The great gender debate

Andrew Katay | 26 September 2007

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

The longest committee meeting I know of went for 56 years – from 325 to 381 – and resulted in the Niceo-Constantineopolitan Creed (try saying that 5 times quickly!). Sydney Synod is not quite in the same league as those great ones of ages past, and nor is the issue of the same magnitude, but last night we decided to extend for another year discussion of an issue that won’t go away.

But before we come to that, a confession. Every year, there’s a motion which looks innocuous enough in advance, but which when it’s actually being debated makes me resolve to take much more care next time. This year, it was a motion rejecting all forms of domestic abuse, and in particular, both upholding husbandly headship and wifely submission, while rejecting any use of that pattern of marriage in justifying abuse.

There were a number of curious aspects to it. For one, I was a little surprised that we were repeatedly told that the terms in the motion (‘leadership’ and ‘submission’) were important to keep on the basis that they were Bible terms – if that was the goal, why not include the actual Bible term, ‘headship’?

But the thing I was kicking myself over was the little word ‘the’ – the motion stated that “loving sacrificial leadership of a husband and the intelligent voluntary submission of a wife is the Biblical pattern of marriage”. As I listened to the debate about whether to amend the motion to replace these terms with simply “Bible teaching on marriage” or not (the amendment was eventually lost), I wondered whether the issue could have been placed on a much firmer footing by saying that it was ‘an element of the Biblical pattern of marriage’, rather than ‘the’. Certainly it is not the only thing that the Bible says about marriage, although it is the thing that needs to be stated and explained clearly, as well as absolutely distinguished from any justification for abuse. Anyway, the motion was passed, but sadly not with the same degree of absolute unanimity that the issue deserved.

In fact, it was the day for dealing with relationship and gender issues.

Over the last decade, churches right across the world have been trying to respond to the damage done by people in positions of Christian leadership perverting that trust and committing child abuse or sexual abuse of an adult. The national Anglican church, along with our Synod, has worked extremely hard to introduce a uniform code of conduct, professional standards units, and effective pastoral responses. The next phase proposed for this process is what is called a ‘National Register’, which collates information nationally on those who have been found guilty of such abuse.

It is a very difficult issue, because there are competing needs. On the one hand, there is the need to protect vulnerable people, especially children, from those who would sexually abuse them. On the other hand, there is need to protect clergy and lay leaders from having their reputation destroyed through false or unproven accusations. These needs clash at two points: what should be on the register – only proven offenses, or accusations made that have not been proven, but nor are vexatious, or ill-conceived? And second, who should have access to the information? Underlying this is the very difficult challenge of balancing the two needs. As I understand it, however, only a very small percentage of accusations of child or adult sexual abuse turn out to be false, which would suggest that the balance should lie on the side of protection of potential abuse victims, not on the protection of reputation.

The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia meets next month, and one of the issues for decision is a canon concerning the national register. In the end, last night we decided to delay consideration of the issue until next year, after the general Synod has met, when we will need to decide whether and in what form to adopt the National Register Canon. But it’s good to see the ongoing process of weeding out shepherds who would destroy the flock.

At the other end of the emotional spectrum was a presentation on the funding strategy of the Diocese for mission. Hardly likely to arouse strong passion, it is nonetheless one of the most important achievements of the last few years to establish a process for allocating finances that is explicitly connected to the mission in which we are engaged, not simply a ratcheting of funding from the previous year.

Running a close second in the emotionally detached stakes was the exposure draft of the Parish Administration Ordinance. A helpful clarification and tidying up of the existing (and confusing) rules, some thought it didn’t go far enough, although apparently, that is still on the agenda as the next task.

And so finally to our attempt at the longest debate in the history of Christendom. The final motion for the session was in regard to the ordination of woman as priests. It called for recognition that whilst the majority opposes this, and the Synod has voted to consistently to prevent it, there is a “small but significant” minority who have a different view, and asked the Archbishop to explore way for these “… different views [to be] creatively lived out in the life and practice of the diocese”.

To be honest, this blogger finds it difficult to see what this might mean. Ordination, like infant baptism, is one of those concrete, physical, either-or things – either it happens, or it doesn’t, and once it has happened, it’s a ‘happening thing’! It is not possible for such views to be ‘lived out’ in life and practice at the same time, although of course it’s possible for people of different views to live together (though it’s by no means easy).

But time ran out! There was some procedural confusion, as amendments, points of order, unclear votes and claims of ‘debate being stymied’ went backwards and forwards, and as the hour got late, we ended up deciding to put off the motion until next year. Something to look forward to!

Was it a good Synod? It’s always a hard question to answer. We did some important things – the education policy, a first attempt at responding to the issue of climate change, dealing with Asbestos on church property, and parish administration.

Of course, the biggest item was Connect 09. One really valuable thing about the diocesan mission is that it gives focus and form to potentially fractured and disparate meetings like Synod, and we benefited from that focus. But making the decisions is the easy part – implementing them is what matters. It’s going to be a big next couple of years!