As the Sydney Diocese prepares for the second week of 2006 synod meetings, Bruce Ballantine-Jones reflects on that particular congregation’s past and the lessons for current representatives.

Up till 15 years ago Synod used to meet here in Chapter House. Try and imagine this place crammed with 600 or more people. I liked Synod here. Debates were more passionate. You could see the whites of their eyes, it was all so close. In 1963 synod was an all male affair. I think I was the youngest member and it seemed to me that everyone else was over 40. They all wore suits, collar and tie, the clergy all wore clerical collar and black academic gown. All the bishops, archdeacons, the chancellor, registrar, diocesan advocate and chairman of committees were squeezed onto the stage. All the hierarchy were resplendent in purple cassocks. Standing Committee members sat in the first two rows with benches to put their papers on.

Though the evangelicals were always in the ascendant, the high church group was more numerous than today, I would say about 20-25% of the Synod. They tended to sit together in the corner of the George Street entrance. That was the only place I could get a seat when I first started coming and for a while I wondered why I seemed to be the only person voting my way in that part of the building. When I realised why, I discreetly moved to "my" side of the aisle.

Archbishop Gough was the President for my first 3 years and was quite a good chairman. I had no idea of the turbulence raging beneath the surface as he and the native evangelicals wrestled for control of the diocese.

I have to admit that for the first few years I had no idea what anything in the Synod was about. The financial ordinances were a complete mystery, debates were dominated by the lawyers and a few clergymen, the rest of us were like spectators. It was all very technical but they spoke as if civilisation as we know it depended on the outcome of every amendment. Does this sound familiar?

I think the standard of debate was higher in the 60's than today. Certainly there were more old style orators than we have now.

On that score the most dramatic debate I ever witnessed was in 1964 about state aid for church schools. The Roman Catholics were for it, the protestants were against it, sectarianism reigned supreme.

At the 1963 general election, Prime Minister Menzies offered capital funding for science buildings in church schools. He won the election and so Synod had to decide whether it wanted our schools to accept the money. The anti state aid cause was lead by Professor Edwin Judge. Surprisingly the case for accepting the money was lead by Bishop Marcus Loane. As we all know he was a man of impeccable protestant credentials. Loane's position was that the grants were a fait accompli, so we may as well get our share. Judge saw it as a manifestation of Erastianism, i.e. the ascendancy of the state over the church. Loane was most incensed at the suggestion that he was an Erastian and the temperature of the debate lifted to a bright shade of red.

Hour after hour the debate raged. I was sitting in the gallery and it was like watching a tennis match or a prize fight. The mood of Synod swung one way after another until eventually the impasse was broken by none other than Bishop Clive Kerle. Old hands will remember him as a very gentle and peaceable man. When he got up to speak we all assumed he would support Loane but instead he sided with the conservatives on the ground that he did not like to pushed around by the politicians. The Synod voted not to accept the money.

It was a symbolic victory anyway because all the schools took the money and state aid has become an integral part of private education. The sky didn't fall in, the state education system has changed greatly, probably for the worse and we are wanting to expand our own school network for gospel reasons and need government funding to do it. It makes one wonder what the passion was all about!

An interesting footnote to this episode came my way at last year's Synod. I was talking to Edwin Judge about that debate and he told me that the following night he was standing outside the Chapter House about to enter and Bishop Loane came along. Conscious of the tension that might be between them, Loane said to Judge that they must be seen by the Synod to enter together so all would know that there were no hard feelings between them, so they went in together. I know as we get older we tend to look back with rose coloured glasses but I do sometimes feel that in those days we were in the presence of giants.

To that list of great synod personalities I would add Broughton Knox, Donald Robinson, Justices Norman Jenkin and Athol Richardson, Bishops Jack Dain, Donald Cameron and John Reid and among those still surviving, Neil Cameron.

By far the most entertaining feature of Synod under Archbishop Gough was the conflict between him and Francis James, the then publisher of the national anglican newspaper and noted critic of the diocese of Sydney. He was true eccentric both in appearance with his wide brimmed hat and vintage car and his life outside the church. Some will recall he was imprisoned by Mao Tse Tung as a spy for 3 years in the early 70's and only released following the visit to China of Gough Whitlam.

Anyway, he used to sit in the front row by the aisle. He spoke on everything, almost always on the losing side. It seemed to me his mission in Synod was to make life as difficult for Gough as it could be. He did this by taking endless points of order and asking provocative and rude questions on notice. On one occasion he put down some particularly rude questions and the next day, the president described them as impertinent and refused to answer them. The Synod cheered the archbishop, James ostentatiously gathered all his papers, stood up, bowed very low to the president and walked out to the thunderous applause for the Synod, not for him but for the archbishop. I thought to myself that is the last we will see of him, but no, next day, he was back as large as life, tormenting the archbishop as best he could.

By far the most exciting moment I can remember was the night Synod elected Marcus Loane as Archbishop in 1966. I would like to be able to say that that night was memorable because I made my maiden speech, which turned the debate and lead to Loane's great victory. I did make my maiden speech that night for Loane, but I don't think anything was going to alter the outcome, not even my speech!

When the result was declared and Loane entered the Chapter House the applause was so loud, so long and so intense that it was the most moving moment I ever experienced in the Synod. When he gave his acceptance speech and Australia had its first Australian born Archbishop the feeling of elation was overwhelming. I have never experienced anything like it in the forty years that have followed.

In my second 3 year term I was joined by three other young guns, Robert Tong, Terry Dein and Lindsay Johnstone.

The 16 years of Loane's leadership of the Synod coincided with a period of rapid social change, as those who lived through the 60's and 70's will recall and also the beginnings of change in the diocese as well. Under the influence of D.B. Knox the younger generation of clergy began agitating for the loosening of the rules on robes, liturgy and ministry structures.

In the Synod, Loane ruled with a firm but always fair hand. He was in my opinion the best Chairman I ever sat under. His knowledge of Standing Orders was as good as I ever saw. He never intervened in the course of debate but after it, if he was displeased, he would rise in his place, face glowing red, and deliver a broadside to whoever the unfortunate person was that aroused his anger. I vividly remember the night he gave both barrels to Neil Flower. Next day they made up.

I think the key feature of Loane's 16 years was the rising tension over what came to be known as the growth of centralism. As the resources of the diocese grew, and the hierarchy grew so it was that "Church House" became stronger and the parishes seemingly less independent. Broughton Knox articulated the anti centralism sentiment most eloquently and many of us fell in behind him. He no doubt was keen to repel the centre's attempt to curtail the independence of the college but as we know there was a serious theological issue at stake, namely the nature of the church as manifesting itself in local congregations over against the denomination with its regulations, legislative and coercive powers. That struggle began in that era, intensified during Donald Robinson's time, came to a head in Harry Goodhew's time and continues today.

I could go on wandering down memory lane but let me conclude by making a few observations about Synod as an institution, as I see it.

Synod
As constituted, our Synod gives expression to the principle of separation of powers much like the US constitution works to divide powers between the President and the Congress.

In our system the Archbishop has his rights and powers and the parishes, through the Synod, have their rights and powers. Synod is where the two sides of the equation come together. Unlike other dioceses where bishops tend to dominate, in Sydney there is a healthy balance which moderates the behaviour of the hierarchy on the one hand and the clergy and the leity on the other. Of course from time to time tensions arise but, over all, our system is a good one.

Our Synod is fundamentally a fair minded body. It will not tolerate personal abuse or even the slightest reflection on a member. It will assist the little person who doesn't know the correct procedures. It will listen courteously to an argument it strongly disapproves of and will even applaud the courage of the individual making the speech. I think it is often too much of a soft touch to the bleeding heart speech and sometimes votes for something silly but mostly the head wins over the heart. When you go to General Synod you see a very different animal and you come back to Sydney thankful that the word of God, faithfully taught in the parishes, has had it's affect on Synod's behaviour and that makes one feel very good.

Synod has a pivotal role in defending the gospel for our churches. I pay tribute to the work of the ACL over nearly 100 years in helping the Synod keep our diocese true to the scriptures and our Anglican formularies. Make no mistake, without the ACL, Sydney Diocese would have become a mish-mash of theological opinions tending away from the truth towards liberalism and ritualism. I have been a proud member of the ACL for nearly 40 years. Whilst no human institution is free from mistakes, the League, year in year out, has never given up on its role of defending gospel truth and supporting gospel growth in this diocese. Long may that continue.

Synod has become a more complex and intimidating place. This is due to the increasing complexity of diocesan affairs and the growth of resources. We mightn't like this development but it is the nature of things. What we at least have to do is use the forms of the house to hold people and organisations accountable.

Not withstanding all this, don't be starry eyed about Synod. There is always more going on than you see on the surface. Believe me, I know! That is the nature of old, large complex institutions as Sir Humphrey Appleby so helpfully taught us.

Always remember Synod and the hierarchy serve a greater purpose than the diocese, namely the growth of the gospel in local churches. To the extent that Synod, the leadership, Standing committee and all the other bodies serve that end they do well, to the extent that they obstruct or are ineffectual they do badly.

At the practical level, what is Synod for?

There are some things Synod always has to do, some things it ought to do, some things it would be good to do and other things it doesn't matter one way or the other. So that when Synod meets it has to do elections, it has to pass money bills and it has to pass legislation for the order and good government of the Diocese. These things should always have priority on the business paper. Then there are ordinances and policy issues that it would be good to deal with, though not strictly necessary. They should get the next level of priority. As for the rest, don't worry about them, the world won't come to an end if we don't get to them, the world won't change much even if we do, so we just have to have a sense of proportion to distinguish what is necessary from what is desirable to what is irrelevant and allocate time accordingly.

One last point: because the essential life of the church finds its expression in local churches rather than denominational structures this has lead some to take less interest in synodical affairs as they can't always see the connection. This is a dangerous development as in the end almost everything the Synod does impacts on the local church. That is why vigilance is always required and why the best evangelical minds must sacrifice their non parish time to synodical matters to ensure that the Synod, the Standing Committee and the diocese as a whole always stays true to God's word and serves the gospel mission in local churches. This is not always easy but if the best of the evangelical leaders don't do it the worst of the rest will move in and fill the vacuum and within a generation or two the gospel may be lost to our diocese as it has been in so many others.

Thank you for listening to me and may God's blessing and protection always be with our synod and our diocese.

The Rev. B. A. Ballantine-Jones
Retiring rector of Jannali and a member of Sydney Synod since 1963.
16th October 2006