These are some reflections from the General Synod of the Australian Anglican Church that occurred over the last week on the Gold Coast. There is no specific ordering. These are my own thoughts and not official to any denomination or Church body. These are but reflections to be considered, used, disagreed with or agreed with, reflected upon, discarded or kept. I cannot control what others think or believe as that is up to their own conscience and wrestling with God nor can I control peoples attitudes.
Governance and the Church
There were elements of usefulness in the process that the church uses but these all appeared to be clumsy at the best and divisive more often then not. In placing governance into a political context of binary sum games it is inevitable that there is going to be dissension. The very understanding of the parliamentary system is a binary sum game as can be seen from secular politics, labour vs liberal and nothing between the two. The concept of a hung parliament is anathema to most as it removes our binary thinking. Yet, we believe in a Trinitarian God and the last I looked there is no binary in Trinitary however much we long for this. Trinity implies a community that is at least loving, not necessarily liking, that prefers to communicate, listen and comprehend each persons view. There does not have to be consensus but rather respectful understanding and acceptance of each others views a parliament does not create such a space of governance. The fact that there was give and take, with motions being removed in response to motions from the opposing wing doing the same, points to the confrontational duality that is the parliamentary method. I did read during the week a comment to the effect that because the majority view appeared to be gaining numbers and the minority view was declining than obviously the majority view was correct. I trust that such authors understand what happens politically when such things occur. Perhaps, I need point only to the Handmaids tale, Afghanistan, China, Uganda (under Amin) and other such regimes of political suppression and the division it incurs within society. We perhaps need to ask; is there a better way? It may be harder, it may be more challenging, it may mean sacrifice of majority but it may bring listening, discerning and love back into the process.
Interpretation
The majority of people realise that interpretation is dependent on a large number of factors not least of which are understanding the mind of the writer, the context of the writer, the mind of the original recipient of the written work, the context of said recipient and the context and mind of the interpreter. Yet, we still find many people who are unable to conceive of an alternate viewpoint let alone listen and acknowledge such a viewpoint. In doing so those that project such certainty, at least to my mind, appear to believe that they know the mind of God. I had thought such a view had gone out of the window sometime ago.
An apparent sexual fixation
I think the vast majority of the debates on synod floor where to do with, ultimately, the sexual behaviour of the population or at least the Anglican confessing population. Or so it seemed. The implication for me was that everyone was to comply to prudish norms from the fifteen hundreds without consideration of changes over the centuries. Much of the debate was centred around legal exactitude (not seeing the intent but only the letter) something that Christ himself was very dismissive of (Luke 11:37-52). One has to wonder why there is such a moral outrage with regards to how humans express their inborn sexuality. I understand those things that are unacceptable within any society but that was not what was being discussed but rather the belief that one person's moral, apparently superior, judgement should be imposed on another. This is not loving but rather dictatorial and suppressive suggesting that one sexuality is normative and all others are deviant. Even the scriptures show many different sexualities being expressed which are not normative in our society, but included as normative e.g. multiple sexual partners/wives. (Unless, of course, those challenged by such things believe that the multiple wives lived in chaste arrangements). God's commandment is love so I would have assumed that, at least in our limited view, we should also be focussed on love and not sexuality. Yes, sexuality is part of the expression of love but only a very minor part. Indeed when love was included in the debate there was a considered turning away from such love.
Hypocrisy
It has been clear for some time, at least to me, that hypocrisy is rife within the Church, not just the Anglican one. I am well aware of those that proclaim God's love in one setting completely turn around in other settings castigate those that they said they loved. In one such scenario I am fully aware of an upstanding Christian suggest publicly that they assisted and reached out to those from the Aboriginal and Torres Straits communities and then go on public broadcasts to state how abhorrent such people were and thus in their view should not be around. Such a state of hypocrisy was driven home when an apology to the LGBTIQA+ community was passed by the full house and yet a motion to affirm Same sex marriage (civil not Church) was lost by a majority. A point certainly of double standards within the religious life when the two motions are considered next to each other.
Consensus
On reflection it would be presumed that despite differences the Anglican polity could at least reflect some form of unity within itself as this is what God asks of each of us to accept in loving understanding of the other. The key words I believe are 'loving understanding' which means not necessarily agreeing with the other but at least understanding and loving them with respect. Apparently this is not so without having to input specific beliefs. In other words I can only love you if you accept what I believe or what I say my interpretation is or how you must conform to the way I do things. This is not love this is purely and simply a child having a tantrum and screaming in the supermarket aisle "I WANT".
Final thoughts
The Synod process is meant to involve a discerning of God's presence and guidance through the Spirit. There was no space given for that to occur, everything was rushed to conform to a human timetable. Many of the motions should not have come to debate on the floor and if they did the motions brought should have given space and allowance for the work of God's Spirit in acknowledging difference and finding an acceptable way forward that brings rejoicing and not grieving. Indeed, some were so shattering that debate and vote amounted to an abuse of that person or the individuals concerned. Difference needs to be present otherwise we cannot move towards love as difference spurs us to seek God's presence and guidance, so that we can listen, so that we can grow, so that we can accept the other who is God. Does anyone really think that they know G*d intimately in such a manner that we know how G*d thinks? Surely if we say yes than we are not Christians. Perhaps we need to re-consider how Synods are run so that we can become a different and loving church.
