Wild Wednesday

Andrew Katay | 20 September 2007

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

If Super-Tuesday was a bit of a fizzer, Wild Wednesday did not disappoint!

Three debates really stood out, each one illustrating an excellent tip for young Synod players.

We finished off debate on the Diocesan Education Policy. The key point was a canny amendment, suggesting that we substitute in the statement of personal faith the (modernised) wording of the 39 articles (“the Bible contains all things necessary for salvation, so that what cannot be read in it or proved from it is not to be required of anyone as an article of faith, nor held as necessary for salvation” – Article 6) for the original wording (“God’s word written, the Bible, is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct”).

The canniness of this amendment is that in an Anglican Synod, you can’t really argue against the 39 Articles! And so the defense of the original wording was based on the argument that it made explicit what was already implicit in the 39 articles.

And right there is the tip.

The fact is that the two statements are different. Article 6 is a version of what is called the ‘negative Scripture principle’ – that is, don’t do something (in this case, require it as an article of faith etc) unless it can be proved by Scripture. The Policy wording is a version of the ‘positive Scripture principle’ – that is, do everything commanded/taught by Scripture. Of course, the two are closely related, but they are not the same, and nor does it seem to me that the latter is implicit in the former.

And so the tip is this: if you’re going to argue for something, argue for it on its own terms. In my opinion, it would have been cleaner to say, ‘Yes, it’s different, it goes beyond the Article, and in this case, that’s what we want and need’ and then defend that. Recognising that the 39 articles don’t do every job is no disloyalty to them.

The second debate was the continuing discussion of the Connect 09 (Funding) Ordinance. As I said yesterday, as far as I can tell, everyone thinks that doing something big and co-ordinated as a Diocese is a great idea – well almost everyone.

A remarkable thing happened. There was opposition to even the in-principle motion – that is, on the basis that ‘we are too dependent on resources’ and haven’t involved the other denominations, someone (a rock solid evangelical/evangelistic etc person) stood to say that we should not even look at the proposal in detail, and rather it should be sent back to St Andrew’s House for further development. The in-principle motion was passed, but it showed that there is a lot more work to do.

Then three amendments were considered, none of which got through (in fact, it was a bad night for amendments all round). The first amendment was to link Connect 09 to the massively funded “Jesus – all about life” advertising campaign, to be conducted by the Bible Society in 2009. The fact that the Romans Catholic church was involved with the equivalent campaign in Tasmania gave some cause for concern, but the fact remains that one of the features of the Billy Graham crusades was their cross-denominational nature, which we declined to emulate.

The second amendment concerned the funding mechanism. As it stood funds are to be raised by way of a levy charged to the parishes. The amendment sought to allow an ‘opt-in’ mechanism, whereby the charge would be applied to parishes where the Parish Council voted for it. To this blogger, the amendment made good sense, and contrary to all political wisdom, I spoke in support of it. I remember one chapel sermon at College, where we budding pastors were urged to undertake a ministry grounded in persuasion, not coercion, and so last night quoted 2 Cor 9.7 – “give … not under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver”. Anyway, the amendment was lost, at least in part in response to the speech that followed; which leads to the second tip for Synod rookies.

When responding to someone’s argument, make sure you don’t misrepresent what they have said. It’s tempting, since sometimes it’s easier to argue against a straw man – but it’s a lousy thing to do, everyone sees it, and it makes you look dull at best, or sneaky at worst.

The third amendment led to remarkable scenes. It was to change the charge to the parishes to a proportion rather than a flat rate. The arguments are finely balanced, as was the vote – indistinguishable on the voices, and then 187-185 lost on the count of hands – the crowd erupted! Someone stood to ask for a vote in houses, and then another to ask for a secret ballot (which seemed to make a lot of sense), but when challenged to provide the Standing Order under which they were operating, didn’t have it to hand. In the general confusion and mirth that followed, the chairman simply put the motion and we moved on, all a bit bemused that it had been dealt with in such a summary fashion.

And so the third tip for Synod spruikers – know your Standing Orders!

There were some other important things that happened yesterday – both Coogee and Newtown/Erskineville were accepted as full parishes; the need to assess the presence of asbestos was embraced; and a motion accepting “the emerging scientific consensus that climate change is occurring” was passed.

All good stuff. However, I’m left with the feeling that in relation to each of my three tips, as a Synod, we missed an opportunity – that is, an opportunity to express trust. Trust that we can say what we mean, trust that parishes are as committed to mission as head office and don’t need to be levied in order to be financially involved, and trust in a slow and careful process.

Does trust belong in the million-miles-an-hour, hard-nosed business paper of a Synod? It’s a challenge, there’s no doubt about it; and it’s not as though it’s altogether absent. But concrete opportunities to express trust don’t come up that frequently, and I think, sadly, we let some go through to the keeper yesterday.

A few days break, and then next week the issue that everyone has been waiting for – the Parish Administration Ordinance!