Doing, saying … listening

Andrew Katay | 25 September 2007

Font size: + - | print | email to a friend

Sometimes Synod does things, and sometimes it says things.

One of the main ways Synod does things is to make laws, called Ordinances. This is among the most important functions of the Synod, since those laws provide the skeleton upon which our life as a Diocese then hangs. So for example, yesterday afternoon we passed the Recognised Churches (Provisional Status) Amendment Ordinance, 2007. It’s an intimidating sounding thing, until you realise that it provides the legal mechanism of having ‘provisional recognised churches’, just like we have provisional parishes – and that’s a really useful thing to provide for, since it gives formal recognition and assistance to all sorts of creative gospel initiatives within our system.

Usually, doing things is fairly clear cut – we have the text of the ordinance, hear the speeches and vote. I say usually, because a remarkable reversal took place. It turns out that the count on the amendment to the Connect 09 (Funding) Ordinance (to make the charge on the parishes proportional rather than flat) was incorrectly tallied, and that the amendment was actually carried 205 – 185. Standing orders were quickly found or suspended, and the text of the ordinance as (now) amended was passed as an ordinance of the Synod.

On the other hand, sometimes the Synod says things, and it’s here that we tend to find ourselves in most difficulty. You see, saying things is not nearly as definite and specific as doing things – there’s all sorts of questions. To whom are we saying them? What is the force of saying them? Why are we saying them?

Monday was a big day for saying things. Among the quick things we said last night were:

• ‘congratulations’ – to Martyn Minns, the newly installed presiding bishop in the convocation of Anglicans in North America, seeking to provide Episcopal oversight for North American evangelical Anglicans congregations;

• ‘thanks’ – to 2 retiring members of the Board of the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation, as well as to a Bishop’s Assistant;

• ‘good on you’, ‘do more’ and ‘that’s hopeless’ – the first to South Sydney Leagues Club for not having poker machines; the second to the government and others to go and do likewise; and the third to the NSW government for allowing Keno machines into pubs

• ‘naughty parishes’ – to the parishes that haven’t put in their financial reports by the due date!

• ‘roll up, roll up’ – to workers in business districts, to get involved in workers’ ministries

Sometimes saying things is important. We said a lot of things in response to the Federal Government’s “determination … to address problems of child abuse, violence and substance abuse in Indigenous Communities in the Northern territory”. In a very moving pair of speeches last week, we heard first from Archdeacon Deryck Howell and then indigenous Pastor Ray Minniecon about what was happening on the ground in some Indigenous communities, and the passed a motion last night variously expressing support, concern and remorse.

At other times, saying things can seem a little bizarre. After a fairly long discussion, we decided to say that parishes and diocesan organisations should not use raffles or other games of chance in fundraising. Although I think asking for money from the local community is usually not the way to deal with our financial needs, I thought the quick connection made between church raffles and problem gambling a little bit overdrawn. In fact, the danger of linking them like this is that we risk reducing the significance of the serious issue (problem gambling – note the incredible statistic from South Sydney Leagues Club that somewhere around 50% of money put through poker machines is social security money from CentreLink) by connecting it to the trivial issue (the local church raffle run by the Women’s Guild).

We also decided to say that we believed the Biblical teaching that Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was a ‘penal substitutionary atonement’ – that is, that Christ died in our place (substitution), bearing the penalty of God’s wrath for our sins (penal – although it was curious that no mention of the wrath of God was made in the wording of the motion) and thereby reconciling us to God (atonement). Although this is an excellent thing to say, an argument was made that saying it was a little shrill, especially since we were being asked to respond to some obscure Dean in England.

In the end, it was listening rather than speaking that helped us through. Bishop Forsyth made the point that the issue was not just saying what we already know; the second half of the motion was a request to the Diocesan Doctrine Commission to provide a report which explores the importance of penal substitution, and that this was an exercise in listening and learning, convinced that there was ‘yet more light to break from God’s word’, as much as speaking.

In fact, listening provided the highlights of the night for me. We worked hard to have a constructive conversation, listening to each other on the theology of Christian assembly. It was a good start, but there is a long way to go before we are clear, I suspect. Most of the contributions were along the lines of personal preference (‘I like such and such’), or mission pragmatism (‘to connect with group X, we need to do this in our services’); but there was not a great deal of theologising. Even better, during the missionary hour, we heard about the challenges to ministry in Chile and the Congo. The situation is so vastly different – for example, the terrible war in the Congo – and yet the needs are remarkably similar; theological training, godly pastors, faithfulness to Christ by his church; lve for the lost.

Of course, this should be no great surprise. The gospel is the same, and human sin and need are the same, Christ is the same.