ANGLICAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA

DIOCESE OF GIPPSLAND

36th SYNOD THIRD SESSION

18 - 20 MAY 2012

SALE, VIC

Presidents Address
Issued by the Registrar, Diocese of Gippsland, PO Box 928, Sale Vic 3853 Phone - (03) 5144 2044 Fax - (03) 5144 7183 Email registrar@gippsanglican.org.au Website - http://www.gippsanglican.org.au

18 May 2012

The most significant issue confronting us in the coming year within the life of our diocese is the development of our new five-year strategic plan for 2013-2017. I am aware that parishes across the diocese have made headway in the priorities of our current plan Jesus Christ: Here and Now for Gippsland. However, I want to focus for a moment only on those developments which have demonstrated the commitment of the diocese as a whole to new initiatives in ministry and mission. This is not to diminish the significance of initiatives taken by individual parishes but to reflect on how well the diocese as a whole, under the leadership and encouragement of Bishop-in-Council, has modelled new initiatives in ministry and mission. If we want parishes to be bold, the diocese as a whole must be bold. In relation to the first priority of The Journey Inward, there has been significant growth in the provision of contexts for people of the diocese to engage in prayer and contemplation. I note new offerings made through the program at The Abbey of St. Barnabas at ABeckett Park and the growth of cell groups across the regions of the diocese under the auspices of Anam Cara. In relation to the fourth priority of The Journey Outward, the focus on caring for Gods creation, The Abbey has begun to develop its ministry through programs designed to help people reflect on a Christian response to our stewardship of Gods creation. On its fifth priority, the focus on children, young people and their families, has perhaps had the biggest take-up by parishes, with a number now employing children and family workers. A whole-diocesan perspective has supported these parishes in various ways, and most particularly by the Cathedral parish engaging a youth worker with a diocesan as well as a parish brief. Another highlight under this priority is the growing number of Mainly Music programs now flourishing across the diocese, sponsored through the Anglicare Partnerships Program. Some experiments in new models of ministry are slowly emerging in the diocese as we look to finding new ways of being church. I would like to think the encouragement of the Diocesan Strategic Plan to be more intentional in ministry and mission has created the climate in which these experiments have been nurtured. The Parish of Bunyip has now been divided into two Episcopal Districts, each with a parttime stipendiary priest exploring with their people new ways of being church. At Bunyip, the people are exploring what it means to be a ministering community as the whole people of God. At Nar Nar Goon, a church plant is proposed in the new housing areas east of Pakenham, which are a rapidly growing part of our diocese. Another fresh expression of church is in the Parish of Paynesville, which has been reconstituted by Bishop-in-Council for an experimental period of three years as The Abbey Parish, to develop further the Abbey vision. Under this fresh expression of church, the gift of this parish is to offer the diocesan ministry of The Abbey, alongside and in harmony with its ministry as a local parish. Its priest is now known as the Abbey Priest and lives at the Abbey.

Over the three year period, Bishop-in-Council has committed some of the funding needed to enable the parish to employ a part-time stipendiary ministry assistant, who will live in the house at St. Peters by the Lake in Paynesville itself. While these new developments under the Diocesan Strategic Plan are cause for celebration, it would be true to say there are priorities that could have been better addressed over the years of the plan. In relation to the second priority of The Journey Inward, plans to promote the development of our understanding of the Bible on a diocesan-wide basis have not come to full fruition. While I have no doubt there has been significant growth through programs like Education for Ministry and the occasional diocesan forums, I acknowledge there is still a way to go on this priority. In relation to The Journey Outward, there is more we can do on a diocesan-wide basis to explore a range of ways to develop our capacity to engage in the community, with a view to finding appropriate ways of introducing Jesus Christ to others. I am aware that parishes continue to explore this through programs like Alpha, and on a diocesan-wide basis that Cursillo and Anam Cara are active on this priority, but it strikes me we could increase our efforts to address it more intentionally as a whole diocese. On the proposed matter of intentionally setting outcomes to achieve for each year of the fiveyear plan, we have admittedly dropped the ball at a diocesan level on publishing proposed outcomes each year. I believe we in the leadership of the diocese need better to model measurable accountability as a critical aspect of good strategic thinking. I have already circulated to the clergy a reflection to begin the discussion on ideas for the central theological focus of the new strategic plan. Bishop-in-Council has had a planning day to review progress on the current plan and to discern what we have learnt from our experience of it. We also reflected on and endorsed the key theological focus for the coming strategic plan. My initial theological reflection was triggered by an insight gained from my recent reading. A theologian was asked, What should be done about the problems of the world? His answer was at one and the same time both profound and simple: he said, Do as God has done become human. I think this insight points us quite neatly and in a profoundly Christian way to both the source of the problems of the world and their resolution. Our problems come because we human beings constantly fall short of the fullness of our humanity. The resolution of our problems comes as we human beings are restored to the fullness of our humanity, which restoration takes place in Christ, to use St Pauls terminology. I encourage you as synod members to lead the way in your parishes as we work towards the launch of the new strategic plan from 1st July 2013. As part of that process, I will again be producing discussion materials for Lent 2013 to direct our thinking towards the new strategic plan during that significant time of reflection in the church year.

In the life of our diocese, we rather belatedly committed to a listening process to hear the stories of gay and lesbian people, and to reflect on how seriously we take the commendation of the 1998 Lambeth Conference motion 1.10, which asks us to offer hospitality to these Christian brothers and sisters, who the motion reminds us are full members of the Body of Christ. Recent circumstances have now made this a far more urgent priority than perhaps we had previously failed to recognise. In my presidents address last year I indicated my commitment to be inclusive and welcoming of same-sex attracted people in our diocese, confident that God is at work in and through all those who are open to the call of God in their lives and wanting to offer ministry in the life of our churches. I reiterate that commitment to you now. It comes from a long personal journey of life experience; reflection on Scripture in the context of that experience, and reflection on that experience in the light of Scripture. It is a simple Biblical truth that has caused me to move to a new place in my understanding of the place of same-sex attracted people in the life of the church. That truth is revealed in the words of Jesus, who says in the Sermon on the Mount, a bad tree cannot bear good fruit and by their fruit you will know them (Matthew 7.18,20). I have come to know and acknowledge that the fruit of their works makes clear that God has been and is at work in and through gay and lesbian people, who for years have been a part of our church, in both lay and ordained ministries. You might well ask why it took me so long to acknowledge this simple truth. I think it was the correctness of religious law that blinded me to this truth, a truth that is known only in the experience of grace. In the first place, I needed to be entirely honest with myself and realise God works in and through me only by grace, and not because I act correctly according to some established religious code. And this insight only became apparent when I was ready to recognise my own brokenness, and that it is not only despite that brokenness, but sometimes because of it, that God works in and through me. This brought me to acknowledge that the fruit of my works is the only true measure of my worthiness for ministry in the name of Jesus. The key question then becomes, Do my works reveal a heart transformed by the love of God into a loving heart, and a mind renewed in Christ into his mind of humble, self-emptying service? That is the Biblical measure of who is worthy to be called by God to minister in the name of Jesus. As I wrote recently to the clergy, it is a salutary experience to be reminded that at one and the same time no-one is worthy and all are worthy for ministry. Of ourselves we can claim nothing that would cause God to engage us in ministry, yet at the same time, in Christ we are all made worthy. Furthermore, as it was in brokenness that the Christ on the cross wrought the salvation of the whole world, so it is in our brokenness that we become the means of

healing to others. This is worth contemplating before we too quickly suggest another be deemed not worthy to minister in Jesus name. Only in light of reflection on Gods Word did I finally come to understand. Despite what I or others may believe is their worthiness, the fruit of the works of many gay and lesbian people has brought Gods blessing to me and to many other people, both in and beyond the church. That is the measure of their worthiness to minister in the name of Jesus Christ in the life of the church, and in the community in the name of the church. That indicates their place in the life of Gods people. Put simply, I think God has been saying to me for many years now If it is good enough for me, John, why is it not good enough for you? This experience took me back to the Bible and its ethical teaching. Here again, a very simple solution was revealed to me, once I was prepared to walk this journey of discovery with God. I recently read, though I cannot now remember where, an illustration from church history that makes clear the point I have come to understand when seeking guidance from scripture on the place of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church. It is this. We all acknowledge that the church can never read the Bible in the same way once it acknowledged that Galileo was right. The world is round, not flat, despite what those who first penned the words of the Bible thought and assumed. It took the church a long time to acknowledge this, and in the name of orthodoxy, it treated Galileo rather shabbily along the way. Here lies an exegetical parallel for our present purpose. Because of recent new understanding, we now all know that same-sex attracted people are not heterosexual people who have made a perverse choice about how they express their sexuality. They simply are what they are. We might like to argue about whether this is how life should or should not be, but that will not change the way it is. And we have to respond to what is. The Biblical writers had no concept of the possibility of a faithful, committed relationship of love between people who found themselves to be attracted to others of the same gender. They assumed that anyone who engaged in sexual activity with a person of the same gender was a heterosexual person acting outside their God-given nature. By definition, this was for them perverse activity. Now we know that it is simply a reality of some peoples lives to be same-sex attracted, and not a perverse choice made by them, how can the church ever read the Bible in the same way? It has taken the church, and me, a long time to acknowledge this. And in the name of orthodoxy, we have treated gay and lesbian people rather shabbily along the way. Further to this, I have become convinced we will never come to a place of understanding on this matter unless we walk the path to understanding together. For too long we have asked same-sex attracted people to wait outside the church, or at most in its wings, while we decide the basis on which they can be a part of the churchs life. The thought seems to have been

that when we have decided (and we certainly dont seem to be in too much of a hurry to do this) we will invite gay and lesbian people into the church on our terms; that is, if they still want to be a part of us. I do not believe this is a particularly godly way in which to go. In saying what I have said here, I want to assure you that I am not demanding that you agree with me. One of the beauties of Anglicanism is our capacity to stay together in Christ with strongly held differences. Another is that our idea of authority includes the fact that you do not have to agree with me just because I am a bishop. We can stay together in the unity of Christ with our differences, and in grace we can continue to learn from each other. I make this commitment to all of you, whether or not you agree with me on this one issue. All I do, and all I will seek to continue to do, in everything I do, is to seek the will of God. Accordingly, I will appoint to office in our diocese those whom I believe God is calling to minister among us, and I will continue to do so with a grateful heart to God for the gifts and skills they bring to us. Furthermore, I will do this within the context of the greater call of God on the whole church, which is to live by grace; to seek justice and to show compassion, in all we do and say. That is my commitment to God and to you, and I am willing to live with any consequences that may arise from remaining true to that commitment. Another commitment I made in coming to this diocese was to encourage and develop a sustainable long-term ministry to, with and by Aboriginal people in Gippsland. Significant progress has been made in this ministry objective, but the key matter still to be addressed is its long-term financial sustainability. The Aboriginal Ministry Fund was established to address this matter, but it has not been particularly successful in establishing a solid financial base to provide resources for Aboriginal ministry in the diocese on a long-term basis. Funding has been sought on a shortterm basis from various sources outside the diocese, but the key to sustainability is a healthy fund maintained from within the diocese. To date, I have appealed in various ways to parishes and individuals to contribute to the financial support of Aboriginal ministry, but with little ongoing response. As I stated last year in The Gippsland Anglican, I believe it is a matter of justice that one of the ways by which we redress the wrongs done to the peoples of the first nations of this land is to use the wealth we have gained from their land to ensure their future in it. I do not see this to be a voluntary issue for Christians but a faith imperative. I will seek in this coming year to build up the financial base of the Aboriginal Ministry Fund through an ongoing appeal to both parishes and individuals to support Aboriginal ministry by regular contributions to the fund. But I put this synod and the whole diocese on notice that if the measures I am seeking to introduce this year to redress this situation are not successful, I will move to ensure an appropriate sum for Aboriginal ministry is added as a line item to the diocesan budget. Furthermore, I will advocate for legislation to enshrine this measure as a requirement under an Act of this synod.

You will no doubt understand that one implication of this move will almost inevitably be a rise in the parish contributions sought from each parish, those contributions being a significant source of income in the diocesan budget. I understand this may be seen as heavyhanded, and I am all too aware the bishop does not always get what he wants. Furthermore, I recognise there is a voluntary aspect to parish contributions. Nevertheless, I want to make the point that I am very serious about ensuring the long-term financial sustainability of Aboriginal ministry in Gippsland, and I will do all in my power to ensure it happens. I am pleased to acknowledge the vital contribution a number of our parishes have made in meeting the needs of Southern Sudanese people in our diocese. The parishes of Moe, Morwell, Newborough and Sale all have Sudanese people in their congregations, and the Parish of Traralgon has offered significant support and ministry to Sudanese people living and worshipping in the Latrobe Valley. I acknowledge particularly the large commitment Bruce Charles and the Parish of Moe have made to this ministry in their support of the Reverend Abraham Maluk in his ministry. With the people of the Republic of South Sudan, we celebrate the inauguration of their new nation in the last year, and we assure them of our ongoing prayers and support as they minister with, among and to their people, and to us. We thank God for their ministry and the ministry of those who continue to support them. I note the changed nature of our ongoing relationship with the Diocese of Gahini in Rwanda. On his visit to us last year, Bishop Alexis and I discussed a new way forward in our partnership. We committed to sharing in ministry together, not just to the benefit of each other, but to the benefit of others to whom we minister together. Later this year, a team of people from the Leongatha Parish will visit Gahini and a team of young people from Gahini will visit us. There is a growing relationship between our schools and Rwanda. Last year a team from the two schools went to Gahini in schoolies week. Students and staff who went were richly blessed. Thank you to Sarah Gover for her work in arranging this visit and the repeat visit later this year. On the 50th Anniversary of the ministry of Anglican Women of Australia (AWA) Gippsland earlier this year, that ministry was completed within the life of the diocese. I acknowledge the significance of AWA over those fifty years in encouraging ministry, mission and fellowship among the women of the diocese. At the final AWA Thanksgiving Service, I committed the diocese to finding ways to continue the focus of the ministry of AWA, despite it no longer continuing as a ministry of the diocese. Last year, synod heard from the Primate about the place of the covenant in the life of the Anglican Communion, and we offered our support to the covenant as a means of maintaining unity in the life of the communion. However, support for the covenant has certainly not been universal and it would seem it has a doubtful future as an instrument of communion. We may never arrive at an agreed covenant. Nevertheless, I do not believe that means the process has completely failed. This is because it has generated a great deal of debate about,

and a better understanding of, the nature of authority and the basis of unity in the Anglican Communion. Anglican authority is dispersed and our teaching is centred on Scripture and the historical creeds, with no-one able to claim sole authority on how the Bible and the creeds must be interpreted. Our fellowship is maintained by relationship and common commitments: it is not imposed by a centralised power. The covenant has been an attempt to articulate our common commitment. It seems, however, that it has satisfied no-one. In the minds of some, it goes too far in the direction of imposing a particular interpretation of our common commitment: in the minds of others, it does not do enough to enable meaningful unity in the communion. Our inability to come to a common mind on the covenant should come as no surprise. That is a direct result being Anglican. From the beginning of our life together, we have sought to maintain unity in diversity, and not just any diversity: it is a diversity of those who have always had strongly held and often opposing views on a range of matters, but who have been committed to maintaining unity in Christ. I pray the legacy of the covenant process in the communion will be an ongoing commitment to struggle across our differences to stay together in Christ, as a sign of hope to a divided world that peace is made possible alone through faith in Jesus Christ.

Moving now to matters in the wider community, imagine you could be imprisoned for six months if you were found with just one bottle of beer. That is just one measure of new legislation being proposed as part of the so-called Stronger Futures Bill for remote Aboriginal communities. This draconian piece of legislation now before the Senate, even if amended to deal with those particular measures, will mean the powers held by the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will be the greatest powers held by a government figure over Aboriginal lives since the days of the so-called Protectors. Those protectors were made infamous by people like Mr McMillan MP here in Gippsland, and by Mr Neville in Western Australia, whose approach to protection was so accurately depicted in the film RabbitProof Fence. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser recently asks, Should we call Jenny Protector Macklin? I think perhaps she fits that role at the moment all too well and its a tragedy. Many Aboriginal people in remote communities agree. Make no mistake. This legislation is largely racist legislation. That is certainly the opinion of the former Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alistair Nicholson. Even if its proponents say their intent is not racist, and they do, it remains racist because its detrimental impact is alone on Aboriginal people. And note also, when passed, this legislation will be in place for another ten years beyond the five years of the first intervention. The Reverend Dr. Djiniyini Gondarra, a Yolngu Elder, is calling on black and white Australians to oppose the legislation, which he sees not just as a black struggle, but as a fight for justice and democracy for all Australians. As a spokesperson for the Assembly of the eight Yolngu Nations, he has recently written a letter to both the leaders of the Australian and

Northern Territory Governments, in which he calls on the Senate to discard the Stronger Futures Bill in full. He notes it has no support from any Yolngu Elder, whose communities are directly affected by the legislation. The last five years of the intervention have shown that, despite claims to the contrary by the Federal Government, the situation in the seventy-three targeted communities in the Northern Territory has grown worse. Journalist and human rights activist Jeff McMullen points to the overwhelming evidence that five years of intervention have done terrible social damage. Over this period, the rising rate of suicide, especially among young Aboriginal girls, is the most devastating result of what he calls this government folly. The tragedy in this bipartisan political approach by successive Federal Governments is that no-one is listening to the local elders in the communities most affected. Decisions are being made for the people by centralised government authorities, rather than with and by the people. While significant financial resources are being offered, they are not having the effect they otherwise could because local elders, who know their situation intimately, are not being engaged in the process of implementing both policy and practice. In fact they are being ignored. In criticising the Stronger Futures legislation, Dr. Jimmy Little said, in one of the last comments he made before he died recently, It is time for Australia to listen to the wisdom of the Aboriginal elders who have given the country the best advice on the way forward for a brighter future, for it is the leaders who best understand the needs of their community, know what the solutions must be, and have to live with the consequences. Certainly a good way to acknowledge Jimmy Littles wonderful legacy to our nation would be to listen to his advice on this matter. I was intrigued recently to read an article by Tim Colebatch warning us about the miningbased economic boom. Like the Irish property boom, which fell with spectacular speed and devastating results, he says, Our boom, too, is likely to bust: most booms do. The bigger the boom, the bigger the bust. While others point out this boom is different because of what they claim will be the long-term growth of China and India, Colebatch remains sceptical. And he has good evidence to back up his scepticism. That evidence notes not just the reliance on mining as the driver of the economic boom, but the even greater reliance on mining investment. Servicing the mining industry is where the money is to be made, and other industries across Australia are shrinking. This leads to a loss of skills, equipment and markets in those other areas. Victoria knows this only too well, with huge losses of jobs recently in manufacturing. While China and India grow at the current rate, there seems to be no problem with demand for our resources. But the problem will inevitably arise. The question is, When? BIS Shrapnel, which consistently wins awards as the best economic tipster in the business, estimates a 66% probability the boom will end within ten years and a 90% probability it will end within 15 years. Colebatch maintains that if current trends in Australian industry continue, the economy will be ill-equipped to deal with the bust.

Why do I raise these matters? I am clearly not an economist, and when I raise these issues with some who are economists, I notice there is complacency about the issues Colebatch and others like him are raising. But I raise them because I would like to encourage us to listen to alternative voices in every area of our lives, and I would like those of you better equipped than me in economic understanding to take up these matters. As Christians we need to be concerned for the truth in every aspect of our lives. Furthermore, if these alternative voices are right, the social implications will be horrendous. People will suffer, and it is certainly our duty as Christians to speak out to avoid human suffering. I note with some measure of relief that the Federal Government in its recent budget has made an attempt to redistribute wealth towards those most in need in our communities. At the same time, I note with alarm that our commitment to foreign aid has been diminished as part of the stringency measures claimed to be necessary to ensure a budget surplus. How we in such a wealthy country can rationalise a reduced commitment to those in poorer parts of the world is beyond my understanding, and I think it is a challenge for the churches to address. I turn now to the debate arising from the call from some in our community for the Federal Parliament to change the legal definition of marriage to allow gay and lesbian people to marry. On the whole, the response from the churches has been an understandable recourse to the socalled traditional view of marriage. To be honest, I am not sure how well this works, because I am not sure there is much agreement in the churches about the traditional view of marriage, and I not sure there is a lot of acknowledgement that even the Christian view of marriage has changed over recent years. The Judaeo-Christian view of marriage is in the first place fundamentally a realists view. Our forebears knew people were going to have sex, no matter what, and so they knew children were going to be born, no matter what. Under God, therefore, marriage was instituted to give legal protection to the children who are inevitably born; legal protection to the good order of the society in which sexual relationships are inevitable, and legal protection to persons in committed life-long sexual relationships. Properly understood, marriage is an institution to protect children, to ensure the good order of society, and to guarantee the rights of married persons. Secondly, the Judaeo-Christian view of marriage, based as it is in our Scriptures, has from the beginning been in a state of change and flux. Like any other human institution, even those established under God, marriage is an organic reality and it grows and changes over time. To name just one obvious fact, it is clear that in the early days of the institution of marriage in Hebrew life, marriage was not monogamous. The Old Testament stories of the patriarchs and the kings make that very clear. More recent changes are reflected in the various introductions to the marriage service in our own prayer books, from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer through to the current A Prayer Book for Australia. The three reasons for marriage set out above remain but, with successive

changes to our liturgies for marriage, their order has been changed. These changes reflect societal changes in priorities and perceptions about marriage, both in the church and in the wider community. The primary emphasis in our most recent marriage service is on the rights of the couple. This no doubt reflects the growing individualism of our society. Furthermore, in recent times we have become entirely more tolerant of the re-marriage of divorced persons, and rarely if ever question the right of persons to marry if they do not intend to have children, which most certainly was not always the case. However, what is interesting is that the right of certain classes of people to marry never seems to have been much under discussion in the church, except in relation to so-called prohibited relationships, such as brothers and sisters, or in relation to a persons age. Certainly it was assumed it would always be a man and a woman who married, but was that not simply because that is how children are born? Or was it perhaps because up until recently there was no perception that people could be anything other than heterosexual? It is interesting to note, however, that on grounds other than their view of marriage, the early Christians did assume the rights of all people to marry. For example, contrary to Roman law, Christians allowed people from different social classes in the Roman Empire to be married. This was not because of their view of marriage but because they believed that across all social differences, All are one in Christ Jesus, as St Paul says in his letter to the Galatians (Galatians 3.28). So where does that leave us in an age where people are known to be same-sex attracted and where we have the IVF program? Is there not an argument that all people should have access to the institution of marriage, precisely in order to guarantee under law the ongoing protection of children; the good order of society and the rights of those who are in committed life-long relationships? And is it not perhaps unjust to deny the rights of any group of people to that access? Just as importantly, why would we not want all people to commit to the responsibilities enshrined in The Marriage Act? I have to admit the responsibilities of marriage have not been a highlight of the public debate. However, if one outcome of gay and lesbian people being able to marry was that, like any other people in committed sexual relationships, they too were held accountable under law for the protection of children in their care; for the good ordering of their sexual relationships within society, and for the rights of those in committed sexual relationships, would that not be a good thing? I acknowledge that in what I have said here I have not addressed much of the theological debate in regard to marriage, and that that is an important task to which we must continue to commit. But as I said in my address to synod last year, whatever the churches views on marriage, we cannot expect those views to prevail in law just because that is what we believe. Nor should we try to enforce our views on others. I have no doubt we should participate in the public debate, and that we should do that on the basis of our faith and the values that arise from our faith. But I do not believe it is a value consistent with our faith to seek to impose on others what we believe, no matter how strongly we believe it.

The way of the Gospel, in the end, is the way of persuasion by a godly life, and by godly words and actions. A godly life, and godly words and actions are marked by grace, and the truth on any matter will emerge as we live by the same grace with which we are met by God in Jesus Christ.

I turn now to people matters in our diocese. We welcomed two members of the clergy into the diocese last year. Graham Knott has returned to us, having served before in the Parish of Croajingolong. I am delighted he and June have come back to us from England, where Graham was serving in the Parish of Watford. He is serving now as the Rector of Maffra. David Head has come to us from the parish of Hampton in the Diocese of Melbourne, and is serving in an interim ministry part-time, as Priest-in-Charge of the Parish of Heyfield. Heyfield is engaged with other parishes in the immediate area to look at developing a ministry team, and David is assisting them in that process while offering ongoing pastoral ministry to the parish. Barb Logan was installed as a canon of the Cathedral in the last year as well. Congratulations, Barb. We know you will carry out your duties with aplomb and dedication. Those ordained priest in the last 12 months were Roger Jackman, to ongoing honorary assistant ministry in the Croajingolong Parish; Tom Killingbeck as Priest-in-Charge in the Bruthen Parish, where he had previously been serving as a Deacon-in-Charge, and Jo White, to continue ministry in the Traralgon Parish as Associate Priest and at the Traralgon campus of St Pauls Anglican Grammar School as Chaplain. I thank God for them all and their willingness to serve God and our diocese in this way, as well as for the gifts and skills in ministry they bring to us. A number of our clergy have retired since last synod. Bob Brown, a Uniting Church Minister of the Word, retired from the Churchill and Boolarra Yinnar Cooperating Parishes. I thank Bob for his gracious ministry among us. Lloyd George retired from honorary ministry at the Cathedral and is currently serving a locum ministry in the Diocese of Sydney at the Golden Grove House of Healing. He served faithfully as a deacon and priest at the Cathedral since 2006, and for many years prior to that in lay ministry. Neil Thompson retired in January from the Newborough Parish, where he has served since 2002. Neil was ordained for Gippsland in 1990 as Deacon and in 1991 as Priest and has served faithfully in a number of parishes over those years. I thank him for his committed enthusiasm in ministry and for his keen desire especially to engage in schools and through tennis coaching with many children and young people. In this way, he has sought to bring many who no longer have any contact with the church to faith in Jesus Christ. Neil will remain among us as a retired priest, and with Sue, will be living near Foster. Sadly, Ken McDermid was unable to continue in ministry in the Yarram Parish due to ill health. The indications are that Ken will not be able to return to stipendiary ministry.

There have also been some resignations from parishes. Rowena Harris, a Uniting Church Minister of the Word, resigned from the Croajingolong Cooperating Parish to take up ministry with the Uniting Church Frontier Services. She will continue to serve in East Gippsland, being based now at the Orbost Uniting Church. Stuart Lawson resigned from honorary ministry at the Cathedral, and he and June have left the Anglican Church. Our retired clergy continue to serve us well in locum ministries, in parishes awaiting a new rector and when clergy are on leave. I have noted before our dependence on their generosity and graciousness in serving us in these ministries. I note especially the ministries of Laurie Baker, Gordon Cooper, Ted Gibson, Fred Morrey, Marilyn Obersby, Ken Peters, Elwyn Sparks, and Brian and Ann Turner, all of whom have taken on long term locum ministries in parishes looking for new rectors over the last year. This, of course, is not to forget all those other clergy who hold my Permission to Officiate, who assist our current rectors on a regular basis. We have also welcomed into the diocese some new Stipendiary Lay Workers in this last 12 months. They are Von Dubbeld, who has recently been appointed as a Stipendiary Pastoral Assistant in the Abbey Parish of Paynesville. She and Mick and their family have moved there from the Parish of Croajingolong. Richard Lanham comes to us from Gilgandra in the Diocese of Bathurst to be Youth and Families Worker at the Cathedral, and with a diocesanwide brief to help develop youth ministry. I am delighted Rich and Julie and the boys are now among us. Together they bring to us a wealth of experience in ministry with young people, and I believe we will benefit greatly from their ministry. Jan and I are particularly pleased to be re-united with Rich and Julie and the boys, who were with us in the Parish at Redfern for some years. Both Von and Rich have joined the diocesan group for those looking to discern a call to ordained ministry. Pene Brook resigned from her position as Lay Chaplain at Gippsland Grammar School, and is now the ecumenical Lay Chaplain at the Churchill campus of Monash University. Pene has recently been accepted as an ordination candidate and is looking to ministry as a Deacon in her role at the university. It is good to have an Anglican again in that position. I am confident Pene will serve us and the other churches very well in that role, which also involves the pastoral care of those of other faiths. Veronica Bradley resigned as Childrens and Family Worker in the Leongatha Parish last year. We wish her well in her future ministry. I also acknowledge the ministry of Christine Morris at the Cathedral. In what is currently an honorary capacity, Christine has offered herself in ministry in a range of ways over many years, not least in her ministry with children and young people. She has graciously stepped aside from receiving a small stipend for her work with young people to allow the Cathedral Parish to be able to afford its contribution to the full-time position in youth ministry there. While on the note of committed lay persons, I acknowledge the ministries of Philip Davis and Neale Taylor, who generously offered their gifts and skills in various ways to the life of our diocese. Philip resigned recently from Bishop-in-Council and the Finance Committee. Neale resigned from Bishop-in-Council and the Aged Care Board and has moved to the United

States for business reasons. I thank them both for their commitment to the diocese and their work for us. Others recently accepted as ordination candidates, following a period of discernment with us, are Fran Grimes, looking to honorary ministry in the Parish of Corner Inlet and Katie Peken, currently a Stipendiary Lay Worker in the Parish of Warragul. Please keep them and Pene in your prayers as they continue the journey towards ordination. I acknowledge the extra workload Heather Marten took on as Diocesan Administrator while I was away for three months on Long Service Leave. It was a huge demand to step up to the plate while continuing in parish ministry. I acknowledge also the ministry of Lyn Williams in the Parish of Morwell, who took on extra duties there while Heather was Administrator. Over the last year, a number of people in the diocese have received honours of various kinds for their work in the community. Geoff Bell from the Parish of Morwell was awarded a local Citizen Award for community service through Lions. During NAIDOC week, Kathy Dalton received a leadership award. Jack Huxtable from the Morwell parish was awarded the OAM for community service and his contribution to football. Bill Rodda from the Korumburra Parish received an Australian Fire Service Medal in the Queens Birthday Honours list. Reuben Stevens from the Heyfield Parish was awarded Junior Citizen of the Year for Heyfield. Peter Vranek from the Avon Parish was Citizen of the Year for Stratford and the Wellington Shire Citizen of the Year. And in an oversight that should never have happened, I failed to note in 2008 that Eric Kent was awarded the OAM for service to the community of the Gippsland District through a range of church, historical and sporting groups, and to the Parliament of Victoria. I apologise, Eric, for that oversight. I should have known better, given that I contributed to the process with a reference! Each year that passes sees the passing of family and friends from among us. From among the clergy, Neville Chynoweth, a much loved former bishop of this diocese, died on 11th August 2011 following a fall. He had remained very active in ministry throughout his retirement in the Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn. High tribute was paid to him at the funeral for a ministry of great significance in the life of the Australian Church, not least by our own Jim Connelly, who also spoke at the memorial service for Neville held in the Cathedral here in Sale. Mark Boughey, the former Rector of the Bairnsdale Parish, died in January 2012 in Adelaide, after a battle with cancer. Andrew Schreuder died in April. Originally ordained for Gippsland, where he served at the Cathedral and as chaplain at St Annes Gippsland Grammar School, he was a much loved and faithful priest. He died at Eildon, having survived the Black Saturday bushfires as a resident of Marysville. From among lay people, Colin Harvey from Yallourn North in the Newborough Parish died in March 2012. He had been a long term Synod Representative for the parish. Mollie Maddicks from the Trafalgar Parish died on 17th September 2011 aged 98. She was for many years church organist at Yarragon and Trafalgar, a Sunday School teacher and a member of the Ladies Guild. Gwen Perkins from the Trafalgar Parish died on 27th November 2011 at 93

after a long and very active involvement in parish life in Garfield, Moe and Yarragon. At Yarragon, Gwen was a Warden, a Sunday School teacher and a member of Mothers' Union, AWA and Ladies Guild, where she served in executive positions as well. Bruce Shenfield, husband to Jaan Enden, Churchwarden in the Bunyip Parish, died very suddenly and unexpectedly on 27th December 2011, having never regained consciousness from the surgery he had undergone only 12 hours earlier. Margaret Smallbone, wife of the late Archdeacon Denys Smallbone of this diocese, also died in August 2011. English to the hilt, they were both real characters, and I am told by Jim Connelly that Margaret was a considerable woman in her own right. She was living in Port Albert in retirement, and was a member of the Yarram parish, where Denys had served in ministry.

In conclusion, I return now to where I began in focusing on the new strategic plan. Under God, we look forward in faith and hope and love to a future of fruitful ministry and mission in the life of our parishes, and in the life of the diocese as a whole. I am confident because of our past experiences together in ministry that God will continue to bless us. As we have sought to be faithful to Jesus Christ in ministry and mission, God has blessed us greatly, and blessed many others through us. I hear stories on a regular basis of the great things God is doing in and through us. Be encouraged. Serve Jesus Christ in serving each other and all others. See the fruit of the Spirit grow in our lives, and in the lives of those whom we serve. And pray. Without God, we have nothing to offer, but with God, we have everything to give.