Jump to content

Talk:Anglican Diocese of Sydney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 110.33.120.196 (talk) at 11:08, 27 October 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk Archives

Talk archive to mid-June 2006

Relationships within the Diocese

A long bulletin-board type discussion between Amandajm and angusj (which discussed how they would improve the church, rather than how to improve this article) has been deleted. As far as the Relationships within the Diocese section of the article, it is whiney and complaining and drenched in (anti-diocese) POV. I am in Iowa, USA and I am not Anglican so I have no dog in this race. Joe Hepperle (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Common Prayer / A Prayer Book For Australia

The prayer book question troubles me as an outsider- I live in the Hunter Valley- for a number of churches (The Cathedral St Peters Hornsby, St James Turramurra, John Mark Sefton Hill St Philips Church Hill to name just 5 I know personally regularly use the BCP and at least the Cathedral and SS Philips and Peter are in no way high church. Does this need re writing Backnumber1662 07:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair question which I can't authoritatively answer (though I'm confident it's use is uncommon at best). --angusj 09:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find there are more than that too... I remember St Johns Cathedral Parramatta and St Andrews Roseville also have regular 1662 services. They may not use them as regularly as you may like, but neither of these places fits the definition/description on the main page. --Petedenham 13:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

furthering the evangelical cause

[Moved from Angusj:talk] You've said "their". I think it should be "the" evangelical cause. Their is a bit personal. From what I know about the Church league, the statement that their main purpose is to ensure that the Archbishop will be Evangelical is absolutely correct. --Amandajm 06:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that "their" was left from someone else's edit. I was simply trying to preserve as much of the previous edit as possible. I'm very happy if you want to change it. --angusj 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason why the original author used their rather than the evangelical cause, is the Sydney Anglicans have been accused of sheep stealing from other churches, i.e. involved not in prostelyzing, but in theft of church members. There is also a general consensus that the Anglican Church, because it is a self contained chain (like Coles), and the Dioceses own and control EVERYTHING, that it is very self contained, i.e. Anglicans are NOT ecumenical. This of course reflects the church structure 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robes & "the priesthood of all believers"

Yes, it's biblical. But everytime it is used as a justification for something that is done by Sydney, it seems to me, as a woman who seriously considered ordination and who would have had to uproot a whole family and shift to another diocese to do it, to be highly offensive to every woman in my position. Please don't put it back. --Amandajm 11:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with the way you've left that section now. However, I really couldn't leave your prior edit alone since it was plainly wrong. (The whole section needs significant reworking - it's hard to follow and has too much information of questionable relevance.) --angusj 13:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ps: While this isn't relevant to the discussion here, you might be happy to know that I am in favour of women's ordination. --angusj 13:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Angus! You've done a great job of tidying up that section. It was a bit clumsy. Thankyou for sorting out the other matter for me. My additional word was merely an indication that I was feeling rather put out. --Amandajm 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm delighted that you're happy with it. :) --angusj 13:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused about the discussion of priesthood of all believers on this and other pages. The concept comes out of 1 Peter and means that all believers are God's priests not in the sacramental sense (for that is Christ's work alone) but in the representative sense. For Israel was meant to be a nation of priests, going between the Gentiles and God. Now Christians are to go between unbelievers and God; being his mouthpieces, explaining the gospel.

The concept is not about ordination. It does not refer to the elder/presbyter/overseer of Titus and 1 Timothy (which was left 'priest' at the English Reformation). While all Christians are God's priests, they are not all presbyters. Thus it is invalid to say that Sydney's decision not to ordain women, contradicts their acceptance of the priesthood of all believers. For one is about the status of Christians before God and mankind, and the other is about about a role some Christians fulfil within God's church. Journeyman 06:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Journeyman, when I substantially revised the "Robes" section several days ago I removed the statement that included "priesthood of all believers" because I didn't think it was relevant either. Perhaps you weren't aware of that - otherwise further discussion should really be for another forum (eg: http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/) since all discussion here should be restricted to the article. --angusj 07:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Angusj, I wasn't wishing to start a forum-style discussion here. The discussion on other pages had confused the priesthood of all believers with the ordination of presbyters and I wanted to clear up the confusion. That's all. Journeyman 20:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Journeyman. Yes your clarification was brief and helpful, so thank you. My suggestion should have been directed more explicitly at all of us (including me), since several of us have had a tendency to go off topic into discussions of theology and styles of worship :). --angusj 23:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re passage about defence of Scriptural orthodoxy

"It has been suggested that the Diocese's very public and zealous defence of Scriptural orthodoxy is overshadowing its Gospel message."

There were three references attached to this passage. I followed them, looking for the support of this statement which begins "It has been suggested...."

Now, while, on one hand I accept that it may have been suggested..., none of the three references were directly suggesting anything that was specifically critical of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. In fact, two of the articles are written by Anglican clergymen within the Sydney Diocese.

One might, of coures, use the material contained within the three articles to present an argument, if one wished to. But as it stands, the statement that "It has been suggested...." was unsupported by the references. So I deleted them.

--Amandajm 07:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree that the references didn't clearly correlate with the statement so I'll remove that too. By the way Amandajm, I think the pic you added is terrific! --angusj 07:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I changed the sentence from POV by adding the "It has been suggested" preface, but I didn't check the links. My Bad. Thanks. Journeyman 01:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this section very accurately points out what I have enlisted below in the Controversies section. Not only this commitment, but this OVERCOMMITMENT, what is known as Bibliolatry, this idolatry of the Bible, and taking ONLY what is enlisted in the bible as being biblical, is causing huge incongruence with their acceptance of the Gospel message 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a link under See also to Christ Church St Ives. It wasn't working anyway. I think that there is a place for a link to a list of Sydney's Anglican churches, but I don't think that See also is the place for a link to every church in the diocese. --Amandajm 11:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --angusj 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for the External Links area. We could start List of churches in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney but some might consider it cruft. --Journeyman 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed a link to an article on Narremburn Anglican, per the above discussion. I think the List idea might be interesting and have started an 'offline' version under my user page. Please contribute! :) Journeyman 01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proscribed roles of M&F

I deleted the reference to the roles of "Men and Women as set down in .....Genesis".

My reason for doing this is that I believe some people mistake the description of Eve as the "help" of Adam as meaning that Eve has a subordinate role.

There are two ways to help. A mother says to a toddler "Come and help me put the washing out! You can pass the pegs." The same mother says "Let me help you do your jigsaw puzzle. Why don't you try turning that piece around?" In these two applications of the same word "helping" takes on two very different meanings.

While men often see a wife as the person who passes them the light globe, the woman sees herself as the person who holds the ladder steady while he climbs it.

When we say "God, help me!" we don't mean "God, stand by and be my assistant." What we mean is "God, save me!", "God, comfort me!" or "God, heal me!"

Like the God who is called on in times of need and darkest distress, in her role as "help" a woman is anything but subordinate. Hence I removed the reference to a supposed ordained order. (On the grounds that it is open to interpretation and ought not be taken as a given)

--Amandajm 12:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amandajm why are you pushing your hobby horse on Genesis here? It may not be the interpretation you agree with but clearly it is the interpretation of the Sydney diocese. Your view on the matter is irrelevant to the clear and public Sydney Anglican view which should be neutrally presented in this article.

Hi, whoever you are! (I wish people would give themselves an identity of some sort). The problem is that I am a Sydney Anglican and I think that rather than making the statement "blah de blah as set down in Genesis" there needs to be some explanation of how the Genesis passage is being interpreted. Because, as I have made clear, it is open to two very different interpretations. Or hobby horses, if you like. --Amandajm 13:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid??

Does anyone have any references for "there was also a considerable support for Apartheid. Broughton Knox for example in his writings advocated that doctrine" DBK now has three volumes of his writing published, is it in there? If there is no evidence for this, then this section should be deleted. Echinoman 13:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had put a request for a citation in this section back in July, and none has been given. Unless someone provides one, I think this bit should be deleted.

"Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed....The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research." -- Wikipedia:Verifiability -- BenStevenson 20:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was backnumber1662 who wrote it. I've left a message to see if they have any references. Echinoman 12:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems backnumber1662 has added some references unfortunately they're all books I don't have access to. I have contacted a few people with regards to the claims about Broughton Knox to cross-check the claim. Some claims appear circumstantial, such as DBK going to be Principal of George Whitefield College. In fact GWC is the college of the evangelical and (IIRC) integrated Church of England in South Africa. Also, Donald Robinson may have refused to meet Desmond Tutu for theological reasons (a newspaper report would be useful on that one). Journeyman 00:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DBK's views on race are covered in
  1. D.B. Knox, "Race", In: Selected works of Broughton Knox (Volume 3): The Christian Life, (Eds. T. Payne & K. Beilharz), Matthias Media, 2006.
  2. M. Cameron, An Enigmatic Life: David Broughton Knox, Father of Sydney Anglicanism, Acorn Press, 2006, pp 308-309
  3. D.B. Knox, Not by Bread Alone, Banner of Truth, 1989, p 55.

I am still to read any of these but in my correspondance it seems the word "advocate" is too strong, but he apparently thought that segregation would lead to greater societal harmony: five families in five houses would be more peaceful than five families in one house. Also it seems in arguing this, he wasn't being intentionally racist. I will write more once I've read the source material. I have removed the comments about Desmond Tutu and DBK going to GWC. Journeyman 04:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I respectfully suggest that before you remove wording such as advocate you read what DBK wrote. You will then see that not only did he strongly advocate apartheid in South Africa he also advocated it in Australia. You might also be interested to know that he personally attacked Mr John Sandeman (a writer for Southern Cross the offical paper of the Diocese) for his 'mixed parentage' (see Mr Sandemans account here http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/community/viewtopic.php?t=1694&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=270 and following pages - there are a lot )Backnumber1662
I participated in the discussion with Mr Sandeman, and helped in the early stages of the editorial process for Knox Volume 3 (referred to above). Pax Backnumber 1662, I do not believe that the assertions regarding support for apartheid can be substantiated from these sources.--Gordon Cheng.

The issue of apartheid that was raised here is currently being debated on the Sydney Anglican website at http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/community/viewtopic.php?t=2267 There seems to be some difficulty in coming across primary documents to support this idea that many Sydney Anglicans supported apartheid in the 70s or at any time. If anyone has a point of view or actual facts they could join in. Echinoman 02:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting and very sad that my points about the history of the Diocese ( i added the sections about Archdeacon Scott and some of the material on Bp Broughton) and on the 'red book' and on the positive (or at least politically correct) parts of the diocesan politics (Again i added the section on Abp Loanes championship of 'boat people') have survived. that part on this topic (substantiated with proper sources widely available in the major work on the Anglican church in Australia Bruce Kaye (Ed) Anglicanism in Australia: A History (ISBN 0522850030) (Dr Kaye was the General Secretary of General Synod his book has been respectfully reviewed (e g here http://www.api-network.com/cgi-bin/reviews/jrbview.cgi?n=0522850030) has been deleted. I propose to repost it when I have the source information used in Dr Kayes book (which is no longer available at Moore College Library nor at the State Library of New South Wales). I will fully and at length quote the views of D B Knox which according to Dr Kayes book fully substantiate the charge that he advocated apartheid in Australia) I also note that in Abp Robinsons review of this book he did not object to the comments about D B Knox (though he did object to some about the diocesan relationship with the then segregated Church of England in South Africa and which in view of His Grace's objections I did not include).Backnumber1662 06:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Backnumber 1662, I deleted the segment on apartheid because I cannot find any primary sources for it. I waited for a month to see if anyone could come up with one. The only source that is available is the opinion of Bill Lawton. None of the other sources appear to exist. As you said, Moore college does not have these volumes, nor any other library in NSW that has an on-line catalogue. If support for apartheid was considerable then there should be some primary evidence for it. I invite you to contribute to the on-line discussion linked above as soon as you have any information. From what I can gather DBKs view was somewhere between the sort of multiculturalism that existed in Australia up until 2005 and the form of self determination that exists for the Inuit in Canada. I can find nothing that would suggest that he supported the sort of discrimination that was the hallmark of apartheid however I am very open to being proved wrong. Echinoman 11:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references I deleted were

  • "The Bible Teaching about Race", Christian Faith Society, Sydney 1978.
  • "Apartheid", Christian Faith Society, Sydney 1981.

If anyone has access to these publications then it would be appreciated.Echinoman 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of former archbishops

I personally think that photos of former archbishops is unnecessary and cluttering. Do others agree? --angusj 06:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keen to forget Harry Goodhew, Angus? ;) Jensen2007 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. No, I was really thinking that these photos draw too much attention to the past. But Michael, if you think I'm a liberal in the Goodhew mould then so be it! :). --angusj 21:59, 6 December 2006

(UTC)

I've come on this dicussion rather late, not having visited this page for a while. I'd like to make a few points-
  • For those who are not Sydney Evangelicals (which is the more accurate name for this page, as that is how we are known), to say "a liberal in the mold of Harry Goodhew" is not to imply an exponent of Liberal Theology. It simply implies that Harry Goodhew was a little more liberal than the present archbishop, showing, for example, some sympathy towards the cause of Women's Ordination.
  • There appears to be some sort of a slur implied in Jensen2007's question. I can't quite understand why this forum has been used for that purpose, or why Jensen2007 would wish to cast some little stone in the direction of a man whose style of ministry has been marked by love, humble service, self-effacement, outreach, wisdom and implacability in the face of challenge to his own right as archbishop to show faith, kindness and respect towards others.
  • Harry is no longer Archbishop of Sydney. Since no just cause for crucifixion could be found within his term office, I would like to call upon you to respect his retirement from Sydney politics and give over your efforts to prayerful support of his work with those in the slums and garbage dumps of Africa.

I put up the photos. I think that the text in general needs a few more photos but my inclusions were based of availability. I would be happy to see a few faces on notable people in a gallery at the end. --Amandajm 03:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Amanda. If Jensen2007 is who I think he is then I'm very confident that no slur was intended by suggesting I'm a Goodhew supporter. Likewise I'm very confident that Jensen2007 intended no disrespect of former archbishop Goodhew. Anyhow, thanks for making it clear to those outside the diocese that Goodhew was still very much aligned with the the reformed evangelical tradition that's prevalent in the Sydney diocese. --angusj 11:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Angus. You're probably right. --Amandajm 12:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they disrupt the flow of the text. There is a photo gallery module for WP we could use, or the photos could be shifted to individual Abp pages. --Journeyman 01:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave a couple of them in, perhaps the more important ones. But one for each Bishop or Archbishop is too much. JROBBO 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Anglican userbox now available

{{User:UBX/Sydney Anglicans}} --One Salient Oversight 01:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canon Law

There are a number of unsupported claims that various actions are "contrary to Canon Law". Canon B5:1 reads, "The minister may in his discretion make and use variations which are not of substantial importance in any form of service authorised by Canon B1 according to particular circumstances." Canon B5:3 defines what constitutes a variation "of substantial importance": "All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter."

Any change according to scripture is according to Canon. These references need to be deleted or supported.

--Leadryl (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did this happen?

The article doesn't give a very good sense of why and how the Sydney diocese came to develop so differently from the other Anglican dioceses in Australia. More information on this would be useful. john k (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-location

The buildings facing the intersection of Old Northern Rd and Castle Hill Rd have been demolished. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevDog32 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CONTROVERSIES relating to this diocese

If you look at the archive page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anglican_Diocese_of_Sydney/Archive_1#liberal.2C_charismatic.2C_Anglo-Catholic_and_traditionalist_Anglican_churches_in_Sydney.) you will also find criticisms of the church based upon its narrow-minded acceptance of conservatives - I haven't included this because this is a breach of my own personal conservatism, so I will let someone who is more liberal to include (or re-include this). Nonetheless, I'll just note one of the authors did note "Let's not pretend that the presence of such churches is welcome. Diversity it NOT welcome. And in this, Sydney markedly differs from England". Remember guys, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT an evangelical tool to make your diocese look good... Yes, you and I we may be conservative but let's be honest and transparent about this. If there are comparative differences between Sydney Anglicans and those in England, make it clear. I see that the article indicates Sydney Anglicans are LOW CHURCH which is very unique because in places like England it is quite a HIGH CHURCH - perhaps these factors could be expounded upon, because it causes particular differences in Sydney as supposed to other dioceses 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

War against Pentecostalism, esp Hillsong church

As I've already indicated on the Talk page for Brian Farran, the Sydney diocese is involved with a number of controversies that has NOT been accurately depicted, or at least not as critical as they themselves has been of Hillsong.

There seems to be a general rhetoric amongst Anglicans that Hillsong is "all about the money", "prosperity doctrine", etc, but when asked if they had ever attended a service, most Anglican priests will admit they have never, or if they have, it was only one event - and not even the Life Groups where most of the bible teaching actually occurs.

There is also this generalization Sydney Anglicans have of charismatics (although they tend to try and leave out those of the Baptist church in particular who are pentecostal, instead pointing to the fact they have grown out of another Christian tradition), that they are stupid and dumb, and biblically inept, perhaps analogous to the "dumb blonde" reasoning where a good looking woman with blonde hair must be academically inept. They are unable to point to a particular study, but just base it upon anecdotal evidence, IF even that, given most of them haven't even stepped into a Pentecostal church! 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic heresy

Perhaps relating to the Anglican war against Hillsong seems to be this pervading "Gnostic heresy" amongst Sydney Anglicans, which is unsurprising given heresies seem to repeat themselves, and whereas the Pentecostals are a close analogy with the Pharisees, Sydney Anglicans are a close analogy with the Saduccees - who had all the political power, but did not believe in the miraculous. The Gnostic heresy was the first church heresy to arise, and they believed the more Godly you are the less worldly you are, and the more worldly you are the less Godly you are. Thus they believed Jesus was not "human" at all, but only appeared so, because he was fully God. And if he was human even a bit, he would be less God than he should be. (The correct theology is Jesus was fully human and fully God)

And as you can see this heresy is their foundation of much of their criticism - if it is not just a psychological thing where they are having their Market share entirely RIPPED from them from the Pentecostals because of the church's IRRELEVANCE - e.g. they say Hillsong talks about money, and they shouldn't talk about money in church, as you can see it is clearly based upon the heretical idea that money=worldly, and God=godly, so money and god don't go together. Or music, good music=worldly, and God=godly, so good music and God don't go together - it's almost as if they believe bad music=godly

So even though Anglicans may not PUBLICLY espouse these heresies, particular this heresy, you can see it CLEARLY inbuilt into their thinking 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement with the court

Again moving with the Sadducee analogy, Sydney Anglicans also seem to be heavily involved with the courts, which as I enlisted on the Farran talk page, seems to be a breach of 1 Cor 6:1, which states "How DARE you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers!", and the reason, just like the saduccees in the New Testament, is because of the "canon law" that pervades the Anglican church 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tax avoidance

So this relates to income tax, fringe benefits tax, GST, from which churches are generally free from, although Sydney Anglicans have institutionalized policies to abuse it - Although they have criticized the Pentecostals for "taking a lot of money from the people", the National Church Life Survey has shown that on a per capita basis, Anglican churches and Pentecostal churches receive the same amount of donation per capita. However, Anglican churches have ADITIONALLY been implicated in media for their SYSTEMIC abuse of the tax system (it is partially to do with the Anglican system where it is run like a chained store - sort of like Coles, whereas Pentecostal churches are more like a franchise - so therefore Anglican churches could argue it is a problem with the church system which FORCES them to mis-classify tax). But anyway, Anglican Churches have been notable in media, for even despite average wages ($70k), abusing the tax incentives provided by the government (capital gains), and especially on an individual basis, abuse of the FRINGE BENEFITS, and also even priests bragging about being able to send their kids to the Anglican schools for a fraction of the cost

This is NOT an exclusive listing, and people are free to add other controversies. Analogies are useful to use to exclude WP:BIAS, but what is clear is that if Hillsong Church has a "Controversies" section, that the Sydney Anglicans section can only but also be filled with that too 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinism as a "mystery"

The Sydney Anglicans as the article indicates have been strongly calvinistic, and as you can read in this William Lane Craig article (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism) - who actually spoke at AFES, which although they deny it, are deceptively entrenched with the Sydney Anglicans. Anyway, Calvinism has been described by Lane Craig as:

  • cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture
  • cannot be rationally affirmed, Lane Craig describes it as "self-defeating"
  • makes God the author of sin and precludes human responsibility
  • nullifies human agency
  • makes reality into a farce

The priests have often accept Calvinism as a "mystery", pointing to particular verses, which could be solved with Lane Craig's "Molinism" view anyway. And this is particularly surprising, given the Sydney Anglicans often espouse themselves as being somehow intellectually superior, yet nonetheless accept Calvinism simply as a "mystery" - and the reason is bibliolatry (see below) 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliolatry

Probably one of the most problematic aspects of the Sydney Anglicans, which you don't see in other jurisdictions, for example in African Anglicanism, is their total hatred for the charismatics, and one of the strong reasons for doing so is their strong Bibliolatry perspective, where they idolize "the bible", which is historically a "rebelling" against their Catholic background, where there was too much tradition/precedence, and not enough Sola scriptura. Nonetheless, like Muslims, the Sydney Anglicans have taken "God's word" to actually be each-and-every-word accurate, precluding any use of storytelling devices, historical inaccuracies, even propoganda that you would expect in historical texts. The issue is that this is another HERESY believed by this church.

As indicated in John 5:39 (You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you REFUSE to come to me to have life"

Perhaps it isn't surprising that John starts his book indicating that for Christians the Word=Jesus, and NOT a bunch of text that was magically written.

One of William Lane Craig's colleagues, JP Moreland, has written an excellent thesis on Bibliolatry (http://www.kingdomtriangle.com/discussion/moreland_EvangOverCommBible.pdf) His thesis in short is that for Christians, unlike Muslims, the Word is a living, breathing thing - it's Jesus! And there are lots of spiritual realities that are not found in the bible - e.g. the experience of angels, demons, even God! And for that reason experience MUST come into play. And again, this is because this article lacks the historical accuracy reflecting the Anglican relationship with Catholacism - i.e. that it was a rebellion movement that came out of Catholacism, and thus took advantage of Martin Luther's protestant movement, and anything that was remotely Catholac 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is known as public knowledge throughout all of Australia that the Anglican church has very deceptively marketed AFES as being non-denominational, but yet AFES ministers are almost entirely picked from the Anglican church, and is the first point of contact. There are also news articles about students being forced out of their churches (Anglicans particularly target Pentecostal churches), into their own Anglican churches, which one can only but think there may be some sort of financial reason for this too, because this is the University crowd who have their entire live's income in front of them 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific institutional child paedophelia

Child paedophelia is essentially synonymous with the Anglican Church, because of their structure, and this problem isn't found in linked churches (e.g. franchises like the Baptist church don't have this issue), because what is happening is someone found out to be a paedophile is CONVENIENTLY shifted from one diocese into another so they can reoffend, or even worse - shifted within the diocese to another another church 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of ecumenical activity with other churches

Perhaps reflected in the Anglican Church's "competition" and "war" against the most fastest growing Christian sect, the Pentecostal Church, is that the Anglican Church, because it is a self contained chain (like Coles), and the Dioceses own and control EVERYTHING, that it is very self contained, i.e. Anglicans are NOT ecumenical. This of course reflects the church structure, but nonetheless, authorization is required at the Diocese level for joint activity with other churches, and so they often do not like to mingle with other churches - i.e. rather than saying "THE BODY of Jesus Christ", they refer to only the local Anglican church (sort of like how the Catholics have tried to exclude other churches by adopting "the CATHOLIC church" in doctrinal statements 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neglecting the 3rd person of the Trinity (i.e. the Holy Spirit)

I would've included this, but haven't to the disappointment probably of some Pentecostals, because of the Sydney Anglicans shifting position on this. In their 2020 mission statement (again... obviously an influence by Hillsong) (http://sydneyanglicans.net/images/uploads/mission_2020.pdf), you will notice a very obvious "dependnece on the Holy Spirit" statement in the "Mission" clause, essentially neglecting to include discussion on the Father! Nonetheless, this seems like a slow progression that started when Phillip Jensen was accused by - you won't believe this - but the now-controversial Mark Driscoll, who accused the Sydney Anglicans of believing in "Father, Son, and Holy Bible" as part of their "Ministry Intensive Conference" (http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/theology/the_holy_spirit_according_to_jesus). Again, a Conference - Hillsong influence? As Jensen correctly identifies, the insult was intended to offend, to gain awareness of spiritual lethargy and to correct error 110.33.120.196 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question regarding a potentially heretical trinity which I found a reference for. This article (https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/35160) states: "The Sydney Anglicans' Trinity has God the Father ruling over Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Why? Because if Father is boss in heaven, then father is boss on Earth". This is TOTALLY heretical. Now I won't include it yet (at least not after some discussion) because that is found on some extremist Greens website, but it may be useful to reflect on 110.33.120.196 (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here by the way is a quote from Peter Jensen (former Archbishop of Sydney Anglicans) who ADMITS that the Anglicans have FAILED on the subject of teaching on the H/S - "Dr Jensen admitted that Sydney Anglican churches haven't been as active in teaching about the Holy Spirit as they could be" - and this is coming from the OFFICIAL Sydney Anglicans propaganda machine (http://sydneyanglicans.net/news/holy_spirit_draws_crowd_to_jensen) 110.33.120.196 (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ripping funds away from Anglicare to fund Moore College

Continuing from above, this article (https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/35160) alleges that the church has ripped funds away from Anglicare, the church's welfare arm, causing it to be "financially troubled", by funding its theological "factory" which produces 10,000 part-time pastoral workers, and 1,000 full-timers, at a cost of $500 million. Hillsong's total revenue in 2012 was $55m (up from $28m in 2013) (http://www.biblesociety.org.au/news/hillsong-under-fire-on-channel-nine-but-was-it-fair). This figure is TEN TIMES GREATER!!! (Notable is that that article also notes that a comparable geographical reach of Sydney Anglicans with 65,000 Sydney Anglicans gave $89m in offerings in 2011, more than 3 times the amount at $28m by Hillsong in 2011... So much for the criticism that Hillsong's all about $$$.. the FACTS and statistics actually show that the Anglicans are 3x more about $$$$ than Hillsong is hmmm....) 110.33.120.196 (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues pertaining to the Anglican church in general

Church started because of King Henry 8th's sexual appetite

Although most Anglicans want to proudly announce they have nothing to do with Catholacism, little is usually brought up about the fact that Anglican church=Church of England, and the entire church was started based on the fact King Henry 8th wanted to shag his brother's wife and the Catholic pope wouldn't let him. Yes, there have been the 39 articles since, but ORIGINALLY the Anglican church was Catholic, and so their remnant theologies (which have not been replaced) can be highly heretical 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen being the "pope" of the church

Given that the Queen is not a particularly good theologian, or, well, for that matter... has ANY theological depth, it is an evident controversy that she has become the "pope" of the entire Anglican church. There is also the self-contradictory fact that the HEAD of the entire Anglican Church is a woman - yet they do not let women become priests! 110.33.120.196 (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of separation of Church and State

By making himself the self-proclaimed pope of the Church of England/Anglican Church, what King Henry 8th essentially did was to join Church and State. This is a theological error, because Jesus did not call his kingdom a political kingdom. And this is one of the reasons why a good analogy of the social standing of Anglicans is the Sadduccees, and their reliance on lawyers, etc - The entire church has a difficulty separating church from state - and this is perhaps a good place to insert how the Australian Anglican church differs in the USA. The USA was the FIRST country, as it was not apart of the "Commonwealth", to have a place where Catholics could FINALLY be free to practice their religion. This is why it could also be argued that the Church of England is actually unconstitutional because it forces people of England to go to the Church of England. When you think of how HORRENDOUS this is, it is even worse than the Chinese Three-Self Patriotic Movement which at least allows you to join one of 3 protestant churches in China. The English have only permitted you to join a SINGLE church - of which you have to bow down to the King of England... far out! 110.33.120.196 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cessationism (?) - this is a BIG question mark

Continuing from my prose above, Jensen indicates in this article (http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/theology/the_holy_spirit_according_to_jesus), and criticizes Driscoll, saying:

"It is not his fault that in his short visit to Sydney he did not learn that Cessationism has NEVER had much of a foothold here. It is much more common in the USA".

This comment by the former ARCHBISHOP of Sydney (i.e. the VERY HIGHEST figure) is in STARK contrast with probably some High Church Anglican extremist who has written in the Wiki page:

"Charismatic" manifestations of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking in tongues, are considered to have ceased after the apostles

As indicated by the Archbishop's comment, this statement is FALSE - perhaps it's time to look up at the statements of ecclesiastical authority, if not your bible...........

Other statements by Jensen in that same article include

  • In the coming sermons we will be looking at how we are sanctified, sealed, led and filled by the Spirit as well as the meaning of the gifts and fruit of the Spirit
  • The person and work of the Holy Spirit is far too important a topic to... be defensive

There is also an author at Sydney Anglicans propaganda media department, who has issued like statements here (http://sydneyanglicans.net/blogs/missionthinking/do_sydney_anglicans_know_the_holy_spirit):

  • We have certainty about the person of the Spirit Himself, who is revealed progressively through the Scriptures. He is certainly not merely an impersonal force... We can be sure that... the Spirit is fully God
  • The Spirit is involved in creation, directs history, reveals God's messages through His prophets, teaches what it means to be faithful and righteous, and equips His leaders. In the New Testament, the Spirit reveals Jesus' reality, unites believers in Christ, gives assurance of our sonship, transforms our lives, gives gifts for service, and moves us to mission

Evidently, as an Anglican, he stops there, but William Lane Craig nicely provides a full listing, most impactingly of course, stating "Jesus Himself was a charismatic - as His fully-man component relied so heavily on the Holy Spirit through His ministry - and if our Saviour required the H/S, how much more do we?!". Lane Craig discusses it in his Defenders Podcast transcript is here (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s7-2). Quotes include (there are a LOT - I've just included those relating to the impact of the H/S on Jesus):

  • It is very interesting to see how intimately connected with the life and ministry of Jesus the person of the Holy Spirit is
  • Jesus was conceived through the work of the Holy Spirit in Mary (Luke 1:35)
  • Jesus did not begin his ministry until he was filled with the power of the Holy Spirit at the time of his baptism (Luke 3:21-22)
  • Jesus’ miracles and exorcisms are said to have been performed through the power of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:28 , Acts 10:38)
  • Jesus’ preaching is attributed in its power to the Holy Spirit. (Luke 4:14-21)
  • The continuance of Jesus’ ministry after his death is also attributed to the Holy Spirit. (John 16:7, 13-14)
  • I say all of that simply to say that it was his (Jesus') human nature that was in need of being infused with the power of the Holy Spirit and that was anointed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus was, if you will, a charismatic. He was a man who depended upon and was filled with the power of the Holy Spirit to carry out his ministry

So to the HERETIC who is writing statements on the Wiki page contradicting the former head of Sydney Anglicans, please stop it, or at least include references! 110.33.120.196 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglican_Diocese_of_Sydney&oldid=631308107"