Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Synod’s frustration leads to new priority process

Members of the Synod of New South Wales and the ACT — by raising questions about the authority of Synod and responsibilities of Synod members following the failure of a committee to act in the way it requested — have embarked on a new process to determine the Synod’s areas of priority for missional focus and funding.

In 2007 the Synod requested the Synod Fund Management Committee to find a way to fund two more rural chaplains.

The Uniting Church had one rural chaplain, Kel Hodge, based at Canowindra. The 2007 Synod meeting sought, as a matter of urgency, funding for at least two more rural chaplains.

Synod had heard how rural areas were experiencing trauma — spiritual, emotional and financial grief — that was not only affecting farmers, but also the infrastructure for whole communities.

It expressed its support for and solidarity with rural communities in a time of great human stress.

The only option the Synod Fund Management Committee pursued to fund the additional rural chaplains was a special distribution available from Uniting Financial Services.

But when the $2.9 million special distribution was allocated, the Synod Fund Management Committee ranked a second rural chaplain in fifth priority and a third in 12th place. Ten applicants were successful.

Reflecting the church’s increasing awareness of the need to respond to the continuing rural crisis by building better relationships, Synod in 2007 had also invited urban and coastal presbyteries, congregations, faith communities and Synod services to consider releasing ministry agents and lay leaders for short-term encouraging support of communities in rural areas affected by the drought.

But only one offer of a ministry agent to go to Western New South Wales had been received.

Prioritising difficulties

The 2008 meeting of Synod, at Canterbury Park Race Course, September 27-30, was asked about the responsibility of people who voted at Synod, were part of a Synod decision, and then had to take action or respond to those decisions in another context.

How could the Synod set directions for the church if members of the Synod did not follow the way the Synod voted?

One Synod member complained that the expressed wishes of Synod were not taken into account in the Synod Fund Management Committee’s prioritisation process.

Synod appointee the Rev. Lindsay Cullen said Synod had made a clear statement about its concern for rural areas in need of chaplaincy. The failure to fund the additional chaplains had demonstrated how difficult it was for Synod to express priorities that could be enacted.

Amelia Koh-Butler said Sydney North Presbytery had experienced a movement of the spirit when it thought that through sales proceeds it was contributing to a third rural chaplain. But it found its contribution only went part way to a second rural chaplain.

Was any other exploration for funds carried out? she asked.

Another member of Synod said that 84 per cent of the area of the Synod was drought-declared. Since the previous year the effects of the drought had continued. She said she was disillusioned that appointment of rural chaplains had “gone to the back burner”.

More farmers and communities were in a dreadful state of depression and it would be years before they saw the light at the end of the tunnel let alone moved through it.

“It’s a lot of BS to say that money can’t be found.”

The Rev. Tony Davies from the Riverina said the drought was not yet over. He expected more difficulty and more tragedy with impending crop failure.

He said the rivers were closed and more farmers would have to leave the land.

Synod was asked how the church could continue to raise funds for the good and necessary work of rural chaplaincy — a ministry that literally was keeping farmers alive.

Wives were threatening to take their children and abandon their farmer husbands, Mr Davies said.

He again encouraged Synod to find the funds for a third rural chaplain as a matter of urgency.

Another speaker said the effects of the drought were a social justice issue of great urgency. “What are lives of the famers, wives, families and communities in the country of this Synod worth?”

Bidding war

Synod examined variations of a proposal to again acknowledge the distress of rural communities and the urgent need to make a response.

Debate was caught on the issue of how that response was be achieved, how it was to funded, who was to be responsible and how that response sat among other Synod priorities.

Synod members complained of a bidding war emerging, even before the need for funding for ministry in areas of public housing was raised (and supported).

Youth worker Graham Anson said that ministry in public housing areas was so important it should be funded by whatever means.

David Peters, Chair of Parramatta Nepean Presbytery, said Synod should spend money in a way that enhanced its mission, for the benefit of the whole of the church.

Nicole Fleming from the Synod Youth Unit, which had in principle Synod approval for up to five youth-focused mininstry agents, said rural chaplains should be considered among other priorities.

Mr Cullen said Synod should have the opportunity to select priorities so it could make clear missional decisions.

Peter Andrews, from Sydney North Presbytery, said the funding implications of one version of the proposal to fund rural chaplains, if made absolute, would constrain other decisions to be considered and would affect decisions already made.

He said the real priority was to step back and make a list of priorities on which to base such decisions. “We have been here four days and have not made one strategic decision,” he said. “We haven’t decided what our priorities are.”

Mr Peters said there was no overall picture to guide the spending of money. There needed to be a major conversation between all Synod boards instead of a bidding war.

Synod heard that the Synod Fund Management Committee had taken steps to rein in its spending, including a cut to all funding recipients in the next financial year.

Peter Andrews, conscious of the difficulties faced by the Synod Fund Management Committee when it was requested to fit unexpected requests for money into an already tight budget, drafted a proposal for a facilitated conversation to determine priorities.

Synod accepted Mr Andrews’ proposal for a facilitated conversation with representatives of all presbyteries and boards to determine the Synod’s areas of priority for missional focus and funding for the next three years.

It acknowledged that the need for the church’s involvement in society was close to infinite but funding was finite, so deliberate and difficult choices had to be made.

Current Synod approvals and proposals would need to be called into question.

Synod also requested the Rural Ministry Unit to develop a set of action priorities, and present them to the Synod Standing Committee at its November 2008 meeting, for immediate implementation where possible.

Agreed action priorities that required additional funding were to be referred to the prioritisation consultation for consideration alongside other missional priorities within the Synod.