Uniting Church Synod analysed through lense of generational values
Sunday, October 30th, 2005At the third session of the Generations in Conversation course we took as our text the recent meeting of the Queensland Synod, held on the Gold Coast in September. Our goal was to reflect on the ways in which generational values were exhibited in the planning of the meeting, as well as in the responses of those in attendance.
We began with the first event, the convocation of clergy. One of the members of the reflection group had taken a leading role in the planning and leadership of the day. The goal was to develop an atmosphere of mutual respect, achieved as people in specified ministries told their stories with honesty, referring to their own issues rather than the issues of others. We reflected on the cynicism held by many beforehand that turned to gratitude and expectation through the day. Authenticity was the value of the day - a value that made the event accessible to those from younger generations. It was an intergenerational event that was marked by story telling and listening rather than sermonising. Was it counter-cultural for older generations?
We wondered how the event might have developed if it had been around tables rather than in rows. Would future convocations focus on specified ministries or would future generations focus on leadership in other ways?
We moved on to the Synod celebration and induction of the Moderator. The group was not so gentle with this event. There was a sense of disappointment that this event did not live up to its potential to provide an experience that modelled intergenerational and multicultural celebration. In one sense there were clear symbolic moments that attempted to include many people. Language was spoken without verbal translation - a sign that we were moving beyond tokenism.
But the overall feel of the event was that of a post-War generation. The seating arrangement perhaps mitigated against the development of a sense of accessibility. The space was far too large. There were far too many seats. People in the back half of the congregation would have felt like observers rather than participants. Group members commented on the proportion of pre-prepared text, spoken, printed and projected, to drama, conversation.
So what would this group do if it was developing an intergenerational induction of moderator in the future? We reflected on the recent Assembly in which formal proedure was brought alive by weaving into it an ongoing story told in dance, drama and visual imagery. We thought about the need for a space in which people would be part of the experience rather than ‘watchers’. We would develop a number of points around the room at which action was happening. We would think about the educational process as we planned, integrating worship with engagement, thinking, dialogue and the asking of questions. We would attempt to do so develop multi-sensory engagement – tying together touch, taste, hearing, smell and sight.
From Saturday morning on, Synod members sat around tables, with mints to eat, coffee and tea to drink, and the capacity to draw, converse and listen during the proceedings. We noted how life-giving this had been for younger representatives.
We looked at one of our participants sketches, outlining the faces of about twenty Synod members. We noticed that she had chosen mostly older faces. Many of them wore glasses. We considered their relaxed face muscles and how easy it was for younger people to assume that they were feeling unhappy or angry when in fact they were merely relaxing. We noted that there were very few obvious tattoos or alternative hair styles. They were mostly white. Why, I asked, do we send “elders” to Synod? Perhaps we want to value the reliable, respected, steadfast and loyal members of our congregations, knowing that they have developed the capacity to see the ‘big picture’.
There were ten youth representatives on the list of Synod members. Only six turned up. Four had other calls on their time at the last minute. On reflection I remember that many of the older members also pulled out in the last few weeks. We wondered why many of the youth representatives did not engage in the activities or networking made available to them. Later in our conversation we thought about the ways in which the ‘mobile generation’ communicate. Perhaps we needed to be looking at the ‘flash crowd’ approach in which mobile phones are used to mobilise and coordinate gatherings in the minutes before rather than days before.
Twenty somethings affirmed the setting of tables, appreciating and using the opportunity to get up for a drink whenever needed. They related well to the idea of ‘communal munchies’. But we heard that the younger generation would have related to a more ‘to-the-point’ shorter experience. We noted that those from older generations were more interested in debating process. Younger ones just wanted to get on with it. David Pitman’s explanation of process at the beginning was helpful, particularly when outlining the peramters of acceptable behaviour. The involvement of Gen Xers in the multimedia department had led to a sense of humour that lightened the mood of the gathering.
We looked at the ‘Time of Listening’ in which people from migrant ethnic groups, many of them young, were invited to talk at tables about how their group viewed the issue of homosexuality and ministry. We found that the interaction with other people was significant for all. However the underlying agenda seemed to widen the gap between people of different ethnic groups. We reflected on the hard line taken by the two Tongan ministers and wondered how much their agenda had been affected by their seniors in the Methodist church in Tonga. We wondered about the young people who had been told to express the party line. Was this an example of colonialism and serfdom? (See next post on Doing Theology Ourselves). However we were impressed by the capacity of thirteen and fourteen year olds to communicate with older people as they struggled to express themselves in response to theological questions. “This is what our church has taught us”.
So how would we want to take the next step in a time of listening between people of different ethnic origins? What would it look like for emerging generations? Perhaps we would be careful to distinguish listening for the sake of decision making process, with its capacity for manipulation, and listening for the sake of encounter of the other. We noted that NCYC (National Christian Youth Convention) in 2011 would be held in Queensland. How would we start now to build a foundation for a multicultural expression of worship, prayer and community?
We considered the Presbytery reports. They have become dynamic pieces of communication over the years, partly because of their budget but also because of their brief of inspiration. We noted the danger that reports could become technically brilliant but substantially bankrupt. We acknowledged that written reports provided detail while visual reports provided inspiration. But substance for us would be found in evidence of intention and effective action.
We noted the lack of decisions to be made. What would the Synod gathering be like if we were to honestly share our engagement with the future?
Many people did not attend the guest lecture. Why? We could see that many people had felt exhausted after the first full day of business and were keen to explore the night life of the Gold Coast. But what would we do to inspire participants to engage in a process with the guest speaker? What would the engagement with the Guest speaker look like? Maybe she/he would be on at a more high-profile time.
We finished with the recognition that the Synod gathering was continuing to develop. And we would have a role in empowering emerging generations in that process.
Tags: Australia, Church Leadership, Values
One fascinating reflection on 
Dr. Ron Penny, who diagnosed Australia’s first case of AIDS 20 years ago, was on the government body that approved the campaign’s release in 1987. The Simon Reynolds-designed campaign featured a cowled, bowling ball-wielding Reaper knocking down men, women and children in a bowling alley. The campaign was one of the most effective ever launched in Australia, said Penny, who recently retired as head of Immunology at Sydney’s St. Vincent’s Hospital. But it struck an unfortunate blow to the gay community, which had already taken the lead in AIDS awareness and safe sex practices. “The downside was that the Grim Reaper became identified with gay men rather than as the Reaper. That was what we had unintentionally produced — [the belief] by some that the Reaper was people with HIV infection, rather than the Reaper harvesting the dead,” said Penny.
