Sydney election: one party state or pluralist democracy?

Next Monday 5th August is crunch day for the future of the Diocese of Sydney. That day the election for their next archbishop begins. Previously I had thought that the decision about its new archbishop was a decision between a hard conservative line and a soft conservative line. Now, following my visit to Australia I am thinking differently.

Effectively the election is about whether the Sydney Diocese operates akin to a one party state in which dissent is stifled or operates in a manner which begins to look like a pluralist democracy in which a variety of views are both encouraged and valued. At this stage there are only two candidates, Rick Smith and Glenn Davies, on whose candidacies I have previously written here.

Circulating around the Sydney Diocese at present is a document by Anonymous which argues that the dominant player in the election is Dean Philip Jensen, a point which is also made in published pieces by named writers. Thus:

Jeremy Halcrow, writing on the Canberra and Goulburn website observes:

"Rick Smith’s chances should not be under-estimated. In fact reading the high level endorsements it is clear he is actually in pole position, and the election is his to lose. Rick is the candidate openly backed by the influential Dean of Sydney, Phillip Jensen who is hosting private meet and greet sessions for electors. But more importantly Rick is being presented and increasingly perceived as the “mission” candidate and that counts for everything in Sydney. Whether this is truly fair to Bishop Davies and his oversight of church planting within Sydney’s northern region is another matter. 

... Both men are thoroughly conservative Reformed evangelicals. Their policies would be identical on the touchstone issues that divide Australian Anglicans such as the ordination of women as priests. The personal style of Rick Smith leans towards ministry-minded pragmatism. So I would expect that in the long run this will result in similar moderate outcomes in their approach to Anglican politics. Five years down the track Rick Smith will be his own man, and the ghostly guiding hand of Phillip Jensen will have long faded."

Julia Baird, writing in The Age also offers an observation about the role of Philip Jensen:

"The most interesting person in this election campaign might be the Dean of Sydney, Phillip Jensen, who is deeply involved behind the scenes trying to ensure Smith will replace his brother, and hold the diocese in place for 20 years."

But what is Dean Philip Jensen himself saying? He has written two articles on the St Andrew's Cathedral website about the election (always disclosing his own role in supporting Rick Smith), here (1) and here (2). These articles are pretty unexceptional as they canvas the qualities required in an archbishop. I have no doubt in my own mind that Dean Philip is acting with the utmost sincerity and integrity in backing Rick Smith as the 'best man for the job.'

But one can do that sort of thing without realising that the issue of 'power', the question of who controls the reigning theological paradigm for the diocese (and how that control is exercised) is a greater issue than 'the best man for the job.' Thus the anonymously written document I mentioned above begins in this way (with my emboldening):

"The current Archbishop’s election for the Sydney Anglican church is not about the two candidates. It is more about power than the Gospel. These are – in my opinion - the facts:•    

1.    Glenn Davies and Rick Smith are both good guys    

2.    Both have gifts and skills that make them great ministers of the Gospel   

 3.    But after this, there are all sorts of other issues that make up the true grid of what’s happening." 

The document then goes on to outline the influence of Philip Jensen (described as 'the king') on the diocese and suggests that Rick Smith will be under the king's influence whereas Glenn Davies will not. (Note that this is a different estimation from that given by Jeremy Halcrow). The document also sets out in its own terms the manner in which people who think differently from the theological line of Dean Philip are deemed to have become 'cousins' rather than 'brothers.' Whether the influence of Philip Jensen as one individual is as pervasive as the above documents suggest, I suggest that there is a strong influence at work in the ethos of the diocese to promote one and only one line of thinking, a line which is agreeable to the Dean. 

I suggest (on the basis of careful listening and reading over many years) that what is wrong with this kind of influence is that it is not simply an influence for a particular theology, an influence which deploys resources of persuasive eloquence to promote that theology but also an influence which works against rival theologies. One effect of this work is that other theologies are suppressed, even those which barely differ from the preferred theology. Over the years I have met Sydney Anglicans whose conservative theology is more conservative than my own but who are out of favour with the inner sanctum because of small differences of viewpoint with 'the line.' (Another effect of the influence, in a different manner, is the support given to independent Bible churches being set up in areas which already have fine evangelical (but 'not like us') churches ministering there).

In a democracy pushing for a particular theology is fine. But implicitly or explicitly suppressing other theologies is not so fine. The recent history of the Diocese of Sydney and of Moore College, its theological college, is a story of people falling out and falling away when they do not toe the party line. Such departures are gracious so few waves are made, but there are extraordinary stories to tell. The Archdeacon for Women's Ministries who moved dioceses to be ordained a priest and so forth. 

Within the diocese, I am told, people choose not to speak up and say what they really believe (e.g. about the ordination of women) for fear of affecting their future ministry. The intellectual atmosphere in Sydney, as I detect it, is suffused with fear. Why, I ask myself, when once in the library at Moore College, did a senior diocesan figure lower his voice to assure me that there was actually a variety of opinion held among the teaching staff there? (!!) When the then principal told me that there was particular form of doctrinal quality control exercised over postgraduate students sent away to universities overseas in respect of their possible future roles on staff, I felt I was being given the inner secret of a cult and not of a college devoted to the flowering of theological enquiry.

Thus I suggest this election is both about which of two fine men will be chosen to become the next Archbishop of Sydney and about whether the politics of the diocese will continue in a mode of one party line sweeping all before it or will begin a journey of transformation into a mode in which a variety of views are encouraged.

UPDATE: read Philip Jensen on unity and truth here. Once we start saying that people who differ in views from us are "fellow travellers" and worse than "enemies" we are in the territory of Communist parties and all Communist parties approach to government heads in the one party state direction ...