Talk:Anglican Diocese of Sydney/Archive 1

Original authorship
This article is clearly written from a Sydney Anglican perspective and needs some added views to balance it to become sufficiently comprehensive to be taken seriously as an objective appraisal. Jonathan1000

I want to know who wrote the article, as a sydney anglican insider I consider it to be very accurate, and has captured the mood of our tribe really well. -monkeyboy
 * It was a person who used to do MTS. Hence its accuracy :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 15:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's me boys... but I'm a non-homogenous group spouting Presbyterian now. --One Salient Oversight 23:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, I go to a Chinese independant church now! Try that one on for size. :P - Ta bu shi da yu 05:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how...One Salient Oversight 07:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lead section
Any way of expanding the lead section? If so I might see if I can get some pictures from St Andrews Cathedral of Phillip Jensen preaching. I reckon that would be pretty representative of Sydney Anglicans. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A picture of his brother would do equally well. If you just drop the picture in, the text and contents will arrange itself around it.

--Amandajm 09:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting the links
Wikipedia articles are not well served by a paucity of links. All of the links provided are referred to in some way in the article. It will not confuse readers to have this many links. One Salient Oversight 06:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason I removed some of the links was to do with an overall concern about this page. Although personally a supporter of Syndey Anglicanism, I think that they page isn't strictly written from a Neutral POV. When I read it, it read to me like it was written by a supporter, and the Discussion page confirms this! But this becomes most clear when looking at the Links section. Linking to Matthias Media's 'Two ways to live' page is only indirectly relevant to the topic Syndey Anglicans. If you really want the link, it would be better on the 'Philip Jenson' arcticle. The same goes for MTS. And describing 'Anglicans Together' as "more progressive" dosn't bring neutrality but is just the other POV: a more neutral description is needed. I'm not wanting to be critical (I'm trying to be constructive), but I think that at the moment the page is open to criticism of bias, which is a shame. A little more tweaking is needed. pode 15:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a little POV, despite good intentions. If you see a way to fix it, go ahead! Two ways to live, however, is most definitely directly relevant to Sydney Anglicans. Have you read the Briefing yet? If you did, you'd understand it is a large part of the orgs evangelism efforts. That and Introducing God(www.introducinggod.org). - Ta bu shi da yu 20:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been re-reading the article to think about the 2WTL link. You say it is "...part of the orgs evangelism..." By 'orgs' I assume you mean Matthias Media, MTS, or Sydney Diocese (as an institution). But the article isn't about those organisations (except indirectly) but about Sydney Anglicans -- i.e. the people. 2WTL may be popular amongst Sydney Anglicans, but it is widely used elsewhere also. So I still think the link would be better moved to the 'Philip Jenson' article (as should the 'Campus Bible Study' link). Anyway, I'm happy to agree to disagree. And, yes, I subscribe to the Briefing. pode 23:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2WTL originated with Phil Jensen during his time wroking with the Department of Evangelism I think. It has been widely used in the Sydney Diocese since the mid 1970s. It has really only been taking off outside of Sydney for the past 15 years or so. I would rather keep it simply because it does, in a compact way, explain the Sydney Anglican gospel message. --One Salient Oversight 23:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then what is needed is a section 'Christianity according to Sydney Anglicans' in which the 6 points of 2WTL are described. That would add value to the article (which is good - I'm not complaining!) and make the relevance of the 2WTL link clearer. --23:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmmmmmm not sure about that idea. I think an in-article section about 2wtl would be in order rather than a separate article. --One Salient Oversight 07:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think TWTL would be a good article to have! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I relent. The Four Spiritual Laws convinced me that it is probably necessary. A Twtl article, that is, not a 'Christianity according to Sydney Anglicans' section of this article. --One Salient Oversight 09:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Enlisting some help from within the diocese
I've just emailed a minister from Sydney who is a leading member of "Anglicans Together", asking him to contribute to the article and removing any bias that myself and Ta Bu Shi Da Ya may have unwittingly instered. Here is the text of the email:


 * I am writing to you to invite you give some contributions to the Sydney Anglicans article at the Wikipedia website.


 * Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia with nearly 500,000 English language articles. It is quickly becoming one of the internet's most popular websites and has the potential to reach millions of viewers. Part of Wikipedia's nature is that any person may create or edit articles, so long as they are written from a Neutral Point of View and are encyclopedic in nature.


 * The article on Sydney Anglicans was written mainly by myself and another. We are both no longer Sydney Anglicans (I am now a Presbyterian in Newcastle and he is in a Chinese Christian church). We are both as thoroughly "reformed and evangelical" as you can get and we have a great respect for the ministry of Philip Jensen and others who fit into his style of ministry.


 * The reason why I am asking you to help is because you, by belonging to Anglicans Together and having a more "progressive" and "inclusivist" form of Anglicanism, can bring a different perspective to the article's tone and help remove any unintended bias that we have unwittingly inserted into the text. The whole point of the Wikipedia article is not to present biased facts, but to create an article that accurately describes what the Sydney Diocese is - without any intended bias one way or the other. Impossible? Probably! But the point of Wikipedia is that it is always a "work in progress", with articles constantly being written and improved as each day goes by.


 * I think that you are well qualified to help edit this article with us because of your more inclusivist stance, rather than despite it.


 * The site is at:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Anglicans


 * Just hit "Edit" at the top of the page, or on one of the sections. It may take time to get used to the formatting, but often others can fix that sort of thing up.


 * Neil Cameron (NOT the one from Pymble)

reverting the links
I'm not sure that the bias issue is that bigger worry in the present article for two reasons: 1) To get a true expression of the attitudes and influences present in the diocese the article has to be written by an insider who understands the thinking which drives the organisation's key figures. Those on the 'outside', no matter how 'neutral' they try to be, cannot express accurately such views. The bias which will naturally come with an insider is out weighed by the close representation of the diocese's mood which he or she will bring. Sure get the view of Anglicans Together, but will they be able to really express the inner convictions of those who are currently influencing the life of the diocese? 2) The article as it stands, I think, has actually done a good job in trying to avoid unhelful bias anyway. There is an absence of the blatant back slapping and overly positive and unreflective hype which seems to now accompany any talk of the diocean mission (re the 2004 MTC graduation), and there is a regognition that minority groups within the diocese feel isolated and sidelined. This last concession relfects badly on those who are running the show. - monkeyboy


 * Agreed. However I think they can still make a positive contribution. Are you an evangelical insider who is a little concerned about what is going on? -- One Salient Oversight 21:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unique???
Is Sydney's distinctive evangelicalism really unique in Western Anglicanism? What about the Diocese of Clogher, say? Gerry Lynch 01:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sydney is hardly the sole Evangelical diocese, that much is true. What is different is that the Sydney diocese wields a great deal of financial and ecclesiastical power, not to mention a huge amount of churches and regular worshippers.


 * I've checked some basic info about the Diocese of Clogher. It appears to cover both County Monaghan in the Republic and County Fermanagh in Northern Ireland. The total population of these two counties is over 100,000 people. The Sydney diocese is populated by well over 4.3 million, and the amount of regular attenders numbers between 30-40,000 I think.


 * No other diocese in Australia comes close in terms of numbers and money. In fact, I would guestimate that over 50% of Anglicans in Australia - those who regularly worship every sunday - are located within the bounds of the diocese.


 * --One Salient Oversight 10:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The main page asks for a citation for the claim "The Sydney Diocese ... is unique in Western Anglicanism..." Is any good - the first sentence of the section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenStevenson (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 April 2006  (UTC+ 10hours)


 * The ref has "is in some ways unique..." to my mind does not substantiate the somewhat stronger claim currently in the article: "is unique in Western Anglicanism in that the majority of the diocese is Evangelical (low church) in nature, and committed to Reformed and Calvinist theology"--A Y Arktos\talk 02:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is probably unique in countries like UK, USA, NZ, Canada, Australia, not in terms of having evangelicals, but probably in terms of the proportion that are evangelical. But I couldn't find a better reference to support this. (Normally i sign posts, i forgot last time) -- BenStevenson 09:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The uniqueness of Sydney Anglicanism is not simply that there are a large number of Evangelicals- It is the precise nature of the Evangelical tradtion and teaching within Sydney, coming out of the traditions at Moore Theological College. It would need a more learned Theologian than I am, to comment upon it. But having attended various evangelical churches in England over the past ten yyears, I can asure you that Sydney's thinking is a bit different.

--Amandajm 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources required
I have requested citations throughout the section on Evangelical Distinctives as per Citing sources which states citing sources is mandated in order to avoid original research and to ensure verifiability. From the policy statement on No orginal research: "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say."

"No original research is one of three content policies. The other two are Neutral point of view and Verifiability. The policies are complementary, jointly determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from each other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." --A Y Arktos\talk 00:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Name
Shouldn't the name of this article be the Anglican Diocese of Sydney? Isn't that the porper name? Dspserpico 03:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but that would be so Anglican, and the thing about Sydney Anglicans is that we're soooo not Anglican (at least according to the rest of the Australian church).


 * My only suggestion would be that the article be renamed to Sydney Anglicanism. Alternatively, you could have a formal Anglican Diocese of Sydney page with infoboxes and everything, and then another page on the broader topic of Sydney evangelicalism which would include our brethern from other denominations. Journeyman 00:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Believe me, this page is about, and ought to be titled "Sydney Anglicans".
 * When one travels, one is accosted by people from other churches, all the way from Hobart to Aberdeen, who, when they know you are from Sydney, grab you by the shirt front and say "You're not one of those dreaded Sydney Anglicans, are you?" To which one replies "Not of the dyed-in-the-wool variety" at which point they relax their grip.

--Amandajm 04:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article was moved by Carolynparrishfan on the grounds of consistency which is fine. As I said above, there should probably be another article called Sydney evangelicalism which spans anglican and presbyterian evangelicals and the distinctives between the Sydney variety and its more political American namesake.Journeyman 06:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Point-of-view
Rather than Amandajm and I carrying out a discussion about the articles POV on our user pages I'd like to move it to the article talk page. Therefore, I quote a message from Amandajm:


 * Journeyman,


 * What you are writing is a justification for the Sydney way of doing things. What I am trying to write is an explanation, for non-Sydney people, of the way in which Sydney substatially differs from Anglicanism, as practised in England, where Evangelicalism leads to a very different style.


 * It wasn't me that wrote the description of Calvinist and so on, background, but I must tell you that leaving it out greatly diminishes the understanding of other eductaed Christians as to the style of Theology in Sydney.


 * Your paragraph about Broughton Knox and Moore is valuable and should stay in. So is your comment about people identifying with their local "meeting", but the very fact that you call it a "meeting" separates you from Anglicanism in general. Please remember that we are talking about the Anglican Church, for a world-wide audience. There are understandings as to how anglican church performs and is conducted. You are writing as if Sydney presented the 'norm'. The term "Eucharist" is widely used and understood by Anglicans, world wide. It is only considered a sign of Roman Catholicism in Sydney.


 * I am about to reinstate what I have written, incorporating some of what you have written.


 * And let's be honest about what happpens at youth services. Perhaps where you are there is some sort of respect for the basis of liturgy, but don't imagine it's universal.--Amandajm 07:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Amandajm. You're right that the article should present Sydney Anglicanism for the novice reader - I'll avoid that in future. But where I draw the line is that Sydney Anglicanism with its 'meetings', lack of formal liturgy and derobed clergy is most definitely Anglican. It stands in the tradition of English Reformation, the English Puritans and the Evangelical Awakening - all Anglican events. Further, the only place I know of 'Eucharist' being used in protestantism is by anglo-catholic anglicans. IMHO Holy Communion is the normative term for evangelical anglicans, Methodists, presbyterians, congregationalists, etc. Latimer and Ridley went to the stake for a distinction like that.

On a technical note, in my understanding, Reformed = Calvinist, Protestant refers to all churches that came out of the Reformation - Lutheran, Anglican and Reformed.

Appologies if I got a bit heated above. Journeyman 08:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Journeyman, the term Eucharist is extremely common in Anglicanism (I can't speak for Sydney). In Canada and the United States at least it is the normative term for the sacrament. You may be thinking of the term Mass, which is indeed used usually by Anglo-Catholics (though sometimes broad churches will use it phrases like "Midnight Mass", "Jazz Mass", etc.) Carolynparrishfan 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In Sydney, its Holy Communion, Communion or the Lord's Supper, using 'Eucharist' would get you funny looks. In An Australian Prayer Book the services are called First Order of Holy Communion, etc. Journeyman 00:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Women and Lay Presidency
The article implies (but does not state) that the Diocese has no problem with women celebrating the Eucharist. Is that true? As long as they are not ordained? If so, it should be explicit. Carolynparrishfan 20:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would expect that Women would only be allowed to celebrate Holy Communion when only women and children are present. Journeyman 00:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the diocese would have a problem still, because although lay presidency gained a majority support in Synod in the 1990's, Archbishop Goodhew vetoed it. --Petedenham 01:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the position is, that if lay precedency comes in then lay men can do it. This doesn't change the position of women. Men are at the head. Men are to preach, teach and take charge. If lay men are able to preside, then women who want to be ordained as priests can no longer use the excues that there's not enough priests to go round. --Amandajm 14:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have finally buckled down and consulted Gordon Cheng, who assures me that the lay presidency proposal is meant to allow women to preside at Holy Communion as well as laymen. Carolynparrishfan 17:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

liberal, charismatic, Anglo-Catholic and traditionalist Anglican churches in Sydney.
--Amandajm 03:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Let's not pretend that the presence of such churches is welcome. Diversity it NOT welcome. And in this, Sydney markedly differs from England.

The reason why these churches are large and successful is that any Sydney Anglican who wants such a church has to be prepared to travel perhaps 50 miles to get to one, and they do. There are not many of such churches and people track them down from all over Sydney.

deleted some of my comments from this, as being unhelpful.

--Amandajm 03:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Theology
This is a point that I want someone with more subtle skill than I to sort out.

There is a reference to some Churches being "liberal" (uncapitalised). Nonetheless, I'm a bit worried about this reference, because it might be associated with so called "Liberal Theology", such as I believe is espoused by Spong. (I am hesitant on this point.) Anyway, "Liberal Theology" implies that an acceptance of the Resurrection isn't necessary. I don't know of any church in the diocese where "Liberal Theology" is openly accepted, let alone preached.

I think what is meant is that some churches are more liberal in thinking, and in accepting such people as practising homosexuals, and marrying divorced people. It doesn't mean that they are not also Evangelical in style

--Amandajm 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're referring to my recent edit of the section "Relationship with the rest of the Australian Anglican Church"? If that's the case then I think the included citation clarifies (with at least one example) what more liberal might mean. (Anyhow, I don't think any Anglican diocese would condone preaching which denies the resurrection.) --angusj 11:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Angus, Yeah! There's quite a bit of it in England. Some previous Bishop of York (not the present one, God bless him!) who made a "Liberal" statement that was well reported and caused a bit of a furor. Then, would you believe, York Cathedral caught fire!? There were those who saw it as the retribution of the Lord! Have a look at the article attached to the matter of Sydney's wealth. --Amandajm 07:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable Bishops
Who wrote about Archbishop Mowll? Its wonderful and I love it, but it's just a little colourful. I would love to wax just as lyrical about Harry Goodhew and his gentle moderate loving determination. Hey, I remember Mowll at a confirmation service getting stuck in a particularly small pulpit.

OK! Who's going to write the paragraph on Marcus Loane?

--Amandajm 07:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are? :-) Some help perhaps from http://www.atbr.openbook.com.au/reviews/0908284470.pdf and http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/reading/1489a/ ?  I am happy to help if needs be.  Let's make a red link Marcus Loane  to start with.  Note there is a list of bishops at List of Anglican Bishops and Archbishops of Sydney.  Many of them have no links and I am a litle surprised - I think they will deserve biographies.--A Y Arktos\talk 07:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately some of the words about Mowll seem to be the same as those penned by Stephen Geard in a review of a book by Loan - see :-( --A Y Arktos\talk 07:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Cranmer and tradition
This was a very well-phrased justification. But as it was speculative and not verifiable and referred to the ambiguous "they", it had to go.

Yes,along with Cranmer, any intelligent person can see that traditions can evolve in a wrong or mis-interpretted direction. But let us write about what actually happens, not what "they may see" that is similar to what Cranmer saw.

Some of the traditions that have been abandoned in freeing ourselves from the constraint of the prayerbook, like saying the Lord's Prayer for example, I consider rather valuable. It is the thing, more than any other, that unites us to other christians around the world. And nowadays, an increasing number of our youth have been denied that tradition, because of the style of services that are offered to them.

Anglican Media is the mouthpiece of the Sydney Diocese. This article is not. This article needs to convey factual information that can be read by people who are not from Sydney and not Anglican. It needs to show how it is that Sydney can be described as unique within the Anglican Communion. If it gets too dumbed-down in the interests of political correctness, or if it merely reflects a precisely Sydneyfied point of view, it achieves nothing. There is a link to Anglican Media at the foot of the page.

--Amandajm 14:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 17 June 2006 (UTC)