General Synod 2010 concluded in
Reflections on General Synod 2010
Dear Friends,
General Synod 2010 concluded in
It is interesting that, unlike previous synods, this
one did not receive much attention from the non-church media.
The absence of mainline press was surprising in light of what transpired.
The Synod was visited by two major figures in the Communion, Kenneth
Kearon, who is the Secretary General of the
The one issue of cultural and ethical relevance that
has threatened to paralyse the Church for the past five synods received an
apparently benign treatment at this gathering.
It was clear from the
Primate’s opening address
that there was little appetite for debating the subject of the blessing of
same-sex unions. Consequently, the
Synod Agenda arranged for a series of ‘Sexuality Discernment’ sessions where
members could discuss the matter in small groups.
Each group had a facilitator and a recorder, and the record of all of the
conversations fed into a
‘Discernment on Sexuality’ statement
that was strongly endorsed by the Synod.
What is the significance of this statement?
In light of the numerous questions I have received since the end of
Synod, let me make a few brief observations and say something about how I
understand the it.
a)
The church clearly remains deeply conflicted about this matter, and there is no
clarity of mind in the Church’s highest council.
‘Ongoing dialogue and discernment’ (§1) is therefore required, and we are
committed to it, both within our diocese, between our dioceses, and with our
partners in the Majority World (§5). We
will endeavour to be faithful to our duty of ‘mutual accountability’ (§5) and we
hope that no one will foreclose dialogue and discernment by acting
precipitately.
b)
In addition to its ‘commitment’ to theological and biblical study (§1), the
Statement affirms a ‘commitment’ to walk together, thus ‘protecting our common
life’ (§3). It is worth noting that
the language of mutual commitment is the language of covenant, and that without
such pledges of obligation, our fragile common life cannot be sustained, let
alone deepened. In my opinion, this
points up the need not only to refrain from acting hastily, but to give serious
consideration to the
c)
The affirmation of the ‘full inclusion of gay and lesbian members in our
churches’ is to be understood in the context of an affirmation of the ‘wide
range of perspectives on the issue of same-gender blessings’ (§3).
What this must mean is that every contribution to the conversation is to
be valued, as it was in our small group discussions.
We do, of course, accept ‘that different local contexts call at times for
different local discernment, decision and action’ (§4), but this is within the
call to all
d)
‘When one acts there are implications for all’ (§4).
This statement is an acknowledgement of the fact that we are mutually
interdependent. While formal terms
for the nature of this interdependence is what the Covenant is about, this
interdependence goes beyond the formal structures of our Church insofar as the
actions of individual dioceses or bishops can have constructive or destructive
consequences in the lives of those beyond diocesan borders.
In affirming this statement we are obliged to articulate the nature of
the likely cost in ‘people’s daily lives and deeply held faith commitments’ (§6)
of any action the Church may be contemplating.
e)
I believe that a commitment to the moratoria is what is required if we are to
‘grow closer in the body of Christ and behold each other as gift’ (§7).
Gracious restraint is the foundation of a fellowship whereby ‘we are
sustained through struggle, patient listening, and speaking from the mind and
heart together’ (§7).
Time will tell whether the Synod’s decision to
address this divisive matter by way of a statement rather than a resolution is a
genuine expression of charity or an avoidance of responsibility.
Let us hope and pray for a deepening trust in the Church, for trust will
certainly be required in the emerging administrative structures of our national
governance.
Another significant action of the Synod was to make
the number of delegates to General Synod more representational of the number of
people who actually attend church (A029A),
and to reduce the
size of the Council of General Synod
(the Church’s executive body) from 42 to 28, meaning that not every diocese will
have a member on the Council.
Consequently, in the next triennium the dioceses of the
One of the reasons for downsizing CoGS is that it is expensive.
In the last triennium they met twice per year at a cost of over $70,000
per session. The General Synod is
facing a nearly $1 million shortfall this year and must trim half of that from
its operating costs to meet its budget.
It is hoped that new philanthropy initiatives will help to redress this
situation, and the Synod formalised these by the setting up of a Philanthropy
Committee operating under the Financial Management Committee.
We will continue to be involved in the national church initiatives (our
bequest identification project has already identified $1.5 million earmarked for
the diocese of Algoma).
These challenges could be regarded as projecting a
bleak future for the Church. But
there were signs of enthusiasm and vitality.
There was an engaging presentation on Fresh Expressions by Canon Nick
Brotherwood (it was similar to the session he gave us at our synod, without the
technological glitches!). Following
the success of the ‘Amazing Grace’ project, which raised more than $100,000 for
the Suicide Prevention Program for the dioceses of the Council of the North, the
Synod embarked on a
‘Silent Night’ project
in aid of the
The Synod also endorsed a strategic plan for the
work of the Church from now until 2019 based on the
Five Marks of Mission.
It is more of a strategic direction than a plan, but, like our own plan,
it identifies seven priorities: developing leadership education for mission,
evangelism and ministry; supporting ministry through the Council of the North;
walking with Indigenous peoples on a journey of healing and wholeness; working
toward peace and justice; engaging young people in mutual growth for mission;
enlivening worship; and being leaders in the
Of these priorities, the one that I suspect will
show the most rapid development will have to do with the Council of the North
and the steps towards greater self-determination of our First Nations
The Synod also noted some important upcoming
celebrations. First of all, Synod
agreed to mark this year, 2010, as the United Nations Year of the Seafarer, with
special liturgies and/or support for the Missions to Seafarers.
Then, 2011 will be the 400th anniversary of the
Authorized Version of the Bible (also
known as the King
Lastly, no Synod would be complete without the
presence of keynote speakers. This
time we were pleased to meet Bishop Miguel Tamayo of
This is
fitting note on which to conclude my report.
I confess that I have always found General Synods difficult.
I am an introvert. I dislike
conflict. I worry that we do not
always have our wits about us as a Church, or that we are not prepared to
embrace the call to suffering that is characteristic of all true discipleship.
But each Synod has had its moments of blessing.
I am grateful for the fellowship of the Algoma delegation, for the
opportunity of meeting up with old friends and colleagues, and of making new
friends and acquaintances. I am
also grateful for the privilege of serving the Church in this capacity, for even
with all of its blemishes (of which I am probably one of the more offensive), it
is still Christ’s pure and spotless bride.
The next General Synod will be in 2013 in
Almighty and everliving God, source of all wisdom and understanding, we thank
you for your presence with those who met in
The Rt Rev. Dr Stephen Andrews
Bishop of Algoma