PRESIDENTS 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 Gods mission in the
world has a church. Our aim in being church is to join with God in Gods mission. Church is
never an end in itself: it is the means by which God is calling us to play our part in Gods
mission.

Theologically speaking, Gods 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 Lords 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 todays 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 Gods 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 Gods 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, Pauls 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 todays common parlance, which expresses what it means to seek
Gods will. Neither the fundamentally Jewish concept of Kingdom or Rule, nor the Roman
concept of Lord, nor Pauls 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 todays world, but is it enough to express what it means
to seek Gods 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, Gods 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. Gods mission has a church. If we make growing
churches our aim, we are trying to do Gods 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
Gods way is extended in Gods 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.
Its 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 dont 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 Womens 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 Audits 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
Gippslands 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 members 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 25
th
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 13
th
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 22
nd
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 15
th
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 28
th
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 1
st
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 4
th
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 21
st
September 2013. Audrey was the wife of the 6
th

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 Audreys
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 6
th
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 14
th
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 years 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 11
th
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 3
rd
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 Gods mission in the world.
John McIntyre