"Sydney Anglicanism" the way forward for GAFCON?

[Shane R]

I am beginning to see this sentiment expressed more and more by ACNA types here in N. America. I doubt most of them know anything about that particular expression of Anglicanism. I have read ++Jensen quite a bit in the last two years and came away fairly certain that he should be classified as a representative of the Zwinglian camp within the Reformed tradition: one of the few positions that was broadly rejected by the classic Anglican divines.

I do have a question: how much has Sydney embraced the charismatic movement? That is a feature of ACNA, and most of the African provinces, that is not going to disappear anytime soon. ACNA is consumed by a battle to determine whether it will be a Protestant church or a Pentecostal church. The Anglo-Catholics are not a significant voice as all who hold to a male only priesthood are thinking of departing and those who are "affirming Catholics" don't care about much except having a suitably Roman looking Mass.

And of course, the whole proposition smacks of a colonial mindset. No one is really taking the Africans seriously in the theological conversation.

 

[Paidiske]

I've never been to Sydney and although it's nearby, most of what I know about it is second-hand, from "Sydney refugees" or people who travel there regularly. I am not aware that Sydney has been particularly heavily impacted by the charismatic movement. From what I can gather it seems to be a strong old-school Calvinist/Zwinglian take, rather than charismatic, particularly in its training college.

How would ACNA feel about Sydney's more... idiosyncratic... positions, like allowing deacons to celebrate the Eucharist, though?

 

[Shane R]

That's a raging debate. One of the more notorious ACNA bishops was brought in almost directly from the Vineyard movement with little remedial training. His diocese is an outlier even by ACNA standards in what is allowed to take place.

The broader question of Holy Orders is one of much controversy. The report they issued a while back on Holy Orders was a disjointed mess that attempted to represent every position equally rather than saying: this is Anglican (or historic if one prefers) and this is not. One can find advocates for everything from lay presidency at the Eucharist to normative use of the American Missal.

 

[gordonhooker]

How would ACNA feel about Sydney's more... idiosyncratic... positions, like allowing deacons to celebrate the Eucharist, though?

I personally am in two minds about that as there are places in Australia especially out in the bush where the faithful cannot take Communion because of the shortage of clergy be them priests or deacons. In these cases, I am all for lay presidency at the Eucharist provided the person is properly trained, similar to the training one does to become a Reader or Licenced Preaching Liturgical Assistant.

 

[gordonhooker]

From what I can gather it seems to be a strong old-school Calvinist/Zwinglian take, rather than charismatic, particularly in its training college.

Quite some time back I signed up for some subjects at the college you speak of as I wanted to see what they would be like. Within the first three chapters of the first set of subject notes on the OT and having said to myself how did they come up with that idea I decided to cancel that subject and the others I signed up for.

 

[Paidiske]

I personally am in two minds about that as there are places in Australia especially out in the bush where the faithful cannot take Communion because of the shortage of clergy be them priests or deacons. In these cases, I am all for lay presidency at the Eucharist provided the person is properly trained, similar to the training one does to become a Reader or Licenced Preaching Liturgical Assistant.

If you're going to do that, though, why not get the bishop to lay hands on and give them a restricted licence?

 

[gordonhooker]

If you're going to do that, though, why not get the bishop to lay hands on and give them a restricted licence?

If the bishop would do that then that would be great but not all bishops will do that. Specifically, the diocese that I am part of communion in some of the western regional areas is quite rare. The licensed LA's can do morning and evening prayer and some are licensed to preach and to do funerals.

 

[Shane R]

Quite some time back I signed up for some subjects at the college you speak of as I wanted to see what they would be like. Within the first three chapters of the first set of subject notes on the OT and having said to myself how did they come up with that idea I decided to cancel that subject and the others I signed up for.

Apparently Moore now has a full distance education program. Someone was plugging it recently to Continuing Anglicans. I mentioned that no Anglo-Catholic belongs at that institution and Arminians probably aren't particularly welcome either. It highlights how ignorant Americans are of what actually goes on in some of these far off bastions of GAFCON orthodoxy.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

The then Archbishop of Sydney preached at our church about 20 years ago. He was completely in keeping with everything we stood for, although it is a vague memory and I was naively not a part of CF at the time.

I don’t understand what the big deal is. Anglicanism is a big tent. We have all sorts of fellowships here in England that would fit with Sydney, such as Jesmond Parish Church in Newcastle, and similar to other purely city fellowships.

What is weird for us is that a diocese can have a single churchmanship. My own diocese is very diverse and our bishop alternates between evangelical and liberal/catholic - similar to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, that lack of diversity - or tolerance of diversity - is part of the problem. Part of the problem is that the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia is set up in such a way that Sydney can stymie things that other dioceses want to do, of which Sydney disapproves; and they do.

Sydney is theologically Calvinist, rigid, narrow and conservative; it refuses to treat women as equal to men (recently re-introducing "obey" to wedding vows, even), it refuses to treat LGBTIQA+ people as fully human or genuinely Christian, and it uses its enormous wealth (until recently it was, and I'm not sure if it still is, the wealthiest Anglican diocese in the world) to meddle in the affairs of other dioceses in Australia and around the world.

And now through GAFCON it's contributing to undermining the basic norms, relationships and structures of the global Anglican communion. It's behaviour that's hypocritical, spiritually immature, divisive and power-seeking.

(Nobody ever accused me of not having an opinion... ).

 

[Arcangl86]

Yes, that lack of diversity - or tolerance of diversity - is part of the problem. Part of the problem is that the constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia is set up in such a way that Sydney can stymie things that other dioceses want to do, of which Sydney disapproves; and they do.

I'm curious. How does Sydney have that ability? I'm assuming it's because it's a metropolitian see?

 

[Paidiske]

I'd have to go away and look up the details (I'm not a lawyer), but the constitution is written in such a way that some things can't be done if one of the metropolitical sees don't agree. And Sydney has a very large voting block on general synod.

 

[Shane R]

Here's a video of Abp. Okoh telling his people that the Church of Nigeria was going to take my jurisdiction to court to make our folks stop using the name 'Anglican':

Our own Abp. Umane informed the Metropolitan this week that the case had been thrown out of the Nigerian courts and the Church of Nigeria fined a sum equal to about six months' wages for the average Nigerian.