Talk:Anglican Diocese of Sydney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) Contents 1 Sydney Anglicans 2 Sydney Anglicans 3 Sydney Anglicans 4 Relationships within the Diocese 5 Book of Common Prayer / A Prayer Book For Australia 6 furthering the evangelical cause 7 Robes & "the priesthood of all believers" 8 re passage about defence of Scriptural orthodoxy 9 Links to churches 10 Proscribed roles of M&F 11 Apartheid?? 12 Photos of former archbishops 13 Sydney Anglican userbox now available [edit] Sydney Anglicans This article must at present retain its B status, I suppose, because it has some unsourced claims eg that pertaining to Sydney's wealth. (This statement is very widely regarded as accurate which is why it has been retained.) I regard the article as a Masterpiece. The thing that makes it so is that it has been written by a number of people with very diverse views and diverse personal interest and involvement. Sydney Anglicanism is extraordinarily politicised and polarised. Somehow, here we have created a picture of the Diocese which has been adjusted to a degree that it is able to be acknowledged as a likeness by both Sydney's critics and its Diocesan watchdogs. Conventional views of Evangelicalism that have come from outside Sydney have been scrutinised and either rejected or reshaped in the Sydney style. --Amandajm 03:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk archive to mid-June 2006

Portal	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	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · history · watch · refresh) [edit] Sydney Anglicans This article must at present retain its B status, I suppose, because it has some unsourced claims eg that pertaining to Sydney's wealth. (This statement is very widely regarded as accurate which is why it has been retained.) I regard the article as a Masterpiece. The thing that makes it so is that it has been written by a number of people with very diverse views and diverse personal interest and involvement. Sydney Anglicanism is extraordinarily politicised and polarised. Somehow, here we have created a picture of the Diocese which has been adjusted to a degree that it is able to be acknowledged as a likeness by both Sydney's critics and its Diocesan watchdogs. Conventional views of Evangelicalism that have come from outside Sydney have been scrutinised and either rejected or reshaped in the Sydney style. --Amandajm 03:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

	Anglicanism Portal Anglican Diocese of Sydney is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) [edit] Sydney Anglicans This article must at present retain its B status, I suppose, because it has some unsourced claims eg that pertaining to Sydney's wealth. (This statement is very widely regarded as accurate which is why it has been retained.) I regard the article as a Masterpiece. The thing that makes it so is that it has been written by a number of people with very diverse views and diverse personal interest and involvement. Sydney Anglicanism is extraordinarily politicised and polarised. Somehow, here we have created a picture of the Diocese which has been adjusted to a degree that it is able to be acknowledged as a likeness by both Sydney's critics and its Diocesan watchdogs. Conventional views of Evangelicalism that have come from outside Sydney have been scrutinised and either rejected or reshaped in the Sydney style. --Amandajm 03:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

[edit] Relationships within the Diocese

Yeah, that's the right headline.

Feelings of marginalisation go beyond the clergy or parishes. There are many individuals who feel marginalised.

Now how does one express accurately the disatisfaction of Anglicans in the vast Western and Southern Regions where Sydney Evangelicalism prevails to the extent that it's very hard to find any church which-

• Follows the church year - ie celebrates not just Christmas and Easter but also Maundy Thursday, Pentecost, Palm Sunday, Trinity Sunday, Lent and Advent and perhaps a patronal festival.
• holds Communion regularly
• Follows a cycle of readings (either Three Year or BCP) rather than themes determined by the preacher.
• Has sermons based upon the readings ie "The Word of God"
• Has a prayerbook service, either BCP or AAPB
• uses the psalm and collect set for the day.
• has a priest/lay reader who robes. Yes, some people really prefer this, not as an "outward display" but as something that gives the person of the priest a more neutral identity. This has significance, not for a priest as preacher but in pronouncing absolution and blessing, and officiating at Communion and Baptism.
• uses real hymns.
• doesn't have an amplified band.
• And a real bonus would be the singing of the Canticles, perhaps even with a choir.

In the entire vast Illawarra Region, I do not know of any church that has a choir. The Cathedral choir were dismissed by the previous Dean. There is a church that holds a BCP service once a month, and BCP Communion on Fifth Sundays. This church is certainly not High Church or "Anglo-Catholic". I know of no "High Church" in the region.

In the entire Western Region, there is only one church which describes itself as of moderately Anglo-Catholic practice. It has a choir. That's Granville. Which is an awfully long way from Mt Victoria, if that's where you happen to live.

There are abbout 8-12 churches which follow either more formal Anglican or High Church practice, but apart from Granville and Dee Why, they are all within the small area close to Sydney and most are "inner city". Of these churches, several are too high church in their practice and use far too much incense for many people.

To sum up- Many people simply want Evangelical teaching combined with traditional Anglican liturgy and real hymns, and for many of them, it's simply not made available in a form that is acceptable. A watered-down version by an unrobed priest, that's called a meeting and is over-amplified is not the same thing at all.

I'm not writing here about some priests or parishes within the Diocese who feel marginalised. I'm writing about hundreds of Angelicans, many of them Evangelical, and many of them staunch admirers of our present Archbishop, who nonetheless feel alienated.

I cannot speak for the situation of those who wish to combine formal services with a more charismatic ethos.

--Amandajm 02:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Amandajm. I thought I'd made a fairly good attempt at neutrality in this sensitive section but I'm generally very happy with your changes and see them as improvements. As to some of the points you raise here:

• Surely your "many individuals" is well encompased by "parishes" since it is the many individuals who constitute a parish.
• "Now how does one express accurately the disatisfaction of Anglicans... to the extent that it's very hard to find any church which ..." - that is a question that's well beyond the scope of this Discussion page although I'll venture to say that it's a question you need to raise with individual parishes who elect their own parish councils and parish nominators. However, while I'll agree that the current leadership could be more willing to cater to those who prefer a more formal style of worship (when parishes don't have the financial independence to appoint their own rectors), I feel strongly that all our churches need to radically reconsider how we continue to meet together as God's people. Our current styles of worship need to be accessible to outsiders while uplifting, nurturing and sustaining those who've already embraced the Gospel of Jesus.

--angusj 04:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Angusj!

The "many individuals" are those who wander from church to church searching. They are the people who don't "belong" to parishes because they are not comfortable with the style of Sydney Anglicanism. These people don't really have the power to change anything. They have no hope of being elected as a nominator for anywhere. Now tell me, who was it who wrote "the diocese in Melbourne" rather than "the Diocese of Melbourne"? That was a very clever one! It almost got by me.

I don't believe that highly-amplified music adds to accessibility. I don't believe that the lack of liturgy adds to accessibility. On the other hand, I think that BCP/AAPB are hard to follow, but there's a perfectly easy solution- heavy-duty printed sheets. All the new-comer needs is for someone to say, We all join in the bits in bold type. I don't believe that singing the same chorus twenty times in a row has the same value as singing Amazing Grace, or All Creatures of our God and King, or There Is a Green Hill, through just one time. (I'm not saying this to the exclusion of good modern hymns)

What I know is this- Teenagers love every sort of simulated pseudo-ancient story, movie and computer game there is. They love the notion of tradition and rite. They can tell you every detail of Middle Earth Law, of Hogwarts Academy, of Narnia and of The Empire. They know how to slay an orc, how to defeat a basilisk and exactly what it was that the White Witch said to Darth Vader. They play Dungeons and Dragons, Age of Mythology, and Runescape with obsession. The da Vinci Code with all its mumbo-jumbo of secret societies and sacred rites is the most popular book on the planet.

So then, in the light of all this, Anglican liturgy makes Christian Faith inaccessible?

Don't you think that perhaps if one said-

• Do you want to learn an old Jewish song of praise that was written 700 years before Jesus?

• Would you like to use some prayers that were written or translated for the 15-yr-old son of Henry VIII?

• How about we make a statement of our Faith just the way Christian's have been saying it since since 325 AD years. Day after day, for 1700 years!

... then perhaps some of these young people might actually enjoy knowing that they belonged to a church that has a very long history and many complex layers of traditions?

And while we are depriving our kids of their traditions in the Church, our Premier is legislating that every child should know Advnce Ausralia Fair, and within the Roman Catholic Church there is a very strong movement reinforcing the catechism of catholic youth.

I just want our kids to know the Lord's Prayer, the creed and the twenty third psalm (Crimond tune), so that when the Holy Church throughout the World prays, or sings or pronounces their faith, our kids aren't left bumbling around searching for the overhead projection. It's their right! It does more than make faith accessible; it makes it universal and unites people.

Believe me, there is no more profoundly moving experience than standing with ten thousand people from "all corners of the Earth" and praying, each in his own tongue like the day of Pentecost, and knowing that whatever the language, this is our Lord's prayer to Our Father and we, regardless of denomination, are united in praying it. --Amandajm 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Amandajm, Please don't think for one minute I'm trying to defend current worship styles, nor do I think one style fits all. I do believe they all need radical rethinking. (Incidently, I also hate "highly-amplified music" and love many of our traditional hymns, and am a fan of "Songs of Praise" on the ABC!) My vision of radical change certainly doesn't include getting rid of what is very good :). Anyhow this discussion is really for another forum. --angusj 06:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I must also say that I think that there is a place for informal worship as well. I suppose that I see what we used to call "Youth Fellowship" passing as "Church". I think that Youth Fellowship, complete with prayers, Bible reading and teaching is a great thing. --Amandajm 11:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

re BCP and AAPB For the record. Just checked out the Cathedral website to see exactly what was on offer. The number of Choral services during the week has been cut back. BCP is used at the 8.30am and at a couple of weekday services. On the website, demonstrating enormous talent for communicting effectively with ordinary people, Phillip Jensen (at least I presume it was Phillip Jensen) has written an invitation to people to come to "Church" at 10.30. The writer then goes on to explain how it is conducted, with formal prayers, statement of faith, several "items" from the choir such as the Te Deum and so on.. It coincides with Sunday School and preceeded by Bible study in the Chapter house and followed by morning tea. The whole thing is made to sound very welcoming and accessible. Formally structured but made easy byt the information that (for example) if you are late, the volunteers will assist you etc. This is exactly the sort of thing that I have had in mind, and I'm glad to see that the Dean is doing it.

Now, here's an odd thing! I looked up Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney and got a site with a formal Mission Statement, a nice photo of Archbishop Peter Jensen and all the details of the formal structure of the Diocese, with a search. So I searched. Couldn't find the Cathedral website. And there were no links to anything except Anglican Media..... If you want to know anything about anything not related to formal structure and synod, you gotta go to Anglican Media to find it.

FYI: The above post was by Amandajm... :) Journeyman 23:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Cathedral. There are a few ways to get to cathedral information from the frontpage of SydAngl...

1. Click on Senior Clergy under the "/mission matters/" heading on the side bar. Then click on the Dean's page. Then follow the "cathedral" link. OR
2. Click on Find-a-Church under the search box and enter Sydney. Then select the cathedral from the list. (Unfortunately the find-a-church option only gives geographical and telephone information.)

Hope that helps. Journeyman 23:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Links to churches

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Sydney Anglican userbox now available

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