The workings of Synods seem strange to most. An unknown group retires to an unseen place and news emerges that few read. At least, that’s how it used to be. But in recent years, the Sydney Anglican Synod has filled up with issues that media-types call ‘moral panic’ stories: same-sex marriage, spiritual abuses, abortion, church splits, transgender care. ‘Moral panic’ makes for great press. It lives less well. It turns the people of Good News into bad news, which hurts a little.
This year it’s church splits in the press, or ‘schisms’. A schism sounds worse than a split, and a split in turn sounds worse than a re-organisation – which happens in any group. ‘Schism’ sounds medieval and confirms what we suspect – that ‘the church’ meets in dark places to do dark things. We’ll return to this characterisation later and suggest it’s a little too dark.
But we are talking about real, possible divisions. The same-sex marriage debate played out into actual civil law and that is now playing out into actual church practice (Globally, in marriages. Nationally, in blessings.). Around the world this has often resulted in an impaired fellowship between Anglican Christians. It has meant new organisations like GAFCON (Global Anglican Futures Conference) and even new non-geographical dioceses in places like Canada, the U.S., Scotland and New Zealand. In our neck of the woods, Archbishop Glenn Davies recently asked bishops of Anglican dioceses who are approving services for affirming same-sex marriages to ‘please leave us’. (link) Schism, split, re-alignment, or something else? Why such a swift and stark request from the Archbishop? Why not more gentle conversation? This has provoked a few very confusing conversations in our own church.
Let me tell you the story of two conversations – one national and one local - so we can have a better conversation wherever we are.
THE NATIONAL CONVERSATION
The 1970’s sexual revolution began a slow tilt in biblical interpretation. In the 1980’s, books by scholars such as Scroggs, Countryman and Furnish (patent that business name now!) cast doubt on a pervious commonly-held belief: that the bible regards homo-erotic activity as sin.
This angle of interpretation saw Moore College and the Doctrine Commission of the Sydney Synod offer two key responses from 1994. Late to the party again, but unfashionably so.
· ‘Theological and Pastoral Responses to Homosexuality’, Webb, B. (ed.) May 1994
· ‘Human Sexuality and the Same-Sex Marriage Debate’, Doctrine Commission Report, 2014
These confirmed the traditional theology and ethic. Apart from this, numerous debates have been held in Synod which have uniformly affirmed the traditional interpretation of the relevant passages, have confirmed the received theology, and have resulted in motions calling other Dioceses to turn back from revised theology and practice.
How does a Diocese declare its’ mind? The doctrine of our diocese is built firstly on the belief in the sole final authority of the bible. Issues that arose in history were clarified by the foundational documents of the 39 Articles (a statement of doctrine) and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (this doctrine in practice) – which any Anglican organisation globally must affirm. In our day, other issues arising are clarified in time by Doctrine Commission Reports that are used by the Synod (a kind of church parliament) in forming motions of business. There are always dissenters and minority voices, but a consistent line of motions carried by a strong majority gives a very good clue as to the prevailing doctrine of the Diocese.
So the mind of the Diocese is bound to the bible, bounded by the 39 Articles, shaped by the Book of Common Prayer, and is expressed on issues that arise by doctrinal clarifications at a Synodical level. You can see that 35 years of conversation have led to some quite firm conclusions. Conversations usually do reach a moment of conclusion. In this instance, doctrine has been confirmed, pastoral care refined with an ongoing commitment to the traditional biblical sexual ethic. While chats continue between opponents nationally, Sydney Diocese can be accurately characterised as having reached a firm conclusion in the national conversation. I believe the Diocese is biblically faithful in this.
This tunes us into the nature of the national conversation.
THE LOCAL CONVERSATION
The local conversation is another thing altogether. It is important that locals understand the nature of the long-running national conversation and what looks like its concluding statements. But it would be unfair and coercive to imagine everyone should be ‘up to speed’ and immediately agree. We all enter this bigger conversation at different times and from different places.
Think of the person who becomes a Christian today in a wonderfully diverse workplace (as it should be!) and is just discovering how differently Jesus casts life for his followers. Or the person who grows up experiencing same-sex feelings and then begins to realise they live among a difficult and debated history like this. Or the person who grew up Anglican from childhood and finds they have grown away from the doctrines of their ‘home’ without even realising! This is a confusing and even painful situation for many.
So the local conversation actually begins again and again. It holds no-one to a hasty conclusion and bears with one another in love as it starts the conversation one-by-one again, new with each person. The local conversation assumes that all are welcome at church, that anyone can press further into God’s welcome by joining Jesus as His disciple, and that then a disagreement of conscience is a matter of discipleship and this realigns us. It may even mean at this point that one or other of us must regrettably leave. (See the previous blog, ‘Please Join Us!’)
This is the end of the local conversation, but let’s remember how it begins – fresh again with every new person.
HOW TO HAVE A GOOD CONVERSATION
So ‘schism’ is not what I would call it. This is not dark medievalism. This is a person to person challenging of consciences around the word. Our convictions are being re-organised, and it will affect our fellowship in churches. This is not a matter of indifference. So this has taken a long conversation at a national level. And it will take many fresh and repeated conversations at a local level.
So can I recommend some steps for a better local conversation?
Don’t assume you are in agreement with other church members, even in a strongly convinced majority culture.
Don’t be exasperated by others’ views, especially when they have not been in the denomination long, or if they have been here for so long that they feel as strong a sense of belonging as you.
Do be quick to listen, and slow to speak. (James 1:19)
Do be gentle and polite.
Do be ready to discuss the key areas of the bible. Slowly, carefully, fearfully.
Don’t be open to easy persuasion.
Do consider the detail of the scriptures and its’ overall story, examine your conscience in light of God’s word, and weigh the wisdom of others.
Do express sadness and grief that people may need to leave one another’s regular fellowship in worship over matters of conscientious disagreement. It’s just a very sad reality.