Crossed to the dark south side of the city last night for our pre-synod meeting. This is where General Synod members from the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway go through the synod agenda and mull it over before actually going to synod to do the business in a fortnight.
This year promises to be quite a technically complex synod. There are a lot of changes to canon law being considered and it seems that we are not all of one mind about them all.
There seemed to be quite a small turn-out last night, which is a bit worrying. I find it immensely helpful to hear what others from the diocese think before actually going to synod. There are always views that you don’t expect to hear and it is fascinating hearing people try to articulate why they do or do not agree about things.
This year there are several obvious points of interest. Canonically, we are looking again at congregational status. The idea is that Independent congregations would become incumbencies, those who are priests in charge would all become rectors and as if by magic sleight of hand, it will then be possible to link congregations together in a sensible way. I approve of the latter strongly, but find it hard to understand why all the changes are necessary.
There is a similar complex issue about the church trying to identify who its members are. This sounds easy, but the truth is, we have little idea. Not everyone who thinks of themselves as an Episcopalian appears on any church roll. Not everyone who appears on a church roll thinks of themselves as belonging to the Episcopal church. Trying to sort this out brings about new anomalies.
Then there is a debate to be had about Local Collaborative Ministry and related matters. My latest on this is that I believe in an increasingly participatory ministry but am not yet convinced by the Whole Total Full Body Ministry of All the Baptised People of God.
And finally, we are getting a real substantive vote on the Anglican Covenant proposals. Motion 3 this year is stated thus:
That this Synod affirm an ‘in principle’ commitment to the Covenant process at this time (without committing itself to the details of any text).
This is going to be difficult. I suspect that like a lot of people who will be at synod, I want to vote for the motion which follows this one, which commits us to engage in the processes of the Communion by discussion and debate. But do you think my arm is going in the air to vote in principle in favour of the Covenant process?
Not in my name, Bishop Rowan. Not in my name.
I wonder whether we might be able to find an amended text for Motion 3 that will keep the church together and which we could all vote for.
I fail to see what benefits LCM offer that outweigh its drawbacks, and am curious what the imptetus behind it is. It’s a bit like when they diluted Batman’s appeal by giving him endless sidekicks :-).
Well Ryan, without LCM, we would not have had the moon-landings nor ended world poverty.
Or so it would sometimes seem.
Oh dear! I have been infelicitous in my choice of words, Kimberly, and I am justly taken to task. What I was trying to say is that some members of congregations adopt a fairly passive approach to church membership, which doesn’t prevent some of the literature broadening the term ‘ministry’ to include activities ranging from the most mundane to core activities such as preaching, leading worship and leading intercessions. All contributions to the life of the congregation are valuable (and valued) in different ways, I know, but we need a terminology which respects the centrality and the indispensable character of the ministries of Word and Sacrament.
Seems to me that Motion 3 carries too much assumption or reliance on the outcome of the Covenant process, as though its role is determined. That is where the `nuance’ is missing, in that the Faith & Order folks’ response was to think of a more positive document instead.
I’d be tempted to vote against that motion as stated at this stage myself, for sure. Let all the primates play nice or not at all.
How about this as an amended text for Motion 3?
‘That this Synod affirms its commitment to the fellowship of churches in the Anglican Communion and to the pursuit of agreement on matters of contention through discussion and debate via the consultative and synodical structures of the Communion.’