Still short of time. A lot is going on, including a tangihanga at Te Pa o Te Hui Amorangi o Te Waipounamu, Christchurch. So, let's head to Taonga and let some reports there do the talking for Anglicans living Down Under this week.
A very important change at our recent General Synod/Te Hinota Whanui was made to our Title D - canon on ministry standards. This article is a great introduction to the change - a change which does need explaining to our church, to laity and to clergywith appropriate supportive training/education.
Two notable women in our church have died recently, Margaret Bedggood and Huia Tahere. I have been privileged to know each of them a little - and the local tangihanga is for Huia Tahere. Dr Jenny Te Paa offers a tribute to each of them here.
Our recent Synod grappled with a motion concerning Israel/Gaza/West Bank and, in the end, did not vote to pass it. General Synod/Te Hinota Whanui in Tonga also grappled with a motion and passed it. Arguably, the latter offered better balance than the former re the nuanced challenge of condemning evil on all sides of the conflict in the Middle East, including the evil spilling over into the wider world per increased anti-semitism and lack of safety for Jews.
My point here is not to recite either motion or to analyse details in each motion but to note here that Anglicans Down Under are concerned about what is happening in Israel/West Bank/Gaza. Anglican Taonga, for instance, notes (via this article in the Middle East Monitor) a recent inhibition by Israel of Christian teachers. Even in the last week, news reports continue to add one bleak picture after another of Israel proactively making life horrible for Palestinians. Can anything be done?
12 comments:
Disheartening Christchurch synod couldn't find a way to make a strong statement regarding the genocide in Gaza, especially as other synods (our national one, and even the fractured C of E General Synod) have managed that. If we can't condemn genocide...gosh.
Hi Mark,
Actually, our General Synod didn't condemn genocide - that word is not necessarily a word around which every member of any diverse representative body of Christians will agree. The GS motion was agreeable in all it did condemn, and in its even-handedness in condemning many things. I am confident that if the GS motion had come to our synod we would have agreed to it; but the motion which was proposed, was not agreed to - for varied reasons declared and for reasons undeclared (i.e. not every voter expressed their mind).
What part of the "apartheid free bill" was unacceptable?
Was it
1. That apartheid, occupation, and systems of institutional discrimination are
contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and that Christian Zionism, as a
theology that has produced apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide of
indigenous people, is a theological distortion and a moral corruption of the
Gospel.
Or
2. That the Diocese of Christchurch aspires to be an apartheid-free Diocese,
seeking to align its common life, stewardship, and public witness with the
pursuit of justice, peace, and human dignity.
So shocking and gutting for many if us to see the diocese not support this, Peter. It's so hard sometimes to be a practicing Anglican and feel a strong sense of connection to to the diocese and episcopacy.
I don't think either parts of the motion were unacceptable. In the end it is second guessing to work out whya motion (of any kind fails) but in this case, some speeched (if representative) were concerned that the motion (a) failed to condemn Hamas (b) failed to condemn antisemitism (c) expressed no understanding about how such motions contribute to making life difficult for Jews in NZ.
How did you vote?
Normally I do not vote on motions. However in this instance a division was called for (vote by each house, bishops, clergy, laity).. While in such sn instant I could declare my vote after other votes are declared, in this instance I decided to leave synod in no doubt as to whether I would block the motion or not, and declared that I was voting in favour.
Thank you
Unlike a Quaker ‘meeting for clearness’, which I understand is a way to find consensus on an issue, a democratic vote does not take into account the many variations of thought that may be involved in the subject, and those who disagree are left behind. The bigger the subject and the bigger the group, the greater likelihood there will be of strong disagreements, because people come from such different starting points.
Unfortunately, the democratic system is all we have so we have to accept that not everyone will be satisfied!
So maybe it is a blessing the motion failed?
In what sense?
It could have been very divisive with many people dissatisfied with the outcome, whatever the result. It seemed to contain a number of things that I think would be contentious.
However, I will look for the GS bill which was passed, as +Peter suggested it had wider acceptance, which might approach a better consensus.
It's already divisive with many people dissatisfied with the result - such as me and many others I know! The question is: what is true? What is right? Is it true that Israel have been engaged in genocide, apartheid and ethnic cleansing in Palestine? UN experts on genocide and local Palestinian Christian theologians say yes. Is it true that Christian Zionism has supported has built a culture in which Israel is held to be less accountable than other states, say Russia, and is supplied with the physical weaponry it needs for its ongoing genocidal campaign?
And then, if true, the question is: what is this diocese going to do about such a horrendous, ongoing reality?
The reality is so horrendous that many of us wish to avoid it, of course.
Post a Comment