Hi Mark, and great to catch up with you again. Overall I think there was a good tone to the Synod. Like many new members this time, you made some good contributions yourself!

I’ll blog about the gambling motion and the last day tomorrow.

I reckon you are right that there were a few times we could have moved on a bit quicker. But the President does work very hard not to disenfranchise those who want to speak. Given the partly polarised membership of Synod, he probably errs towards having too many speakers sometimes in his efforts to be fair.

On your (a), I found the “huddle” process worked well at Synod itself for the motions I was interested in - creation care, lay and diaconal administration and gambling. Occasionally it meant I did not get to give a feisty speech I had ready, but that was because a helpful compromise with words was discovered. But that also does always not get to deep understanding let alone agreement beyond forms of words suitable for a motion.

On your (b), that’s food for thought. If the local church is central, it’s hard to argue that the Diocese is somehow less institutional than the National level of the denomination. I guess it is closer to the coalface. But theologically Christian care for other Christians and their churches cannot be bounded by lines on maps. 

But Sydney’s ambivalence about the national Anglican scene compared to our own diocese is not because it’s further away geographically, but often theologically - at least at the institutional level.

On your (c), that’s a low blow, but I’m smiling - dunno how to do those emoticons. (Those not at Synod might want to appreciate that I got picked up for using ‘flowery’ biblical imagery in an amendment, which thoughtful Christians are familiar with, but which would be foreign, say, if the terms of the motion were communicated to the press or the politicians - or the bloke over the back fence)!