PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS – SYNOD 2014

Since I have been in the diocese I have sought to link the future of our churches, by which I

mean congregations of the people of God, with a willingness to be open to the changes to which

God is calling us. I now reiterate what I believe to be an indisputable fact: if we continue

simply to do church as we have always done church there will be little left of a number of our

congregations within another decade. My evidence for this is simple. Where there has been

no commitment to change or innovation in a congregation, numbers continue to diminish, and

there are no new people coming to faith in Jesus Christ and into the life of the church.

I sense in some quarters, and not just within the life of our diocese, a resignation to what seems

to be taken as fact; that the life of the Anglican Church in Australia will more and more become

a matter of overseeing diminishing numbers, ministries and resources. This sadly reduces

ministry to a managerial process, which is by nature conservative and minimalist in its

expectations for the future. The central concern in managerialism is the viability of current

congregations and how to ensure it.

Happily, there are many significant and lively exceptions to this trend towards the moribund in

the life of our churches, both within our diocese and beyond. For these I give thanks and

suggest that such developments take place when we dare to rethink what it means to be church.

In contrast to the central concern of viability in a managerial approach to church life, the central

concern in affirming alternative visions for ministry is vitality, and how to encourage and

promote it.

Where there is vitality, the church understands itself to be missional. It has been pointed out

that strictly speaking the church does not have a mission but rather that God’s mission in the

world has a church. Our aim in being church is to join with God in God’s mission. Church is

never an end in itself: it is the means by which God is calling us to play our part in God’s

mission.

Theologically speaking, God’s mission in the world is to establish the rule of God in the life of

the world, what in the Bible is called ‘The Kingdom of God’. The prayer that lies at the heart

of the Lord’s Prayer is ‘Your Kingdom Come’, a plea filled out in meaning in the following line

of the prayer, ‘Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven’.

The language of ‘Kingdom’ itself may not have much traction in today’s world, where kings

and queens are either a quaint relic of past human authority structures and organisation or

essentially mere symbolic presences. It serves us well to contemplate different language to

spell out what it means today to be about seeking God’s Kingdom in the world.

St Paul in his day found himself in the same situation. In the non-Jewish world into which he

spoke he rarely used the fundamentally Jewish term ‘Kingdom of God’. Instead he spoke of

‘Eternal Life’, by which he meant life in the age where God’s way is complete and definitive

in every aspect of life. For him it was a future dream, but also a present possibility. He also

emphasised the centrality of obedience to Jesus as the means by which the dream is fulfilled.

And in his world, where the sign of allegiance to the power of the Roman Empire was defined

by the oath ‘Caesar is Lord’, Paul’s catch cry, ‘Jesus is Lord’, was not only pertinent and clear,

but was radical and subversive: it was tantamount to treason. Human allegiances under empire

were set aside for a sole and primary allegiance to Jesus. Christians were persecuted because

of their bold claims of singular allegiance to Jesus, precisely because it was a denial of the

central authority of human empire.

Paul spoke clearly in language immediately understandable in his day: the life of God’s age

would be realised here and now in the life of the world alone by singular allegiance to Jesus.

In this alone, the church becomes the agent of God’s mission in the world, to establish the rule

of God in the whole of life. This is what it means for the church to be missional, and in being

missional, to have vitality.

The challenge for us is to find a language for today that is pertinent, clear, radical and

subversive; a language in today’s common parlance, which expresses what it means to seek

God’s will. Neither the fundamentally Jewish concept of ‘Kingdom or Rule’, nor the Roman

concept of ‘Lord’, nor Paul’s ‘Eternal Life’ has much traction in our day, except for those

initiated into the jargon of the church. And even here we do not always understand the full

significance of the language we use. For example, for many in the church today, the term

‘Eternal Life’ has little present significance and refers only to a possibility beyond death.

What we need are forms of expression that speaks meaningfully to our age. How will we fill

out the meaning of what a sole and primary allegiance to Jesus Christ means in the language

of today?

Essentially the mission of God in the world is to establish peace with justice, that for which

every human heart truly yearns. The Old Testament Prophets spoke of God’s desire to establish

‘The Peaceable Kingdom’ in all the earth, a harmony of existence between creator and the

created in every dimension of creation; between God and people; between peoples, and

between people and the rest of creation, including even the wild animals. It is a beautiful image

of peace with justice as the gift of God through God’s reconciling mission in the world. Such

kind of language, I believe, still has traction in our world.

In the first place, however, it is not simply about language. It is about being; integrity of being.

People entrust themselves to people of integrity; to those who are demonstrably trustworthy.

Unless there is an integrity of being in our church life, it does not matter what language we use

to speak of God’s purposes for this world.

This was certainly true of Jesus in his day. The crowds recognised an inherent authority in

Jesus ‘unlike that of the Scribes and Pharisees’, primarily because he acted with integrity. His

language was not all that different from theirs but his integrity was remarkably different. It

was revealed in the first place in his attitude towards others, marked by his humility and his

concern for their wellbeing, and particularly for the wellbeing of those for whom the powerful

in society had little or no care; the marginalised; those considered unrighteous or sinners, and

the dispossessed.

The genesis of Jesus’ attitude towards others is found in his attitude towards God. The concerns

revealed in his attitude and actions towards others reveal how close his heart is to the heart of

God: indeed it is the heart of God. His closeness with God is the source of his capacity to live

as God would have him live with others.

This attitude in Jesus translates into the way in which he is present in the life of God’s world

and how he acts in his life and in his death, and as ultimately affirmed by God in his

resurrection. The integrity of Jesus is revealed in his consistent working for peace; his seeking

of justice and his showing of mercy, beginning with the inclusion of the poor and

disenfranchised ‘sinners’.

Such language does have traction in today’s world, but is it enough to express what it means

to seek God’s Kingdom and proclaim Jesus as Lord today?

One trouble for us in finding good language to express the true nature of our central allegiance

to Jesus is that words like peace, justice, mercy and inclusion have their own baggage in our

day. For many, peace is just about ‘my little bit of peace’ or absence of conflict, while justice

only means treating everyone the same. This is far from the Biblical concept of peace with

justice, which demands a recognition that it is not just about me, or even just about us, but

demands the active pursuit of peace with justice for all and any, even our enemies. It requires

a bias towards the poor, a bias decried by the rich and powerful as unjust. For others, mercy

may be seen as unwarranted softness, especially towards those whom they believe deserve to

be treated harshly because of who they are or what they have done. This contrasts strongly

with the mercy of God, shown towards those who in the eyes of others least deserve it. Again,

inclusion is seen by some today as ethically laissez-faire or unclear. This contrasts with the

inclusion of God who welcomes the outcast with open arms, much to the chagrin of the

righteous.

Failure to understand Biblical concepts of peace with justice, mercy and inclusion arise in the

failure to understand what lies at the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; grace shown towards

everyone and anyone, including you and me. Living out the Biblical concepts of peace with

justice, mercy and inclusion is possible only in the embrace of grace, God’s undeserved and

unmerited favour. Only in the experience of grace can we live by grace.

To be a missional church is simply in integrity to be Christlike and in grace point to Jesus

Christ in all we are and all we do. It is to be present in community with an integrity of being

that assures all those whose lives we touch that we are there alone for their wellbeing; that we

are constantly and consistently committed to peace with justice, mercy and inclusion. Where

we can live out that demand I am convinced people will be drawn anew to faith in Jesus Christ.

Then our churches will grow as we participate in the mission of God in the world.

I acknowledge this is a call to radical discipleship and engagement with our communities that

may put as at odds with the equivalents of empire in our world; those ideological perspectives

that run counter to the Gospel, whatever they may be. So the journey is not always an easy or

comfortable journey as we seek better to engage in our communities in allegiance to Jesus.

Where we will be welcomed by many, we will find opposition from others.

One reason Anglicanism in Australia is hampered in its capacity to be genuinely missional is

the traditional place churches have held in the life of many communities. In the past in this

country, we have essentially been an associational church rather than a missional church. To

put it bluntly, to those outside the church we are mainly understood as just another association

of people who happen to be religious. Today, when more and more people do not identify with

religious affiliation, it does not even enter their minds to contemplate becoming a part of an

association of people with whom they feel little in common. Why would they?

The problem is exacerbated when those within the church assume the associational view of

church as well. What we call ‘mission’ then becomes finding new ways of attracting people to

become part of our association. That is how we have tended to grow the church in the past, so

we think it is the way to grow the church into the future. It works in limited ways with some

people, who may continue to have some sense of affiliation with the church. Generally

speaking, these tend mainly to be older people. The generations most missing from our

churches by and large remain unmoved by appeals to join us.

There are two problems with the associational approach to being church. The first I have

already indicated. Few people are attracted to our association these days because they are

simply not interested in religion. Even worse, today religion is more and more characterised

in common perception as a problem in society.

The second and more significant problem is that the mission of the church is not to grow

churches: it is to live under the rule of God; to live in allegiance solely to Jesus Christ. As we

do this, God brings us together into community as church as the means by which the will of

God is lived out in the life of the world. God’s mission has a church. If we make growing

churches our aim, we are trying to do God’s work. Our aim is to live in singular allegiance to

Jesus. When we do that with integrity and in grace, God grows churches as the means by which

God’s way is extended in God’s world. Others come to faith in Jesus Christ and join us.

The key issue for us is to move our mind-set from seeing the church as associational to seeing

the church as missional. Where that is happening, and it is, we see communities beginning to

be transformed by the mission of God in their midst, and we see people coming to faith in Jesus

Christ. And the added dimension is that those who have nothing to do with the church are

often eager to contribute when they discover inclusive churches committed to working for

peace with justice; showing mercy, and engaging in the community with grace and integrity.

It’s amazing how many people do respond when they discover a church which is present in the

community for the wellbeing of all others, including themselves. This is a very attractive

proposition to many. And this is what it is to be missional.

The emphasis of the new diocesan strategic directions document launched last year, Jesus

Christ, Here and Now, For Gippsland 2013-2017 is certainly missional. I encourage every

congregation in every parish to consider what it means to be a missional church and to identify

strategic plans for mission in the communities in which you gather for worship. I look forward

to our discussion of the strategic directions later in this synod gathering. I am encouraged by

those who are being intentional in mission in our diocese and I pray the discussions will

encourage all of you to continue, and maybe in some cases to begin, to take up the challenge

of being missional churches.

Moving now to matters in the life of world, I have to admit to being intrigued, and if honest a

little disturbed, by current attitudes to ANZAC Day. Admittedly I am a child of the 60s and

70s who watched the ANZAC myth sink into oblivion and insignificance, and I was happy to

see that happening. Please don’t get me wrong when I say this. Both my grandfathers fought

in WW1 as did my father in WW2, while my mother was in the Women’s Air Force in WW2.

I recognise the huge sacrifices they and so many others made, and their courage and

resourcefulness in times of great devastation and violence. That is certainly part of our history

and is rightly remembered as such.

My problem is not that we should not honour, nor be grateful for, nor celebrate the lives of

those who gave so much of themselves sacrificially in the past, nor that we should forget those

who continue to sacrifice so much of themselves in difficult circumstances of conflict today.

My problem is with the ANZAC myth. It seems to me it has more recently been revitalised

with a new and wrong emphasis, and at a time when successive Australian Governments have

felt a need to rekindle a commitment to war as a means of responding to current world

situations, not always wisely.

My problem here is two-fold. Firstly, the ANZAC myth is simply not true. To suggest that in

1915 at Gallipoli was when Australia declared its coming of age as an independent nation is

patently untrue. The only reason we were in Turkey at the time is because we were still very

much at the beck and call of the British Empire. In what was a European war that essentially

had nothing to do with us, we were present only out of obligation to our imperial masters. We

did not understand that we had a choice to do anything other than respond to their demands.

How is that possibly a celebration of our independent nationhood?

Furthermore, the human qualities of courage, resourcefulness, sacrifice, commitment to each

other in extreme adversity, and any other positive attribute we would associate with our

celebrations of ANZAC Day are not Australian or New Zealander only. They are human.

Iraqis, Afghans, Africans, and Asians are just as capable of these attributes as any Australian.

The so-called ANZAC spirit, of which we claim to be the sole inheritors and guardians, is

actually simply the human spirit, to which any other human being can aspire with the same

fervour and commitment.

To suggest, as we seem to do, that what marks us out as Australian is simply what any human

being would affirm as positive is problematic. It is an indication of the true intent of the

revitalisation of the ANZAC myth for a whole new generation of Australians, which is

essentially nationalistic. I think it is to try and convince ourselves of a kind of superiority as a

people that reinforces our national identity over against that of other peoples. It is essentially

self-serving and becomes the rationalisation for all kinds of possibilities, from justifying wars

through to securing our borders against those perceived as outsiders seeking asylum among us.

Secondly, it is dangerous to suggest, as the ANZAC myth does, that it is only through acts of

war that we can define ourselves as nation. This tends to lead to the bizarre conclusion that the

primary way to respond to the challenges of life as a nation is to declare war on someone, or

even something! And that then is what we do.

We have more recently declared war in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, ironically again in

situations that have nothing to do with us, this time at the bequest of our new masters, the

United States of America. And in the case of Iraq, it was at the bequest of both our new and

old masters, with the USA and the UK convincing us to join that ill-founded war of attrition

on the basis of a lie we gladly believed; the presence of non-existent weapons of mass

destruction.

But we have taken the war motif even further in our national life as well. Again in the footsteps

of the USA, we have, for example, declared war on drugs. In doing that, we treat the problem

of drugs in the community as a criminal issue rather than a health issue. The real victims of

the war on drugs are those most vulnerable to abuse and despair and whose lives are further

destroyed by substance abuse. They include our children. Meanwhile, those who profit from

their misery flourish in a climate of prohibition that has never and will never work.

Even more troubling, in recent times we have quite literally declared war on asylum seeker

boats and called in the navy to stop them. The real victims of this war are the most vulnerable

people alive today; asylum seekers. Under the secrecy of an operational war footing, who

knows how many more have died at sea? Certainly one has died in our custody and many more

have been brutalised by thugs hired to maintain security in our concentration camps on Manus

Island and Nauru. Again, blithely declaring war reaps a harvest of destruction, and it fails even

to begin to address our obligations to respond to those legitimately seeking asylum on our

shores.

In light of these kinds of outcomes from the revitalisation of the ANZAC myth, I add my voice

to that of those who are calling for the centenary of Gallipoli next year to be the last time we

celebrate ANZAC Day, and the time when we lay to rest the ANZAC myth.

The challenge then is to find a day to celebrate what really should matter to us as a nation. My

dream is to find a day that focuses us on peace with justice, mercy and inclusion as the basis

of our future as a nation; the very things I believe lie in the heart of God, not just for Australians

but for all people.

The obvious day for that would be ‘Sorry Day’, already established to acknowledge our need

still to face honestly the injustices of our past and to move towards a better future for all

Australians. To build on the 2008 apology to our first nations by Kevin Rudd on behalf of the

whole nation would certainly be a fitting way to commit to repentance for old wrongs and to

make a new beginning. Ironically, as historian Henry Reynolds points out, as we have tried to

find our identity as a nation in an act of war, we forget our nation did begin with a war; a war

declared on peoples we said did not even exist. It is not until we acknowledge this and repent

of the hypocrisy explicit in it that we can hope to find a new foundation for peace with justice,

mercy and inclusion in Australia.

It may be a dream on my part for there to be a new central national day of celebration to replace

ANZAC Day, but I maintain that Sorry Day, within the context of Reconciliation Week,

certainly provides an appropriate perspective for the future of our nation. What better than to

build a nation on ideals and values that are not only universally affirmed as true to the human

spirit at its best, but also consistent with what as Christians we affirm to be close to the heart

of God?

The awful plight of those who seek asylum in Australia is a blight on the life of our nation, and

is the legacy of our refusal still to commit to justice as a people. I am convinced that because

we have still not truly confronted the injustices of our past we remain incapacitated in our

ability to respond with justice to the needs of asylum seekers. While we live in denial of the

worst we have done in the past, we will never find the moral courage to address the issues of

the present.

The declaration of war by our current government on asylum seeker boats has certainly led to

no more boats arriving on our shores. But while that may be seen as a resolution of the issue,

it is far from it. It is simply a denial of our international obligations. It is wrong in so many

ways.

Firstly, as Age reporter Ben Saul points out, while you could solve a littering problem by

shooting litterers, that would not make shooting litterers right. Just because the government

has stopped the boats by declaring war on them does not make the solution right.

Secondly, reducing the number of refugees we will take to 13,000 per annum, (down from

20,000) rather than increasing numbers to 27,000 as suggested by the bipartisan Houston

Report, is another indictment on our lack of compassion for these people in dire need. Instead,

we insist those in off-shore centres now found to be refugees be resettled in countries such as

Papua New Guinea and Cambodia. Neither of these countries has the means to provide the

basics of life to their own people, let alone to others who may arrive as refugees; not to mention

the questionable alleged human rights record of Cambodia. The United Nations rightly warns

our government that such plans do not fulfil our international obligations towards refugees.

Thirdly, our reprehensible attitude to Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, by sending them back to

a situation under review by international bodies where there is credible evidence that they are

being tortured and are disappearing at the hands of the current government in Sri Lanka, is

surely to be condemned. While the international community acknowledges the real possibility

of huge injustices being perpetrated against Tamils in Sri Lanka, our government issues Sri

Lanka with free patrol boats to prevent this persecuted minority from escaping their alleged

tormentors.

Fourthly, the economic costs of this whole exercise are huge. $60 million dollars a month is

paid to a private security company to keep people locked up on Manus Island and Nauru; not

to mention what the costs for on-shore detention and on Christmas Island. Add to that the

ongoing surveillance and naval operational costs to stop the boats, and the $20 million

advertising campaign in other countries to tell asylum seekers not to bother seeking asylum in

Australia without papers, and surely it would have been more economical to implement all the

recommendations of the Houston Report. That would have issued in an appropriate regional

response that would have created an actual queue in our region for asylum seekers to join.

Then refugees could arrive in Australia by safe means.

There is so much more that is wrong with the current response to asylum seekers by our nation;

the recent proposal not to recognise the citizenship of children born to asylum seekers on

Australian soil, to name just one more thing. This certainly ranks with our treatment of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the most shameful aspects of the history of our

nation. Christians cannot remain silent on these matters no matter how much they are

suppressed by government and no longer highlighted in a media more and more beholden to

government agendas, with rare exceptions.

I cannot let the recent release of the Commission of Audit with its incredible array of

recommendations to slash and burn government spending pass without comment. There are

no surprises in it. Written by the wealthy and powerful to appease the wealthy and powerful,

those who will suffer from its recommendations are the poorest and the most vulnerable

members of Australian society.

We have always deluded ourselves that we are essentially a classless society. Nothing could

be further from the truth and this report finally exposes what has always been true of Australia;

we are anything but a classless and equitable society.

Explicit in this document is a threat to any equity in our pension system; the destruction of the

minimum wage; the effective dismantling of Medicare, one of the best universal health care

systems in the world; the privatisation of more government services, including those that are

income producing for government, and demands for those who cannot find work in their local

community to be forcibly moved or receive no dole, further destroying community support for

those most vulnerable in our society. The poor, the aged, the unwell, those in the public

education system, struggling families, the unemployed, and those who more and more will

become the working poor, are being asked to bear the greater burden in the radical changes

proposed by this commission.

Fundamentally this sets an agenda further to privilege the wealthy and powerful at direct cost

to the poor and vulnerable in Australian society. It will without doubt further divide our

communities and create even worse inequities than already exist for increasing numbers of

Australians. It is a clear indication that this Federal Government has no intention to govern for

all Australians. I am on record as having already stated my belief that this is so. I believe this

Commission of Audit’s recommendations only go to confirm my view as correct.

It is arguable this is one of the most arrogant, cynical, ideologically driven government agendas

this nation has ever witnessed. It may be true that government leaders have said it is unlikely

all the recommendations will be put in place, but the very fact that the audit was commissioned

reveals a blue-print for what this government sees as the ideal future of Australia. It is hardly

to govern for all Australians.

For us as Christians, if my earlier analysis of what it means to be church is anywhere near the

mark, that is, if allegiance to Jesus Christ is tied to seeking peace with justice; showing mercy;

being inclusive, and most especially of those most vulnerable and disenfranchised in our

communities, I believe it our duty to let our voices be heard in reaction to this audit.

The removal of the carbon tax is a further troubling development under this government. The

reality is that carbon pricing is a means both to encourage people to be more energy-wise and

to look to sources for power generation other than burning non-renewable fossil fuels. The

carbon tax, designed as a prelude to a carbon-pricing scheme, was working. More and more

people have reducing their energy usage and taken up offers for alternative ways to generate

power, especially by solar panels on public and private buildings. More and more money has

been going into research around more viable alternatives to power production than by burning

fossil fuels, such as solar and wind power. There is no reason, other than an ideological reason,

and perhaps complicity with mining and oil and gas companies, for this government to stop

moving towards a carbon-pricing scheme.

The irony is that while most world economies are building carbon-pricing into their economic

structures, Australia may well be left out in the cold economically if we do not do the same. If

the international economic system ultimately assumes a carbon price and we do not, how will

we participate in it?

Added to this, it seems that most expert opinion suggests the so-called ‘Direct Action’ scheme

of this government will not work in achieving the targets it claims achievable in reducing

carbon dioxide emissions, and that it is not properly costed.

In Gippsland itself, two issues remain critical to the future of farming in our communities,

Fracking and Brown Coal Allocations.

Already you have heard through the communications of the diocese a fair bit about Fracking

or Hydraulic Fracturing, enough for me not to need to repeat the significant issues it raises for

Gippsland’s highly productive agricultural industry.

I encourage you all to stay abreast of developments in this area of concern and to join with

others such as the organisers of the ‘Lock the Gate’ movement to ensure ongoing local action

against those committed to fracking in Gippsland. I am certainly pleased to see the Victorian

Government is consulting widely on the potential impact of fracking in Gippsland. Their

fundamental concern about the impact on our water systems is certainly a central concern for

us all.

Brown Coal Allocations are in some ways more troubling than fracking. Under this

arrangement, the Victorian Government offers funding for industry groups to develop ideas for

the use of brown coal in the allocation zone of the Latrobe Valley and surrounds, stretching

from Moe to Gormandale, where only a relatively small percentage of the brown coal present

has so far been mined. These groups do not need a mining licence but simply an idea for how

the coal might be used. If the idea is considered viable, an allocation of coal is then made to

the group. The land under which that coal sits is currently farming land, and the farmers who

own that land have no recourse to prevent the coal allocation being made. Their farms can

simply be sold out from under them.

This means that those farmers are on land that no-one else is likely ever to buy for farming

purposes. Furthermore, there is little point in them investing in further development of their

current agricultural businesses because at any time their land could be gone to an allocation.

Apart from the blatant injustice of this situation for those on the land in the brown coal

allocation zone, there remains the ongoing threat that further mining of brown coal presents to

those living in Gippsland. The recent Morwell fire should surely be enough evidence that the

more we expose these coal seams to the surface, even when pits are no longer used, the more

we endanger the health of those living close to them. This is another issue about which we

must be vigilant in support of farmers and residents in Gippsland, especially as both State and

Federal Governments are keen to develop new possibilities for the use of brown coal as a means

of job creation for Gippsland, and are therefore very supportive of the scheme.

Moving to particular issues to be discussed at this synod, I refer to motion BIC/4, regarding the

proposal to establish a corporate entity to enable diocesan clergy to be included under Work

Cover arrangements. This is a result of the Yarram court case in this diocese which found that

the bishop is the employer of a member of the clergy. Though that decision was set aside as

part of the settlement of the case, it now means, as far as the law of the land is concerned, that

clergy are likely to be found to be employees in the future. The intent of this proposal is to

name a body as the employer, a legal person who is not the bishop.

This is an important proposal primarily because of the need to preserve the relationship

between the bishop and the clergy as a pastoral relationship defined by the licence given by the

bishop. We do not want the law of the land to override that ecclesiastical/spiritual relationship

by its insistence that the bishop is the clergy member’s employer, an entirely secular

relationship that destroys the true nature of ministerial relationships in the church.

It is of course important that we have the means to respond to our legal and financial obligations

to those ministering in the church: hence this proposal is necessary. At the same time, it is

important to reaffirm the true nature of the relationship between the bishop and the clergy as

primary.

Moving now to people matters, over the last year, among the clergy, Pene Brook and Katie

Peken were ordained priest on the 25th May 2013. Katie continues as associate priest at

Warragul and Pene has now moved to the Diocese of Melbourne where she is chaplain at

Overnewton Anglican School.

Jo White was inducted to the Parish of Yarram on the 13th June 2013. Having come to the

diocese to be assistant deacon at Traralgon, and since been priested by me in 2012, it is a delight

to have inducted her to Yarram where she and the parish are flourishing.

Rich Lanham was ordained deacon at Sale on the 22nd June 2013. Rich is the diocesan youth

worker as well as the assistant deacon at the Cathedral. It was a special delight to ordain Rich,

whom I have known since he was a young lad and whom, as many of you will know, was the

parish youth worker with us when I was parish priest in Redfern in the Diocese of Sydney.

Long term connections like this under God are a special blessing.

Last year, Don Saines left the Cathedral as Dean to go to an academic position in the Diocese

of Melbourne, a position entirely suited to his skills. It was a great move for him but at the

same time we certainly missed his ministry after only a short time at the Cathedral.

It was good in a relatively short time after that to welcome and induct Steve Clarke as Dean of

Sale Cathedral on the 15th November 2013. Steve brings a wealth of ministry experience in a

range of situations, Anglican and non-Anglican, and we look forward to working together with

him. It was wonderful to welcome Fiona Boyes, his lovely and talented wife, to Gippsland as

well, and to benefit from her amazing music skills and passion.

Among lay people, I note with sadness the death of Ian Dewar of Leongatha on the 28th May

2013. Ian, married to Marion, a member of synod, was himself for many years a member of

synod, of Bishop-in-Council and very active in leadership in Leongatha. It was especially

lovely that he was able to visit synod last year where I was privileged to meet him.

Colin Thornby, synod member and member of Bishop-in-Council and the Parish of

Korumburra, died on the 1st July 2013. Still a young man, Colin died during treatment for a

long-term condition, which was life-ending without treatment as well. Colin has done so much

in our diocese with great passion for ministry and heart-warming faithfulness to Jesus Christ

and to the church. He was an absolute wizard with IT issues and offered his skills to us in so

many ways. As well, he was Soul Care and Spiritual Director to many through Anam Cara,

where he is still gravely missed by so many who benefitted from his ministry and friendship.

Pat Cameron from the Parish of Maffra died on the 4th September 2013. Pat was a significant

church and community leader in Maffra and a leader in diocesan organisations as well. An

absolute one-off ‘salt-of-earth’ delightful human being, Pat is greatly missed by many.

Vera Bennett, past organist at Lakes Entrance; Grace Morris, a very active parishioner and

caterer and long-time member of the Ladies Fellowship, also at Lakes Entrance, and Graham

Ayres, a tireless worker and bell ringer extraordinaire, and who was instrumental in getting the

parish opportunity shop up and running, again at Lakes Entrance, all sadly died over the last

year. Their gentle friendship and wisdom is greatly missed.

Audrey Delbridge-Crossley died on the 21st September 2013. Audrey was the wife of the 6th

Bishop of Gippsland, Graham Delbridge, who with his daughter was killed in a car accident in

1980. Much loved by many in the diocese, it was a privilege recently to have interred Audrey’s

ashes with the remains of her husband and daughter at Sale cemetery. A small gathering,

including her son and some retired clergy of the diocese and their spouses, was present on this

special occasion.

Honours among lay people have been received by Marion Shields, a member of the Cathedral

Parish, who was made an Honorary Lay Canon of the diocese on the 6th November 2013 for

services rendered to the diocese over many years. Marion continues to serve as a member of

the diocesan Finance Committee.

Eric Kent from the Parish of Westernport was made an Honorary Lay Canon of the diocese on

the 14th November 2013, again for services rendered to the diocese over many years. Now in

his nineties, Eric is still a notable member of this body who has given distinguished and

distinctive service to us, often in some of the most memorable moments of this synod.

Keith Chenhall from the Parish of Traralgon, another of our Honorary Lay Canons received

an OAM on this year’s Australia Day for services to community and church. Bruce

Armstrong from the Parish of Warragul received the Order of Australia Medal for services to

music.

Among lay staff of the diocese, I was delighted to appoint Bronwyn Barbetti as my new

Personal Assistant on the 11th June 2013. She has settled well into the culture of the Registry

and added new energy and style to our great team there. In welcoming Bronwyn, I

acknowledge the great service Kerry Schmidt gave to the Registry staff as my Personal

Assistant and in other roles in her time with us, and I thank her for her enthusiastic and willing

commitment to the tasks she carried out.

Jan Down was appointed as the Editor of The Gippsland Anglican on the 3rd January 2014,

having agreed to work with us on a casual basis, and at very late notice, to produce the

December 2013 edition. Jan is an absolute pearler of an editor and we are delighted to have

gained her invaluable services that have seen TGA step up even more into a class diocesan

newspaper. Again in welcoming Jan, I acknowledge and thank Jeanette Severs for her

invaluable service to us over the last eight years as Editor of TGA. Jeanette certainly put in

above and beyond the call of duty (and pay) in what she offered us over those years.

In conclusion, I return to where I began with the challenge for us to be a missional church. Not

only does our future depend on our willingness to embrace this challenge, but the hope that the

communities in which we worship will hear and embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ depends

on us taking up the challenge to be the people of God on a daily basis. May God grant us the

grace to live by grace, as together we join with God in God’s mission in the world.

John McIntyre