I realise I am treading where some will not thank me for treading by doing some exploring of what is going on, may be going on, or could be going on in the archiepiscopal election in Sydney. Apart from being insatiably curious, there is a Kiwi angle to taking care to understand the Diocese of Sydney.
First, some of our clergy have trained there and some of our aspiring clergy wish to train there (i.e. at Moore College).
Secondly, there is a view around the traps of our church that "push comes to shove" if we divide because of, you know, that issue, then, for some, at least, Sydney will be the place to which to connect for episcopal oversight. This view, incidentally may or may not be held by some people who would avail themselves of the possibility, but it is definitely held by some who do not understand Anglican evangelicalism and consequently think such a link is a foregone conclusion.
Understanding Sydney then - from a Kiwi Anglican perspective - is both a matter of understanding what might have a considerable bearing on Anglican futures (plural, deliberate) in these islands as well as understanding why, were some kind of split to occur, it is likely that many Kiwi Anglicans in search of new Anglican arrangements might have nothing to do with Sydney at all.
Anyway, for some time now, I have held the view, though largely to myself, that there is something unhealthy at the heart of Sydney Anglicanism, which manifests itself in the way in which people feel intimidated from revealing what they are really thinking. A climate, that is, which does not encourage open debate about issues of the day for fear that to join such debate is typecast oneself as "not one of us".
I could be completely wrong. Though I think not. Partly because of some recent reading which highlights some interesting dynamics re the power of the prevailing orthodoxy in Sydney.
Fascinating reading, going into this period of election canvassing are these two posts (and the comments) by Andrew Katay: here and here.
Also interesting is this curious article by Tony Payne. Curious because it sets out to review the writings of the late John Chapman while also reviewing a recent book by Michael Jensen. Essentially it is Chapman = good; Jensen = bad, with the latter judgement arrived at by assessing that the book in question doesn't mention the work of the former. Curious indeed.
Here is the thing. I have been reading Tony Payne for years via The Briefing. I would describe him, in Katay terms, as a 'hard conservative'. In Katay terms I suggest his article paints Jensen as a 'soft conservative.
As best I can make out, returning to the peopling of the election narrative with a cast of characters, Rick Smith is the hard conservative candidate and +Glenn Davies is the soft conservative candidate.
Guess what? On the list of supporters for Glenn Davies we find the names of Andrew Katay and Michael Jensen!
Where I find Andrew Katay's analysis persuasive is when it focuses on the hard conservative fear of liberalism driving its activity forward to suppress soft conservatism because of the equivalence made between soft conservatism and liberalism, the former being deemed bound to become the latter. I have had a little experience of that myself!
So, in the end, my point in a recent post, that the election is basically over, is based on the deduction that the hard conservatism of the Sydney Diocese has enough energy and support to secure another archiepiscopal election.
From this side of the Ditch, I suggest it is precisely 'hard conservativism' which makes it unlikely that in any future split in our church, many, if any Anglicans will seek the sheltering support of Sydney. We are a bit soft!
Except on the rugby field :)
For an ABC post on the matter, read here.
I think you're probably right, Peter. My (uninformed) perspective is that links with Sydney will be loose at best, whatever happens.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to get guest commentary from +Tim Harris on this subject.
As some on ADU might know, I have been in the past a licenced member of the Diocese of Melbourne. One position I held enabled me to gather a pretty broad understanding of the diverse nature of that extraordinarily variegated diocese, even as it also granted me certain access into the life of the Church in Sydney, both Anglican and otherwise. We were always seeking to draw upon ‘successful resources’; why reinvent the wheel?! I also have good friends among the Anglican crowd in Sydney - still!
ReplyDeleteI make these prefatory remarks only to suggest Peter has got it broadly correct in his portrait of this electioneering process, both in this thread and earlier. I also agree there are good reasons for the ACANZ&P to note very well indeed both this process and its outcome. Not that ‘Sydney’ should in any way become a bogeyman or even gravamen with respect to final, possible future configurations among us in ACANZ&P. No; what is needed at this time is mutual respect, wise discernment and due attention. And what is not needed is the seemingly default option of many in leadership of sheer ‘drift’. Yet, it could be countered at just this last point that this is what the current Sydney strategy is exactly countering itself! To which I’d only say, there are many ways of skinning cats - if you’d pardon the expression! That is to say, one may as a Christian be both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ without any compromise or contradiction. For that is the Gospel itself: utterly singular and particular - in the once and for all Incarnation and atonement of Jesus - combined with the gloriously universal and catholic embrace of “all things”, under the redeeming Lordship of that same Jesus. Often however, our western preference is to try and give God too much of a seeming help hand - as if we do not quite trust the very God of the Gospel himself, and notably the sovereign divine desire to dwell among us mortals. On God’s terms of course, not our own ...!
Interesting indeed Peter. As an orthodox Anglo-Catholic who once espoused the liberal trends of this church, including change in favour of the "current issue", the prospect of ACANZP continuing its headlong rush down the TEC track fills me with despair. So does any alternative arrangement which involves Sydney! Lord hear our prayer.
ReplyDelete" That is to say, one may as a Christian be both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ without any compromise or contradiction. For that is the Gospel itself: utterly singular and particular - in the once and for all Incarnation and atonement of Jesus - combined with the gloriously universal and catholic embrace of “all things”, under the redeeming Lordship of that same Jesus" - Dr. Bryden Black -
ReplyDeleteNot bad, Bryden, for a self-confessed conservative Evangelical. The degree to which God includes ALL of God's children - diverse in understanding though they may be, is far more generous than some people would care to affirm. I couldn't have put the inclusive situation better myself.
Thanks Ron: happy to be in agreement when it is profoundly and soundly based on Scripture - in this case Ephesians.
ReplyDeleteThough I would say the label you apply to myself is your own and never a self-appellation ...!
What fun! First, Ron and I have a goodly area of overlap; then today's Morning Prayer hymn was ... guess what? "Ubi caritas et amor" - albeit in a version I had not encountered before. See http://divineoffice.org/
ReplyDeleteEnjoy!
"Except on the rugby field :)"
ReplyDeleteI take it this is a quotation from the Reverend Buck Shelford?
"...were some kind of split to occur, it is likely that many Kiwi Anglicans in search of new Anglican arrangements might have nothing to do with Sydney at all."
ReplyDeletePeter, whilst this is a common mode of thinking, I suggest that the history of Sydney over the past 50 years or so suggests that it won't permit itself to be used for alternative oversight by disaffected evangelicals. In other words, Sydney doesn't like to get its hands dirty. So the issue of whether local NZ evangelicals would want it may be moot.
I suggest it is more likely that future alternative oversight (if it occurred) would come from provinces outside Australasia, e.g. in Africa or South America.
"So, in the end, my point in a recent post, that the election is basically over, is based on the deduction that the hard conservatism of the Sydney Diocese has enough energy and support to secure another archiepiscopal election."
ReplyDelete"Another"? I take it you wouldn't see the election of Harry Goodhew over Philip Jensen as such an election? I assume therefore that you would see Peter Jensen's election in that light. But would the "hard conservatives" to which you refer see it that way, I wonder? I would have thought many of them are quite dissatisfied with Peter's leadership.
I am not saying you are wrong, just musing.
Hi Michael
ReplyDeleteYes, I interpret the last election as a win which the hard conservatives didn't quite secure previous to that.
I am sure hard conservatives realise they need to put up a slightly more moderate candidate than they would ideally like. And their hardness may harden over time, so disappointment increases over time.
Hi Peter,
ReplyDeleteThat is fair enough, and I do think many would agree with you. But my opinion (for what it is worth) is that the definitions commonly used can actually be misleading.
For example, some people of a more liberal bent who saw Harry Goodhew as "soft conservative" and Philip Jensen as "hard conservative" were sadly disappointed once Harry was elected. He may have put things more gently than Philip would have, but 95% of his doctrinal stance was no different to Philip's – and that 95% included just about everything that the liberals cared about.
Yet no-one should have been surprised – he was my archdeacon and then area bishop for many years, and his positions were public knowledge.
Part of the problem is that people of widely varying opinion use the same terms, such as "hard conservative" and "soft conservative" and mean very different things by them – but don't realise it.
One of the major unspoken issues is the strong push by some elements within Sydney to remove the diocese from the Anglican orbit and re-position it as an independent evangelical denomination. On this point, the "hard evangelicals" are at one with the "arch-liberals" – they both want to see Sydney stop being Anglican, albeit for wildly different reasons!
[As an aside, I think the decades-long push for lay presidency (which at least until now has not been successful) must be viewed in this light – it is far more than just a doctrinal conviction about a point of worship. It is rather an attempt to wean the diocese away from Anglicanism.]
From this point of view, I think you will find that at least some of those who call themselves "hard conservatives" are quite disappointed with Peter Jensen and do not view his election as a 'victory' for their cause.
As is probably clear, I don't share their convictions and I do not claim to be an entirely independent observer!