Fr. John Hope

In the comments of a recent post Brian mentioned the late Fr. John Hope of Christ Church St. Laurence, one of my greatest heroes. Under his leadership from 1926 to 1964 his church - one of Sydney’s few Anglo-Catholic parishes, and probably the best known - grew spectacularly, despite blatant attempts by the diocesan hierarchy to close it and distribute the assets to congregations toeing the party line. At a time when indigenous Australians were not even entitled to citizenship, and most church leaders were actively participating in the genocidal Stolen Generation policies, he donated property for the foundation of Australia’s first self-managed Aboriginal educational facility. There’s a great little biography of him on the Christ Church web site here, but my favorite anecdote about him comes from L. C. Rodd’s John Hope of Christ Church St Laurence.

Determined to do something once and for all about the “Popish superstition” at Railway Square, the belligerent Archbishop Mowll decided during a meeting in the 1940’s to attack Fr. Hope directly by asking if he was aware that “certain types” of men comprised a significant part of his congregation. “Most certainly” growled Fr. Hope in reply while looking the Archbishop directly in the eyes, “And is it not a good thing that these people so dear to our Lord have somewhere they can go?”

Priests don’t come much tougher than that. God bless him.

Forward in Faith: Bringing the World Lay Presidency.

Perhaps the most shocked in the Australian church by the Sydney synod’s overwhelming support for lay/diaconal presidency should be the über-Catholic Diocese of Ballarat: the person bringing the motion was none other than their very own Canon Theologian Bishop Glenn Davies of North Sydney.

As part of the strange coalition formed to block people from following God’s to ministry in 2000 the former Bishop of Ballarat, +David Silk, made the unusual appointment of (then) Dr. Davies to this role: given Davies’ allegiance to hyper-Calvinists like the World Reformed Fellowship as well as his post-graduate qualification from Westminster, one might have thought +Silk could have found a more suitable candidate for the deeply Tractarian Ballarat. Still, bigotry makes for odd bedfellows, and the lecturer once known to a small group of ne’er-do-wells as “Dr. Bean” became Ballarat’s man. And anyone not understanding the nickname should take a close look at +Davies’ picture on the left before clicking here. Meanwhile anyone who does understand how the man who insisted his students believe turning one’s back to the congregation while presiding, or referring to the communion table as an altar are examples of “wicked superstitious popery” could proudly advertise his seat in a Cathedral so Catholic it makes the Vatican look moderate should only drop me an explanatory note if they can do so without using the word “hypocrite”.

Nor are Ballarat hard-liners trying to comfort themselves by claiming the appointment no longer stands; despite diocesan legislation specifying the appointment of Canon Theologian is for at most 3 years plus one further 3 year term, and thus should have by now expired, a call this morning to Ballarat diocesan offices resulted in the chirpy voice answering the phone informing me that +Davies does indeed still hold the post, as his own web site states. It’s worth noting, however, that the voice became considerably less chirpy when I explained my reason for calling… ;-)

Now I know this sounds like something from Father Christian Troll, but I can’t be the only one who finds it hilarious that lay presidency was introduced to the Anglican Communion by the Canon Theologian of one of the most loyal Forward in Faith dioceses in the world!

The Naked Liturgist

Recently added to the blogroll is Christchurch New Zealand legend Fr. Bosco Peters - check out this clip for an idea of why I'm a fan:



His site Liturgy is the kind of place that helps remind folks like me why Anglicanism is worth fighting for, and that there's a whole lot more to the journey than just the current quarrels.

See for yourself!

The tide turns...

Sorry about the absence folks; for the last 10 days I’ve been marinating in my own mucus with a cold and flu of such virulence I’m convinced it was developed in a laboratory somewhere by a team of ‘reasserters’ with the specific intention of making life miserable for people like me. Ok, so maybe that’s an exaggeration, but it’s no less whacky than some of the stuff that’s been recently flying around the world. “Churches within the Church”, and the Sydney leadership urging North Americans to leave their national church and form a new diocese – even though those pushing them into this idiotic move are on record as saying they won’t do it themselves because they don’t want to lose their impressive property portfolio.

The more I think about all this, the more I wonder if Anglicanism has plunged into some modernist production of King Lear - the kings have become fools, and our only hope of finding leadership and wisdom remains with the fools and jesters. Perhaps the metaphor isn’t so strange; after all, the incarnation - that outrageous point in time and history when God became human – occurred in the face of a human claiming to be God: and by the standards of even our time the Roman Emperor made a pretty convincing job of his charade. But we all know how it ended for him.

Which is why, despite a hacking cough and radioactive yellow slime oozing from my respiratory system (hey: why should my wife, kids & dogs be the only ones having to put up with my moaning ;-), I’ve never been more optimistic about the sad old diocese of Sydney and her future. Sure, our Archbishop’s acolytes see him poised on the brink of giving them a global influence of a magnitude they’ve only previously dared fantasise in their puritanical wet-dreams, but at the end of the day all that’s happening is that a fish from a very small and provincial pond is trying his luck at swimming in the ocean…

… and little fish - even if quite big in their own rockpool - invariably get eaten when their transition to the sea is guided more by hubris than wisdom. Especially if the God of Justice and Love is turning the tide in the opposite direction. I’ve never been much good at predicting the future, but this time the stagnant water that’s been choking so many of us has never looked so close to being flushed away.

I can hear the ‘important’ and ‘powerful’ of the diocese laughing already, but this ne-‘er-do-well has never forgotten Jesus’ crazy notions about seeing God through a child’s eyes. So what’s the bet that this time the powerless might fly further than anyone had dared imagine?

GAFCON Leaders Showing their Cracks.

Ok, so this great article in the Guardian has a slightly different heading, but I think mine is funnier.

It shows that what people have been predicting about the coming fall-out between GAFCON buddies has already started coming true, and sure enough, Sydney is playing to grab power in the rift that develops.

Speaking of +Jensen, the last paragraph contains this gem:

"He also expressed doubts about the long-term prospects for Gafcon. 'This is a coalition of people who would not necessarily work together. Will it work? We don't know'."

"We don't know"???? He certainly seemed pretty convinced a week ago - but I guess that's a long time in the company of the Archbishop's fellow 'pilgrims'.

Also of special interest is the suggestion that:

"It is agreed among the clutch of westerners at the conference that the real power will lie with the Australian delegates, not those from Africa."

Depending who the writer's been speaking to this may indeed be the case, but it's a safe bet that it won't last past next Sunday's closing Eucharist. Forward in Faith and their fellow Anglo-Roman hardliners aren't ever going to hand over control to a bunch of Gnostic Puritans who think making the sign of the Cross is blasphemous. And while Sydney's undeniably wealthy, not even +Akinola's foolish enough to believe they'll be as generous as his American friends. Is he?

Woe to you, you Pharisees...

An article posted at sydneyanglicans.net by the Diocesan spin-doctor on June 13 the diocese claims GAFCON is “about gospel not gays”. Yet in a piece by the same person posted today (“A buzz about the future”) I counted no few than 9 references to Christians in same-sex relationships or the Church’s response to them – no mean figure given it's only 24 paragraphs long. So tell us all again why we should believe homosexuality has no bearing upon Sydney’s decision to participate in GAFCON?

Is it any wonder the masses aren’t queuing up to buy what the Sydney Diocese’s mission has to offer? The last thing a confused and despairing world wants is more political double-speak. If church leaders really want to waste parishioner’s money on attending a homophobic hate-fest they could at least have the integrity to be honest about what they’re doing. Would you buy a used car - let alone an entire way of living and believing – from anyone this duplicitous?

I’d initially planned to start this post by claiming that as a heterosexual man of reasonably mainstream theological inclinations I have no vested interest in the issue. I’m not part of any ‘gay lobby’ (whatever that is); my opposition to homophobia in the Anglican Communion arises purely out of my faith in Christ. But realising this is no truer than Sydney’s denial of the unquestionable fact that homophobia has been the GAFCON’s primary motive I soon dismissed it.

That’s because as a Christian I do have a vested interest; as followers of Christ we all do. If – as is happening today – the name of the One in whom we trust is being hijacked to justify persecution, oppression and exclusion every believer suffers. That which we hold as dearest and most precious is devalued by the tainting voices of bigotry. In dismissing as ‘unclean’ those who have been called and cleansed by God; those who are now our very brothers and sisters in faith, the angry men of GAFCON miss the entire point of the account of Peter’s vision in Acts 10. Having done so they want to continue by dragging the church back into a pointless imitation of the Council of Jerusalem – which itself seems to have been something of a non-event the first time around.

In the process they are guilty of doing the very thing against which we were constantly warned at Moore College – “bringing the Gospel into disrepute”. Think I’m exaggerating? Then ask the next unbeliever you meet what they think of the church spending money on forcing homosexuals out of the church. Ask them what they think about rules preventing women from being ordained or becoming bishops. Then ask them if they think the church stands for justice, equality and God’s love of for all humanity. I’ll guarantee in the spray that follows they’ll offer a clear explanation of why they won’t come along to the marvellous outreach meeting you’ve got planned for next Sunday in conjunction with the Dept. of Evangelism’s finest spruiker.

Perhaps the last word should go to the Rev. Rick Smith of Cammeray/Naremburn (diocesan policies have been so successful in this area – which was once part of the heartland – that two formerly successful parishes are now individually unviable), who is quoted:

"You don’t have to be that clever to realise that the worldwide Anglican communion is in a bit of a mess. It seems we have reached the point, in many places, where practices historically and biblically rejected as harmful sin, are now paraded as good. And doctrines historically and biblically rejected as error are embraced as truth."

Nor evidently do you need to be clever enough to have any awareness of broad range of historical and biblical attitudes to something as ancient as humanity itself before pretending to speak with authority on the subject. If it wasn't so tragic it would be amusing to see Rev. Smith lacks the courage to actually name the “practices” and “doctrines” to which he refers, which are presumably in some way related to people sexually attracted to persons of the same gender as themselves. The bigotry that dare not speak its name?

Perhaps I shouldn’t be so surprised. We have close friends who live less than five minutes walk from one of Rev. Smith’s churches. They pass it every day; but when I just spoke to one of them (he called as I was writing this) he had no idea what goes on there – “I thought that place was closed: nothing ever happens there”.

Solutions to the “mess” which the Anglican Communion allegedly faces might have more to do with how we relate to those living on the next block than it does with those attending a (hopefully) one-off event on the other side of the world. But that sounds like hard work, doesn’t it? Who’s going to buy the Rev. Rick Smiths of this world an airline ticket to visit people living just around the corner? And where’s all the fine-sounding rhetoric going to be when word gets around that God loves them just as much as us?

More (inspired by David Marr, Mad Priest and Lapinbizarre).

In response to Behind the Sydney Veil a few days ago Lapinbizarre made the pertinent comment:

"I don't see, in David Marr's portrait of the man who was wrong-footed by Akinola's unilateral announcement that Sydney's bishops will not attend Lambeth, the person who Mad Priest insists will 'make a play for running the whole caboodle'.".

I’ve got to admit that I found Marr’s account (see the first paragraph here) of the real reason Jensen finally committed to the Lambeth boycott fascinating – but completely believable. The Sydney powerbrokers are puritan and sectarian, but they are also deeply conservative. Snubbing their nose at authority does not come naturally. Sitting on the fence, hinting at one’s displeasure with the occasional polite passive-aggressive note of dissatisfaction is far more their style. The Archbishop’s brother Dean Jensen might break into a Cromwellian tirade – but that’s why it was Peter, and not Phillip, who ultimately received the Anglican Church League’s imprimatur for the top job.

Perhaps +Akinola recognised this and decided to seize the initiative, although it’s more probable that he’s simply someone used to giving orders, and to making decisions on other’s behalf – whether or not they’ve asked him to do so. He’s a big man in a society which recognises and respects big men, and the niceties of Sydney’s evangelical heartland would count for little in the rough and tumble world of the lads from Lagos.

None of which means MadPriest was incorrect. One doesn’t have to read much of Sydney’s internal propaganda to gain the (incorrect) impression that we’re already GAFCON’s engine room. You don't have to spend long at the Sydney Anglican online forums to see few of the true believers realise none of their new-found allies in the battle would ever be licensed to celebrate in Sydney. Most have no comprehension whatsoever that the poor hard-done-by former Bishop of San Joaquin is not only an Anglo-Catholic, but would actually have never in his wildest dreams considered permitting their Spartan pseudo-congregationalism to flourish unchecked.

No; the popular understanding here is that the current schism is an “us and them” affair, in which the “us” refers to evangelicals of a Sydney disposition. Certainly, not everyone’s this ignorant of the real issues; but in my experience there’s little understanding of the complexities of American Episcopalianism, and the majority think it’s only natural that Sydney will emerge the leaders. After all, we’re rich, aren’t we? We’ve got Moore College. Isn’t the Anglican Church dying everywhere except here? (Never mind that almost a quarter of our city is being effectively abandoned by the diocese in a race to bolster the ‘strategic’ (i.e. wealthy and white) parishes.)

So cemented is this mindset, which stems from the famous arrogance of which Anglicans in other Australian dioceses have accused Sydney for more than half a century, that for most it just seems natural – a kind of divine right – that Sydney will emerge on top. It’s as unquestioned here as it is illogical and ridiculous to observers elsewhere. It's ridiculous to think men like +Iker and +Duncan (let alone +Akinola) will ever make themselves subservient to a group who consider vestments a “popish folly”, who advocate lay (male-only) presidency, and who claim that “the real seeds of the problem we now face lie in the nineteenth century. John Henry Newman’s infamous Tract 90”.

Yet in the insular world of a diocese on the other side of the globe, where few clergy have trained or ministered further afield, and even fewer active laity have any experience of being part of a congregation not immersed in the Sydney tradition, the nonsensical seems plausible. Whether or not +Jensen believes it remains to be seen: my feeling is that he quite possibly does, but irrespective of this he will find himself swept along by the faith of his followers, who see no means of salvation other than their own. In their eyes they are Christianity – there is no option of an alternative if the Church is to remain Christian. Consequently +Jensen must make a play for the top job. He has no choice; the question has been decided by destiny.

But he won’t succeed, and in a group which has never before tasted failure the fallout will be substantial. Current tensions are nothing compared to what will happen when the two strange bedfellows of ante-diluvian Anglo-Catholics and neo-Puritan Anglo-Baptists start tearing each other apart. Speaking personally, I can’t think of a more deserving bunch.

Meanwhile those parishes in Sydney which aren’t misogynist, homophobic and paranoid of our faith’s history, traditions and liturgy will continue to be among the fastest growing and most successful communities in the diocese. Only in the new day just around the corner they mightn’t continue to be steadfastly ignored by St. Andrew’s House at every point except the collection of their annual assessments.

Behind the Sydney Veil

Last weekend’s Sydney Morning Herald featured an article which should be required reading for anyone interested in Archbishop Jensen’s dreams of a key role in the murky world of schismatic Anglicanism. Written by author/lawyer/journalist/human-rights spokesperson David Marr (I can’t be the only straight man in the world who finds him sexy ;-), it offers a fascinating insight into the strange brew of Puritanism, gnosticism, Calvinism and Billy Graham arminianism which constitutes Sydney Anglicanism – or rather the sect known locally as “Matthianism” (named after Dean Jensen’s former parish) - currently controlling the diocese.

Any who missed the article can download a copy here - the whole piece is a whopping ten pages, but it’s well worth taking the time to read, since it offers those outside Australia an opportunity to get to know the man who’ll be at the centre of the fighting when schismatic Anglo-Catholics discover they’ve unwittingly opened the door to lay presidency in their own dioceses. It’s also a window into the way Sydney diocese really operates – maybe we’re not as different to Nigeria as I’d hoped.

Of special interest to those of us on the ground is the article’s news that not just one, but two of Jensen’s suffragan bishops privately opposed the move to boycott Lambeth: see the first paragraph on page 9 and the second paragraph on page 10

Rumours abound about that the identity of one of them is “Bishop Falstaff” – who is unquestionably disappointed to miss sipping Beaujolais Nouveau with the who’s-who of Anglicanism, and is well aware that with retirement looming he’s not going to get another chance to hobnob with Her Majesty at the Lambeth garden party. However the second man’s identity remains a mystery. My guess is “Bishop Taskless”, who’s said to be developing a liking for the pointy end of a plane, and clearly seems to prefer being anywhere other than in a region the big end of town considers too hard and “unstrategic” to worry about – but I’m open to alternative candidates.

What’s really disappointing is that these two – whoever they are – lacked the courage of their convictions to speak out. They’re clearly not going to advance any further in their careers, but instead of seizing this chance to display some degree of integrity by leading the call for dialogue and common sense, they’ve instead pulled their heads down low and acquiesced to the party line. But then again: if they took the Gospel that seriously the Anglican Church League wouldn’t have given them their jobs in the first place, would it?

Bad Moon Rising.

As usual MadPriest has beaten me to the story in today's Sydney Morning Herald. It features +Jensen giving the standard line "this isn't really about homosexuality, it's about the authority of the Scriptures". Yeah, right. That's why women not keeping their heads covered in church features equally prominently on the agenda.

With bullshit like this from those at the top is it any wonder +Jensen's mission to get 10% of Sydney's population attending "Bible-believing churches" is a failure? You may be able to fool some of the people some of the time, but with spin this transparent fooling 10% of them one day a week is simply not going to happen.

As MadPriest correctly predicted two years ago, the Matthians are hoping to come out of the shake-up with significant territorial gains. Then again, so did Germany at the start of the First World War, and look how successful that proved. Yet none of this is new - over 15 years ago the same sort of rhetorical dreams were flying around at Moore College: the only thing different now is that the Jensens' disciples no longer whisper their dreams to each other quietly, these days they're feeling confident enough to stand shouting on the rooftops.

Yet even though the volume's changed, the naivety is still the same - if not worse. Just as few people outside of Sydney have any comprehension of just how Puritan these wingnuts from the far side of the world really are, neither do most Sydney Anglicans realise that our new best friends are by local standards very, very high church. Reading the local Matthian blogs one can be easily forgiven for thinking Schofield is "one of us" - a Calvinist-Baptist clad in a medium-priced business suit and being persecuted for his commitment to reformed liturgy. Yesterday I had a lengthy discussion with a relative moderate who accused me of "slandering" Fr Kennedy of "Limp Willies" notoriety by claiming his wife is also an ordained minister, who preaches regularly. To say he was shocked when shown evidence proving I wasn't making anything up, and that Hostillium is indeed guilty of the afore mentioned, is an understatement. He really had no idea that his heroes of the international war on liberalism (my apologies if I've stolen that expression from GAFCON) sit on a very different side of the church to Sydney's.

All of which is my way of saying whatever happens next in the rapidly developing farce which is the Anglican schism, one thing is certain; Sydney may be one of the wealthiest dioceses in the world (so will somebody please explain why we can't afford youth workers and clergy throughout about a quarter of the city - while some parishes have more than 20 staff?) but all that money is never going to buy the power to force men like +Duncan & +Iker to stop worshipping in a manner that is (as I've heard both Jensens describe Anglo-Catholicism)"sub-Christian".

What's more here's going to be some angry young Matthians when they eventually realise that the reason they're stuck in under-funded parishes failing to "win the world for the Gospel" is because those resources have been spent getting up close and personal with the same "sub-Christians" they grew up being told were Evangelicalism's greatest enemies.

For some reason I just can't get the this song's title out of my head...

Nigeria is a long way from here.

In the wake of Sydney’s growing friendship with +Akinola and his similar minded friends from surrounding parts of Africa I’ve lately I’ve become fascinated by the Nigerian media. Thanks to the internet it’s possible to read the latest news from Abuja, as well as papers from regional centres such as Lagos or Kano and the Muslim north.

Some, such as the national Guardian clearly work hard to present credible and professional journalism, and the courage of those producing these papers cannot be understated. Others, such as the tabloid National Mirror seem more interested in generating Adsense revenue than they are in reporting the news. But my favourite is the Daily Sun

Newspapers like the Daily Sun exist in every country, and if you’re after serious analysis it’s unfair to compare them to papers like The Guardian. Yet they can offer a marvellous window into the hopes, dreams and concerns of the average person. They show a community’s popular culture in a way that more scholarly journals never can. They can even help explain why that nation’s leaders behave in ways which seem to make no sense by one’s own standards.

In Nigeria’s case the Daily Sun suggests that the background of the Bishops who Sydney (and more importantly, significant sections of the US) are embracing is very, very different to that of our own societies. +Akinola certainly comes from a deeply religious community (the Sun’s length list of regular features includes both "MAN IN THE PULPIT" and "ME & MY GOD",where local religious worthies discuss whatever it is that gets them excited. Let’s be honest here: none of them approach anything in a way to which your average western evangelical can relate.

This is in no way to be taken as implying the people of Nigeria (or anywhere else) are in any way inferior to those of the west, so please don’t bother accusing me of racism. The point I’m trying to make is that Nigeria is a very different culture to upper-middle-class Sydney (or North America), and that assuming either side fully understands where the other is coming from is naïve – if not positively dangerous.

As an example: not many high-circulation Australian newspapers would feature an article titled "God can still deliver cultists who made money through rituals if..." This fascinating piece revolves around an interview with the Rev. Dr. Francis Chukwuma Uwah (JP), who is the General Overseer of the Hundredfold World Outreach Church International Incorporated, and advises that ”God is so kind and merciful that He can afford to deliver any occult man who made his riches through ritual sacrifices”.

Or somehow I think not even the US National Enquirer could run Dr (Mrs.) Stella Kalu Ozonanze Queen (Eze nwanyi)’s (pictured right) wonderful account “I’m in mermaid cult, but I also believe in Jesus (Ok, I take that back. The Enquirer would love her, but I can’t think of anyone else who'd give her a run.)

Overlooked in all the breathless conservative reports of +Akinola’s brave stand on the global stage is the fact that his is clearly a See in the developing world, and that far from being a stalwart leader of his nation he is actually just one of a countless voices fighting to be heard in the rich Nigerian religious tapestry.

In a milieu which includes High Priest Daniel Oguejiofor (pictured left), the general overseer of Yaweh the King Holy Sabbath ("How my prayer paralysed a native doctor"; the Church of God Mission Inc (CGM) ("Pastoral work ruined my company"); and The Lord’s Brethren Charismatic Reconciliation Revival Ministries ("Satan using women to destroy the Church") featuring in a national secular daily it’s a safe bet to assume there will be some pretty big cultural gaps for both sides to cross before either of us is in a position to assume administrative oversight of the other’s congregations.

In the mean time is it really so liberal to suggest that we all concentrate on fixing the planks in our own eyes until both of us can understand the other whole lot better? And in the meantime how about a few prayers or kind thoughts or whatever it is you're into for the team at the Guardian? Anyone exposing Nigerian corporate and government corruption has a job more dangerous than yours or mine will ever be, and deserves all the help they can get.

Just a fisher of men.

"Would you believe it was this big?"

And again!!!

Closely following the great news of Bishop Kay Goldsworthy's appointment comes further proof that at least some parts of the Australian Anglican Communion take the Bible seriously enough to recognise that an omnipotent God is indeed capable of calling women to the office of Bishop.


Canon Barbara Darling of St James Dandenong, has just been named by the Melbourne Archbishop as Australia's second woman Bishop. Having lurked on several occasions in St. James I can speak from experience in saying she's a wonderful priest, a wise and insightful preacher, and will undoubtedly prove a faithful and compassionate Bishop. The people of Melbourne have indeed been richly blessed.

... and now let the Duck Noodle Gang celebrations commence!

Shush! Nobody mention Lay Presidency!

I know I'm not the only one who's noticed Sydney's big men have recently grown very quiet about a topic most dear to their hearts: lay presidency. It couldn't possibly be because nobody wants to risk upsetting our new and very best friends in GAFCON, could it?

Personally I think this is a mistake. After all, surely our dear wise and Bible-believing buddies will see the importance of supporting our initiative once we've taught them how to read the relevant Scriptures correctly?

Just to help, here's a simple little illustration to show our new friends what we know the Bible teaches:

Popish Priestly Presidency - Bad.



Lay Presidency - Good!



All clear now? See how simple it is?

YES!!!!

Just announced is the news that Australia's first woman bishop - The Venerable Kay Goldsworthy - will be consecrated on May 22 in Perth! For more info see here.

Ok, so Perth is as far away from Sydney as L.A. is from New York (except in our case hardly anyone lives in between) - but the precedent's now been established, prayers have been answered, and by God's grace our church has taken a giant step forward in support of justice and equality.

Anyone near the Casa del Caliban tonight is welcome to drop around and join the celebration - let the champagne start flowing!

PS. The official press release from the Archbishop of Perth is here.

On Anglican Unity, Evangelicalism, and Conversion.

At Evangelicalism’s heart is not a belief system shaped by the Bible (or to be more accurate, a late 19th century Anglo-American interpretation of the Bible), regardless of how loudly its adherents may profess otherwise. Evangelicals don’t want people to believe their exclusivist dogmata per se: they want people to 'be born again' – to experience Conversion as Evangelicalism has defined it.

Thus when the 16 year old Peter Jensen came forward with his dearly loved younger brother at Billy Graham’s 1959 Sydney crusade, the two weren’t embracing a way of understanding Scripture which seeks to shape conservative white upper-middle class contemporary society without in any way challenging the fundamental injustices, inequalities and systemic evils of that society: in all probability the two had both as children done that quite unconsciously years before. Rather they simply wanted to be 'saved' in response to the evangelist’s call. Their’s had been a childhood in a church which sung Amazing Grace, with the triumphant lines “I once was lost, but now am found” celebrating this moment of transition. They, like the countless others alongside them, now wanted such an experience for themselves. They had believed, but what their belief had lacked up until this chilly autumn evening was this one cathartic moment to which they could point and cry “My conversion!”.

In reality it’s highly doubtful the Jensen brothers were “lost” in any sense but the most intangibly metaphoric. Barely adolescent boys from old money suburbs in Sydney’s east, enrolled in one of the Australia’s most exclusive (and expensive) boys’ schools, and having attended Sunday school and youth fellowship classes since infancy, rarely wander too far until at least a few years later in life. Occasional cheekiness, certainly, perhaps even a day’s truancy and a covert cigarette behind the cricket stadium (although in the case of the Jensens I find even this much very hard to believe), but Hell’s Angels they weren’t.

“Yet aahh” cry the Evangelicals, “that’s just the point! Whoever has sinned in only the least of ways has broken the whole law, and stands justly condemned before God. Childhood mischief or serial murder – they’re all sins which leave us irrevocably separated from the Father, but for the atoning sacrifice of Christ…” Which is exactly why the Evangelical need to feel 'converted' is so powerful: what some of us might laughingly dismiss as naughtiness is, in the Evangelical's understanding, viewed by God exactly as if it were multiple homicide, or pack rape. It’s all the same, and their consequent relief at having left the weight of this guilt behind is understandably overwhelming – albeit incomprehensible to anyone whose faith is outside Evangelical traditions.

As an attempt to transcend ecclesiastical persuasions GAFCON shall ultimately fail for exactly the same reason that all previous attempts to establish union between Evangelical hard-liners and those with different understandings of the process by which we express our faith have failed: the soteriological gulf is invariably too vast for the Evangelicals to accommodate. Any common ground – even that as poisonous as the currently shared misogyny and homophobia - is powerless in the face of the greater, more primeval, difference in soteriology. “I have been born again” (ie. ‘I have had a defining conversion experience’) “and you have not. I therefore am a sheep, and you a goat.”

And how long does anyone think the tough boys in colourful chasubles are going to accept a few chaps from Australia (where????) in business suits telling them that they’re not really Christians?

... to be continued ;-)

First day of the Billy Graham Crusade,
Sydney Showground, April 12, 1959.

We live in interesting times.

Frequent visitor and honorary Duck Noodle Gangster Lapinbizarre left the following comment on a previous post:

"Did you notice the comment posted by 'Ren' (Renato Aguila) on Mark Harris's "Goodbye Network?" thread?

'The local Anglican seminary in Manila will, according to a reliable source, have a new dean who is close to Sydney in both theological and liturgical terms, is opposed to ecumenical dialogue especially with Roman Catholics, and is generally the kind who doesn't use incense in the Mass (and may not even want to call it that!).'

If true, suspect the gentleman will object to more than incense and the word "mass", but wondered if you have any background on what is going on in the Phillipines - it's less than a month since Mark Harris was over there getting an honorary doctorate, after all."

This is interesting, since I hadn’t heard of any Matthian moves into the Philippines, but as a tactic it sounds very familiar. It’s entirely in keeping with current “Strategic Ministry” policies, which are a curious evangelistic interpretation of Thatcher/Reagan’s “trickle down” economic theories. “Target tomorrow’s leaders” the dogma goes, “and tomorrow you’ll have the masses who’ll have followed them.” Except, of course, that after more than a decade this rhetorical tomorrow still hasn’t come. Sure it’s delivered factional control of Synod, but by God’s grace the hearts and minds of Sydney still appear happier embracing the GLBT Mardi Gras parade than they do neo-Gnosticism, and we’re still a long way from becoming a puritan theocracy.

In either case Ren is quite right; the Eucharist certainly isn’t called “Mass” around here. “Holy Communion” (although recently the ”Holy” part has started being dropped from church signage) or “the Lord’s Supper” seem to be the currently approved nomenclature. And genuflection at any point of the service is a sure sign of someone who’s never heard “the gospel”; how all this will sit with the rest of the Philippine church is anyone’s guess.

If Manila’s new Dean is indeed connected with Sydney then the silence is not so surprising. Just as local congregations are being kept in the dark about their new best friends’ Anglo-Catholic predilections, the Matthian vision of expansion and its accompanying triumphalism are being downplayed in dialogues with those beyond our evangelical borders. The Sydney satellite Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches’ web site reveals no forays into conservative (read “antediluvian”) Catholic dioceses such as Ballarat, which might upset the tenuous treaty formed to block the appointment of women bishops. The spearheads these congregations unquestionably represent are pointed firmly at those places which elsewhere in the world would be described as “broad church” and “moderate”. For now the “smells & bells brigade” (as they’re often referred to around here) seem off-limits, and making too much noise about a move into the Philippines might alarm Sydney’s strange bedfellows.

"Come, Bishop Jensen. Let us stand and speak of the splendour of our vestments. What will your brother be wearing when he arrives to join me in the Mass?"

It's Official!!

Christchurch New Zealand has a new bishop!

Family members living there report they can hear the celebrations among Sydney dissidents from across the Tasman.

Stop laughing; he's serious.

Credit goes to Sydney Anglican media for putting up audio clips of some of yesterday’s Chapter House meeting, and giving prime position to a lecture by Mark “Duck” Thompson on “The Anglican Communion”. That this has been made public shows Sydney is at least committed to maintaining some degree of transparency: as I’ve already said, credit to them for this. But just remember that’s the only credit anyone deserves; it's a truly nasty piece of rhetoric: that it purports to have been delivered in Christ’s name is a blasphemy.

Certainly, in one sense the talk is hilarious: does everyone know that the current problem began back during the restoration of the English monarchy in 1660? That, you should understand, is because "the re-establishment of the Church of England... ...was never a determined return to the reformed evangelical version of Archbishop Cramner" (01:40 – these numbers refer to the time-stamp at which the quote occurs in the clip, lest anyone accuse me of making this stuff up). So everyone’s been dancing to the wrong tune for the past 348 years. Wanting to roll back the clock is one thing, but isn’t this just a tad excessive?

Nor is it not explained how Sydney’s high-church GAFCON buddies are going to appreciate learning that even though this crisis began in the 17th century, “the seeds of the problem we face now lie in the 19th century: John Henry Newman’s infamous Tract 90” (02:12). So as good old sectarians have been screaming for more than a century, it's all Newman's fault. He paved the way for Gore’s Lux Mundi and Robinson’s Honest to God? Thompson’s reading list mightn’t be all that contemporary, but damn the boy enjoys painting with a wide brush!

Yet once I stopped laughing, which happened fairly early in the monologue, it became hard to keep from exploding with anger. In the Duck’s twisted logic those of us who see the Gospel as inclusive and empowering are the schismatics. Rather than mention such charming examples of pastoral love as +Schofield’s Christmas-morning email sacking one of his clergy, we’re told “ecclesiastical bullying of the orthodox has reached epidemic proportions in the Episcopal church, in Canada, and in other places as well” (27:18). And by "orthodox" the Duck means those who've decided to reject traditional Episcopal structures while still calling themselves "Episcopalian" - not those who are deternimed to take seriously God's love for humanity as revealed in Scripture and made manifest in Christ.

Indeed, it was long before the half-way point that I wasn’t sure I’d be able to last the distance. Half-truths and straw-men abound, and the faith of many, many deeply Christian men and women is consistently misrepresented.

The most nauseating aspect of the whole thing, however, is the Duck’s complete inability to consider the possibility that he may in any way be mistaken. About anything. In his world it’s those like him who are the victims – not the Gay and Lesbian people who’ve been systematically bashed, killed, vilified. It’s the fundamentalists who are being excluded and driven from the church, not those who’ve dared to make a stand for the God who brings wholeness and acceptance through Incarnation, Death and Resurection. When he says “the confiscated property remains in the hands of the heretical institution” (29:42) he’s ignoring century old notions of property and title, and even the U.S. legal system itself. For the Duck and his followers it’s theirs by right because the are right. And everyone, absolutely everyone, else is wrong. Period.

Listen for yourself if you’ve got the stomach to handle it. Just while you do so please remember that for us here in Sydney this isn’t some minority wingnut speaking: this is the head of the group which rigidly controls our Synod, and through it all appointments and spending. This is the Academic Dean of Moore College, where Sydney Clergy are almost exclusively trained: this is someone who lectures in systematic theology and church history. So please, pray for us here, and for all who are harmed by this kind of crap.

Please pray also that God might be merciful to the Duck and his cohorts, and by the Spirit’s power and grace lead them forward into a more authentically Biblical faith.

And for all those of you who’ve just started frothing at mouth because of the previous paragraph, here’s a little picture of your new best friend +Akinola to cheer you up. He's wearing the kind of “gospel” vestments you can expect to be seeing a lot of at GAFCON. Unlike Sydney, where obsessive fear of anything “popish” like chasubles has led to their prohibition, most of the “orthodox” to whom Thompson referred are quite fond of donning the occasional sacred bonnet and gown. Of course wicked "liberal Anglo-Catholics" like me don’t have any problem with it – but then again we’ve long been used to not being allowed to inject a little colour and wonder into our liturgy. Wonder if your new friends are going to be pushed around quite so easily?

Why women mustn't be Priests.

This afternoon, as Caliban's Dream warned, a meeting was held in Global Bible-Believer’s HQ (aka Sydney’s St. Andrew’s Cathedral). Since the promotions said “Everyone Welcome”, and since I am at heart really quite a simple & literal soul and figured this might even include me, I intended to go along.

After all, it’s not every day you get a chance to sit down with men who were invited to Lambeth and listen to men who weren’t invited explain why the men who were aren’t going. And why instead they’ll be going to a meeting with the murderous thug who is now Sydney’s very dear and special friend. All explained while the men who were invited to Lambeth nod their heads wisely in agreement, and young clergy desperately seeking the points neccesary to achieve their dream of a seat on Standing Committee ask leading questions (are those of you in other countries familiar with the expression “Dorothy Dixer”?).

Unfortunately the meeting’s time: 1:30 – 3:30 on a Friday afternoon, ultimately made it impossible for me to attend. Contrary to rumours, I'm actually blessed with reasonably gainful employment; and Friday afternoon is probably my busiest time of the week.

This hardly makes me unique. My guess is that this is the same for most working people. If the meeting had been scheduled to start at 6pm it would be far easier for people to have joined the enthralled throng hearing luminaries such as Dean Jensen address the topic of “Should we break fellowship? Why? When? With whom?”, or Duck Thompson explaining “What has happened in World Anglicanism to bring us to this point?”. Sure, a 6pm start would mean we’d have missed Friday night drinks, but since most attending would be Sydney Anglicans it’s a safe bet their colleagues wouldn’t have missed them too much. Pure-in-heart Matthians probably don’t join in office drinks very often anyway.

As I was unable to attend I asked Mrs. Caliban if she’d like to go along and take notes. But she just looked at me strangely, and asked if I’d forgotten to take my medication this morning.

Then she continued: "You know why they won’t let the bishops explain their reasons for not attending Lambeth for themselves? Because they won’t risk the chance that one of them might accidentally let the truth slip out. The real reason they’re not going is because the powerbrokers who lifted them this far up the food-chain have told them not to. And they've scheduled this meeting at a time which ensures as few people like you as possible can attend and try goading one of the bishops into saying this.”

She’s right, of course. Perhaps that’s why Matthians don’t permit women to speak in church, let alone be ordained as Priests. Women are too good at seeing through the spin.

P.S. I just checked the Anglican Church League’s site; the invitation to the meeting is still up, but the words “Everyone Welcome” have been removed. At least they’re being honest. This time.

Do you live in the U.S. or Canada?

Then relax, because Sydney's coming to save you.

The Jensens' are ready to launch your lifeboat. Click here and read this for an idea of the kind of propaganda being circulated about your good selves on this side of the world. And don't be deluded into thinking the problem has anything to do with people unable to grasp the concept of a God who blesses people with love in ways bigger than they can comprehend. Oh no; "The key concerns are the uniqueness of the Lord Jesus Christ [and] the authority of scripture."

Right. Which is why we're now best friends with a murderous thug like +Akinola. Because he obviously understand the uniqueness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture. Except perhaps for a few little bits, like "whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword", and "love your neighbour as yourself". Unlike you lot on the North American continent who have the temerity to acknowledge and bless those whom God has blessed.

Still, even though the rhetoric may be fierce, don't hold your breath waiting to see your rescuers any time soon:

However as Dean Jensen admits, the question is: "What is the best way to do that now?”

Which, for those who may be unfamiliar with Australian idiom, translates as "How much noise can we make without actually being pushed into leaving the Communion and losing our grip on all the lovely property and investments?"