Talk:Anglican Diocese of Sydney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Sydney Anglicans)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Anglicanism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Australia / Sydney (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Anglican Diocese of Sydney is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.

Talk Archives[edit]

Talk archive to mid-June 2006

Relationships within the Diocese[edit]

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)

Book of Common Prayer / A Prayer Book For Australia[edit]

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)

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)
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)

furthering the evangelical cause[edit]

[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)

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)
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)

Robes & "the priesthood of all believers"[edit]

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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)

re passage about defence of Scriptural orthodoxy[edit]

"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)

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)
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)

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)

Links to churches[edit]

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)

I agree. --angusj 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Proscribed roles of M&F[edit]

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)

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)

Apartheid??[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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)

Photos of former archbishops[edit]

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

keen to forget Harry Goodhew, Angus? ;) Jensen2007 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)
Thanks for your reply, Angus. You're probably right. --Amandajm 12:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sydney Anglican userbox now available[edit]

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

Canon Law[edit]

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)

How did this happen?[edit]

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)

Re-location[edit]

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

Censorship???[edit]

What's up with this CENSORSHIP??? This has nothing to do with WP:SOAPBOX or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but are valid criticisms of the subject matter at hand. Atheist3500 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This Talk page is for discussion of the article and how to improve it, not for rants about the subject of the article. EEng (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)