Extremely troubling presidential address. 1/3 of the time was spent directly attacking Sydney diocese and former/current archbishops. Really poisonous stuff. I just cannot fathom how that relationship can be repaired from here. Not suggesting the Archbishop needs to be mates with them or to agree on everything (or anything) but this full frontal attack was next level. Really awful that he used that platform in that way.
In the presidential address: National Anglican Family Violence Project At diocesan level we have already considered some of the outcomes of the Anglican Church’s family violence research projects. This was the first time the General Synod had opportunity to do so. The General Synod recognised, as have we, the salutary outcomes of that research: the Church has allowed family violence to go largely unaddressed and the prevalence of intimate partner violence among Anglicans is as high, if not higher, than in the community at large. I pointed out in Synod last year that this report is based on an open access anonymous survey conducted on social media. Literally a Facebook poll. The statistics are unreliable and the conclusion that "intimate partner violence among Anglicans is as high, if not higher, than in the community at large." is not justified. As another synod rep pointed out this finding is inconsistent with other more reliable surveys. Family violence in all forms is something we as Christians should condemn but action should not be based on a faulty report like this. I suspect Anglican Church continues to run with this because It suits the extra-biblical ideological commitments of some people they're embarrassed to admit that a report they commissioned and paid for is flawed the people who wrote the report keep telling them how good the report is.
I felt the motion put forward by Archdeacon Mark Carlyon on the Ordination of Women was met with a very lack-lustre response. I hope there will be many celebrations throughout the year at Parish levels to honour all Women ordained to the Priesthood. I understand various Clergy needed to put forward motions relating to General Synod, but we are not seeing what our Laity are passionate about. I did get up in the Laity Conference to voice this. Not quite sure how people felt about what I said because there was total silence and no reinforcement from the Archbishop or Bishops. I don't enjoy that time anymore as it is just question and answer time. Very little time for any debate amongst the Laity. I agree with Graeme that the Faithfulness in Service went through without a hitch. I actually feel there should have been a count as both sides sounded quite strong. A lot of Priests are not happy with the change. I can be a bit cynical, but I believe from the Synod Sermon to the Archbishop's Address, to the Talking Circles that Synod Members were being primed all the way to ensure debate did not get out of hand and that we had all the information we needed beforehand. Talking Circles was just that. Round and round we go discussing issues we have already discussed. I will probably post again. Hopefully not being such a Negative Nellie. There are lots of things at Synod to be thankful for. They will shine through when I write a report for the Parish.
Originally posted in Brisbane priest responds to Abp. Phillip Aspinoll Discussion in 'Anglican and Christian News' started by Ananias, Friday at 9:48 PM. Rev. Peter Judge-Mears, a senior priest in the Diocese of Brisbane, has written an open letter to his Bishop regarding the latter's Presidential Address at the diocesan Synod. You can find the letter here.