ad Hoc Interfaith Committee vis a vis Heads of Churches, here is the list of signatures to the Ad Hoc Committees open letter to Parliamentarians on abortion - quite a few are members of Heads of Churches, yet Heads of Churches was unable to put out any statement on abortion.

Fr Iskandar Aphrem, Syrian Orthodox Church
Rt Rev Graham Bradbeer,, Moderator, Presbyterian Church of Victoria
Pete Buckley, Chairman Whitehorse Pastors Network
Rev Ross Carter, Congregation of Paul the Apostle South Port Uniting Church
Dr Max Champion, National Chair of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations within the Uniting Church.
Ps. Arthur Cherrie,CEO, Casey Pastors Network
Mark Conner, Senior Minister of CityLife Church
Dr Adam Cooper, Senior Lecturer, John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family Melbourne
Dr Denise Cooper-Clarke, Adjunct Lecturer, Ridley Melbourne Mission and Ministry College
Rev. Megan Curlis-Gibson, St Hilary‟s Anglican Church, Kew
Dr Justin Denholm, Infectious Diseases Registrar, Alfred Hospital and Coordinator, Centre for Applied Christian Ethics, Ridley Melbourne
Archbishop Dr Philip Freier, Anglican Church of Melbourne
Rev. Fr James Grant SSC, Chaplains Without Borders, Melbourne Anglican Diocese
The Right Rev Stephen J Hale, Bishop of the Eastern Region, Anglican Diocese of Melbourne
Most Rev Denis J Hart DD, Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne
Rev Fr Geoff Harvey, Priest of the Good Shepherd Antiochian Orthodox
Mission, based at Monash University
Dr Rosalie Hudson, Consultant Nurse Educator
Rev Rob Isaachsen, Coordinator, Transforming Melbourne
Mrs. Kathy James, Convener, Health & Chaplaincy Committee, Presbyterian Church of Victoria
Metropolitan Archbishop Hilarion Kapral, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
Peter McHugh, Senior Minister Christian City Church Whitehorse
Dr Allan Meyer, Senior Minister Careforce Church Mt Evelyn
Graham Nelson, Senior Minister, Life Ministry Centre
Rev David Palmer, Convener, Church & Nation Committee, Presbyterian Church of Victoria
Rev Greg Pietsch, President, Victorian/ Tasmanian District, Lutheran Church of Australia
Marlene Pietsch, Lutheran Church of Australia.
Rev‟d Dr Gordon Preece,, Executive Director Urban Seed; Adjunct Lecturer in Ethics, Ridley College, Bible College of Victoria, Otago University.
Very Rev Dr Michael Protopopov, Dean, Russian Orthodox Church in Australia
Most Rev Christopher Prowse, Auxiliary Bishop, Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne
Marcia Riordan, Respect Life Office, Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne
Metropolitan Paul Saliba, Primate of the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines
Dale Stephenson, Senior Pastor Crossway Baptist Church
Peter Stevens, Victorian State Officer, FamilyVoice Australia
Bishop Suriel, Coptic Bishop of Melbourne
A/Prof Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, Associate Dean, JPII Institute for Marriage and Family, Melbourne
Rob Ward, Victoria State Director, Australian Christian Lobby
Pastor Gordon Wegener, Pastor for Service and Witness
Lutheran Church, Victorian District
Rev John Wilson,, Clerk of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church of Victoria
Jim Zubic, President of the Orthodox Chaplaincy Association

(If we had had more time we could have got many more signatures from Bible/Theological College Principals, more big Church Pastors, all of the Orthodox jurisdictions, etc)

Here is the link for those who are interested in reading the open letter.

Thank you for all that information David.  I appreciate that you are better acquainted with the workings of the SRC in Victoria than I am however, as a member of the Presbyterian Church I suspect that you were not present at the Anglican Synod at which this motion lapsed.

However, my point about the VCC and the Heads of Churches cannot be so easily dismissed.  The experience I have of such groups in my state is that particularly on moral or socio-political issues there is a reluctance for such groups to make public statements.  The General Secretaries of the Councils of Churches often want to make statements but because one or more of the members might have a different view they refrain from doing so.  Unless it is a matter on which there is unanimity, nothing is said. 

As I said before, this does not prevent individual churches making their own statements, or joining with other groups in which there is a unanimous point of view on the matter such as the ad hoc committee.  I agree that this is a very diverse group but the difference between it and the VCC and the Heads of Churches Committee in Victoria is that everyone who has put their name to the letter agrees with it.  Had such a letter been published by the VCC or the Heads of Churches it would have misrepresented the views of at least one of its members. 

But who could that be?  I notice that no official from the Uniting Church Synod is in the list, so perhaps they are the ones holding out, and we generally think of them as liberal on such issues.  But then, no official of the Victorian/Tasmanian Conference of Churches of Christ nor anyone from the Baptist Union of Victoria.  Perhaps they were the liberal ones holding out. 

Regardless of which church might have been the one holding out, my point remains that it is not appropriate to designate them an “infection” in those representative bodies.  When you belong to representative bodies you accept that there will be, from time to time, matters on which you disagree with each other and when that is the case you do not make public statements in the name of the group that any members of your group might have reservations about. 

If the adhoc committee is true to its name it has been called together for a single purpose - presumably to crerate a platform from which to speak against the abortion law reform proposed in Victoria.  To that end it will naturally attract to its membership people and groups who share the views on which the committee was called together to speak.  Councils of Churches and Heads of Churches Committees have much wider agendas.

John,

I really do think you are making far too much of my post #4.

Obviously I wasn’t present at the Melbourne Synod, as you well know, and in relation to my reference to what happened at Synod, I did say “I imagined..”.  I think on the basis of my post number #23 you might concede I have some evidence for “imagining” what might have happened.

Regarding where liberal views exist in Heads of Churches, you may well be correct, though equally I note UCA representation on the Ad Hoc Committee and as well the Pastors of the largest Baptist Church and the largest Churches of Christ Church both signed the Ad Hoc Committee Abortion letter.

I don’t disagree with your statement,

“the experience I have of such groups in my state is that particularly on moral or socio-political issues there is a reluctance for such groups to make public statements”

might also apply in Victoria. However the corollary of your statement is that Heads of Churches end up having virtually nothing to say of any significance. It is precisely because of the dissatisfaction with Heads of Churches having nothing of significance to say on important issues that Church leaders, including a significant number of Heads of Churches have in effect gone outside of Heads of Churches to record their concerns. I would say that this is to Heads of Churches loss if they wish to consider themselves relevant. I concede you may have a different view, but what I say I can only say is the view of those who have chosen to enter the Ad Hoc Inter Faith group.

The Ad Hoc group has not restricted itself only to Abortion, it has also spoken into the debate on euthanasia and the extension of IVF technology to single women and homosexuals. Who knows it may even speak on the subject of Scripture. I don’t see it disbanding any time soon.

Actually when it comes to the baleful influence of liberalism as I have witnessed it, not least of all in the pre Church Union Presbyterian Church of Australia, I certainly do regard, and my ministerial colleagues regard liberalism as an “infection”. On this point I refuse to concede any ground whatsoever to you.

I think we have both said enough on the topic and I don’t intend pursuing the matter further with you.

Regardless of which church might have been the one holding out, my point remains that it is not appropriate to designate them an “infection” in those representative bodies.  When you belong to representative bodies you accept that there will be, from time to time, matters on which you disagree with each other and when that is the case you do not make public statements in the name of the group that any members of your group might have reservations about.

John
This is one view of how such bodies might function in this kind of situation.  But another, and I would suggest equally valid, approach would be for the body to express a view even though not every member agrees with that view.  Those members who do not agree would then have at least three options: 1) to remain silent on the issue; 2) to express a dissenting opinion; or 3) to withdraw from the representative body.  It’s my suspicion that if the issue at stake was one which you found sufficiently morally reprehensible, you might well find yourself criticising such bodies if they did not make a clear statement on said issue.  You might even use words like “infected” if you were sufficiently roused.
Regards,
Bob

Getting back to the Melbourne Synod for a moment…

I was the seconder of the motion that failed to come to the vote on Saturday. I just want to make a note on this quote -

Hugh Bryant-Parsons - 13 October 2008 12:29 AM

Apparently the Melbourne Diocese does not support the sanctity of life.

It’s true that many people - including me - feel very upset by the Melbourne Diocese’s submission to the VLRC. However, the question is, how much does that submission actually reflect the position of our diocese? There is some confusion as to how ‘official’ it is and there were plenty of people who made their opposition to it very clear. On top of this, it’s worth noting Jenny George’s comment that our synod is not proportionally representative of the people who come to church in our diocese.

I do think it’s very embarrassing that the Submission and our synod have been unable to uphold and affirm the sanctity of human life - but it’s far from clear that either of these represent anywhere near a majority of Melbourne Anglicans.

For those interested in the subject, you might like to read my extensive response to the submission which can be found on the www.masg.net.au documents page. And you might like to look up the dissenting letter signed by over 600 Melbourne Anglicans which can be found on the Melbourne Diocese website.

Tim

Hi Timothy

I hear what you and Jenny are saying, and am greatly encouraged that many Melbourne Anglicans do not support the position that the Diocese has taken.  To be fair to Hugh, “the Melbourne Diocese” really does mean the Synod of the Melbourne Diocese.  If my diocese makes a decision that I and others don’t agree with, that is still the position of the Diocese, even if there are many of us who disagree.  On the other hand, as I said in my first post, if a motion is not put, then effectively no position has been taken—which itself may be seen to be taking a position!

Well, now that I’ve cleared that up, I think my work is done. :-)

Bob

Bob,

I have been working in and around ecumenical bodies for more than 15 years in both Victoria and Western Australia and it is my experience that they rarely issue statements that do not represent the views of all the members.

Your suggested options for those who would like something to be said in the face of dissent are logically correct, but again my experience in such organisations is that churches in that position will use, as many have done in Victoria, an alternative forum for expressing their views without resorting to the third option you suggest.  Most participants in such ecumenical forums accept that Councils of Churches are not necessarily the place from whcih such statements can be made.  As a result other forums will be used.

This does not diminish their desire to be involved in the Councils of Churches, it is just a recognition that Councils of Churches have other agendas.

I think that it is fair to say that this kind of scenario might persuade some churches against being involved with Councils of Churches, but generally those decisions have been made long ago and for quite different reasons.

Hi John
Again, I hear what you are saying, and I appreciate the gracious and careful way in which you express your thoughts.  My own feeling on this matter is that it is those very features of Councils of Churches and the like which you have enunciated that have rendered them largely ineffective or at least of limited effectiveness.  It seems to me there has to be a point at which you say that having a clear voice is of more value than have a broad representation.  This is not to dismiss all ecumenical bodies (witness the Ad Hoc Interfaith group that David has discussed) but to say, rather, that some are of more value than others.
Regards,
Bob