Although it was one of the best, most happy and certainly best run General Synods in memory, there were, of course, still some glitches and difficulties in Canberra in October.

One thing that I noticed was that the General Synod have not yet got to the point of maturity where we can talk about matters involving indigenous Australians with any real honesty or even critical thought. But I am hopeful that now with indigenous membership of the General Synod Standing Committee we will move forward.

The most serious and troubling issue for many, especially from the Diocese of Sydney, is the way in which the General Synod dealt with the motion thanking God for his love to us in the death of Jesus Christ for our sins. The General Synod decided that the question be not put. So upset was one member of the delegation that I heard he had boycotted the Synod Holy Communion next day over the refusal of the Synod. What had gone wrong?

The problem with the motion very movingly presented by Dr Barry Newman, which can often occur in as complex a world as the General Synod, is the suspicion of motives.

That is, the reason why it fared so badly wasn't because of what the motion said but because a number of the General Synod, at least as I heard them, didn't trust the reason why the motion was being moved.

It was feared that a motion about the atonement, even though it had a helpful caveat that there were many models but no one model was sufficient, was being used as a kind of wedge. A wedge is a political use of a statement which, while on the surface appears straightforward, is actually meant to divide or embarrass one's opponents. Drive a wedge through them, as it were. I know that this was strongly denied by Barry Newman. In fact, after his speech I think the Synod would have voted for it. But then, as the "debate" continued, increasingly one could feel the Synod unity falling apart. It wasn't what was being said but why that continued to be a trouble to many of the more liberal catholic sections of the Synod. Why were they being given exhortations, even mini-sermons, about the death of Christ and in particular his substitutionary atonement? Was it to praise God, as the intention was given, or was it something else?

After some rather unsatisfactory replies to this motion, the Synod simply decided not to put the question. No one really was happy. In fact, one of the bishops even was thinking about moving a motion thanking Dr Newman for raising the issue, a sign that there was a bad conscience (or confused conscience).

Is there a lesson in this? I guess it depends on how you want to read it. It is possible to read this as yet another evidence of the perfidy of the General Synod in general as it were, and particularly the more liberal catholic section. Or it could be used as a genuine attempt to ask ourselves questions about our intentions, or at least perceived intentions. Are all our motions meant to be straightforward or are there often hidden agendas? Even if not in the mover, is it not possible at times to portray a hidden agenda from the other speakers?

I don't know. I accept this was an unhappy moment and one I think ought cause us more thoughtful reflection than just a sense of indignation.