Posts Tagged ‘Synod’

Compassion before the law

October 2, 2021

Pentecost 19 – 2021
Mark 10:2-16
Marian Free

In the name of God who desires that we might have life and have it to the full. Amen.

Last weekend the Anglican Church of Southern Queensland met for its annual Synod. There will I hope, be a report from your Synod representatives but I did want to comment on a couple of motions that stood out for me. One was the motion regarding intimate partner violence. The motion called on the Synod to acknowledge the recent report of the General Synod Family Violence Working Group which revealed that there was a higher incidence of domestic violence among Anglicans than in the population as a whole. The motion requested the establishment of a Diocesan Family Violence Working Group to oversee the work of policy development, training and education on prevention, intervention, and response. Though some voiced concern that the statistics used in the report might not be accurate, there was overwhelming support for the motion. What stood out though was the amendment that suggested that if Synod was really serious about raising awareness about domestic violence and of finding ways to end it that we should fund a full-time position for someone to do the work. Motions that ask for money not already in the budget usually fail, but this one did not.

A second motion that caught my attention and that caused some controversy was one that encouraged our Synod to take responsibility for the document Faithfulness in Service – the code of conduct for all clergy, office bearers and volunteers in the Diocese. A significant number of Synod members argued against the change. They were worried that this represented a movement away from the national standards and that if we passed it would be in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the Royal Commission that urged the church to have a consistent set of guidelines across the country. Even though a considerable number of other dioceses have already claimed the right to make changes in the document and even though The Chancellor, Justice Mullens pointed out that different states imposed different regulations that had to be followed, many Synod Representatives were still uncomfortable with the motion. It was only when Bishop Cameron spoke that the mood of Synod completely changed. His point was this: that if a national document insisted (for example) that divorcees not be permitted to hold office in our church, that in all probability a significant number of Synod representatives would have to stand down. He guessed, apparently correctly, that among those present there were more than a few people who fell into that category and that that might be something our Synod would have an opinion on. He was right and after his speech the motion passed.

Today’s gospel deals with divorce. The Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus out on a legal issue, in this instance the justification for divorce. This was a question on which they themselves could not agree. Deuteronomy 24:1 reads: “Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife. Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled.”. The passage doesn’t mention adultery, but Shammai and his disciples argued that the only grounds on which a man could divorce his wife was adultery. Hillel and his followers took Deuteronomy more literally and claimed that a wife could be divorced for anything that annoyed or embarrassed her husband.

It must be remembered that women in the first century had no legal status, no means of earning an income and were completely dependent on their husband. A woman who was divorced would (unless their father was alive) or a brother took her in have no means of support and would be forced to beg to survive.

Jesus will not be drawn into the argument of the Pharisees. Instead, he points to a completely different verse – Genesis 2:24 – in marriage a man and a woman become one flesh. The only reason for divorce, Jesus suggests is adultery. In responding to the question of the Pharisees, Jesus is less concerned with quibbling over the fine details of the law and more concerned with the protection of the vulnerable. Compassion, in Jesus’ worldview, always comes before the rigid enforcement of one law or another.

That the discussion on divorce has to do with concern for and the protection of the vulnerable becomes clear when we place it in its literary context. The reference to children with which today’s reading concludes takes us back to the mention of children in the gospel of two weeks ago. On that occasion Jesus challenged his bickering disciples by placing a child in their midst and insisting that they welcome the vulnerable, the least worthy and those who would diminish rather than enhance their status. Last week, we saw that Jesus continued this theme by insisting that the disciples note that the consequence of causing harm to any one of “these little ones” was catastrophic.

If Jesus primary mandate for discipleship is to protect and welcome the vulnerable, then it could be argued that we (collectively) have failed miserably over the centuries. As we have learned to our shame, we have utterly failed to keep vulnerable children safe, we have perpetuated misinterpretations of scripture that have led to domestic violence, or which have kept people in unhappy marriages. We have abandoned or mistreated single mothers and judged those who don’t meet our standards. Contrary to Jesus’ example we have argued over details of the law rather than consider the plight of the poor, the marginalised and the dispossessed.

All this could be different. If like Jesus we put compassion first, we would not be so concerned about the meaning of the law but would always see the needs of those around us and be compelled to release them from their suffering.