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?
17 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.
I take your point, though, Moya, regarding creating division in the pursuit of truth versus the unity of the Body.
This is one of Peter's major concerns, I think, in terms of this blog, in the journey of being Anglican down under, and more specifically, no doubt in terms of being a bishop and what that means.
I have recently written a
my own response to this concern from a Quaker perspective - "Was Jesus concerned with 'the inner'?" If you're interested, you can read it at
https://www.tumblingages.co.nz/blog-2/was-jesus-concerned-with-the-inner
I read and enjoyed your blogpost, Mark. The weird thing was that to some extent it reminded me of Jeff Sharlet writing about attending a Trump rally a few years back, he conversed at some length with an attendee and he discussed that conversation in the context of gnosticism and the gospel of Thomas. Such things get woven into the mish-mash of maga-spirituality and QAnon, and same with one-ness. So surreal. That's just an observation, I have about zero understanding of such things.
I'm suspicious of unity. As far as I can see truth tends not to lead to unity. It tends to divide. A lot of people don't want to face reality, especially in the church. They appear to want to settle for a nice comfortable nice-ness. Well, the world's actually a really discomforting reality at the moment. Conditions for Palestinians are heart-rendingly terrible. Migrants in the U.S. are getting packed into concentration camps and that's not letting up - it's escalating. As the people of God we're supposed to be able to face reality, face the truth, and name it. And stand with those who are vulnerable and oppressed. I refuse to be apologetic for anger on behalf of people who are suffering. Jesus took the side of the weak and suffering and confronted the powerful religious leaders of his day. He even got angry. Why do we patsy around so much worrying about "unity"? Jesus didn't water down his message in the interests of "unity"!!!
Bless your heart, Mark, thanks. It is clear that discussing the situation in Gaza and the West Bank already causes division in opinion and can generate more heat than light. We see ‘in a glass darkly’ and the truth is much bigger than what can be discerned, whether by experts or individuals.
To ‘keep the unity of the bond of peace’ requires humility and deep listening, even if we never achieve it completely.
Thanks for the link which is very thoughtful on duality and oneness, the inner and the outer.
Hello
A couple of notes re comments above:
1. In reality the Diocese passing or not passing a motion makes no difference to the horrible reality in Gaza/West Bank. At best we can contemplate the USA/Trump could make a difference [money/power/etc]. To date not one statement by any entity, let alone any church assembly or synod, has made an iota of difference to the current government of Israel's determination to act in the way it has been and is continuing to act.
2. We might lessen expectations about Synod's coming to decisions involving unity // consensus ... let me explain: Synod passes most motions with large majorities, if not unanimous votes; with a few motions, generally of the more "controversial" kind, less likely to achieve a large majority ... but considerable progress can be made towards a large majority (if not unanimity) if amendments to parts of the motion are proposed and agreed to, a process which can, even within a large body of people, lead to a rough or even a smooth consensus. One effect on such process is perception of time available: the close we get to the end of synod the less inclined people are to enter into a consensus-achieving set of amendments. That is, a failure to pass a given motion may or may not be a sign of something or other - it may merely be a sign that if more time were available, consensus could have been achieved ... perhaps next year ... etc.
Thank you for that Synod information, +Peter. It is encouraging to know there is an awareness of the need to move towards consensus there, if possible.
As for unity, Elizabeth, it takes its importance from Jesus’ final prayer before his suffering and death, that we may be one in God. It is a far cry for most of us but something that is meant to convey the unity in the Trinity, I guess. Jesus also said, ‘I came not to bring peace but a sword’ and that is borne out in a number of countries where death might well be the outcome of faith in him. In those places, the unity of believers in the face of persecution, can be a vital sign of spiritual life.
Truth is very important of course, though it needs to be coupled with grace to present it in Jesus’ way.
Post a Comment