It's not only Sydney Evangelicals who have concerns about trends in the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia.
From a 'non-Sydney' perspective David Chislett, Rector of the Anglo-Catholic parish of All Saints', Wickham Terrace in Brisbane, reflects on General Synod's February meeting in Adelaide.
Readers of 'The Panther and the Hind', Aidan Nicholls' history of the Church of England, will be familiar with the notion of Anglicanism as a coalition of at least three different religions cobbled together for political reasons but which is now rapidly disintegrating.
Nicholls believes that in the late twentieth century we are witnessing the devolution of Anglicanism into its broad constituent traditions &endash; the catholic, the liberal and the evangelical.
This analysis rings true to observers of successive General Synods of the Anglican Church of Australia. Dioceses elect clergy and lay representatives to this body, which is sometimes referred to as the 'parliament of the Church' and now meets every three years.
Certainly, the factional deals and lobbying that the key groups have come to realise are necessary to protect what they believe to be the truth, require at least as much skill as that used in secular politics.
CHURCH POLITICS
The strongest and, many would say, the most spiritually vital body within Australian Anglicanism, is the Diocese of Sydney.
Overwhelmingly and uniquely Calvinist and Reformed, mainstream Sydney Anglicanism is passionately evangelical, though not, as some suppose, fundamentalist. It is inherently suspicious of those who seem less biblical in their priorities.
In past decades, Sydney Anglicans tended to see anglo-catholicism as the great enemy. Today, however, Sydney and the anglo-catholics (the Dioceses of Ballarat, Wangaratta, The Murray, and a small sprinkling of priests and lay people from other places) join forces on an increasing number of issues. It is becoming clear that despite their very real differences, the so-called extremes of Anglicanism have a lot more in common than either has with the liberals in the middle. Most importantly, they contrast their adherence to a revealed religion with the modernist idea of contemporary culture as the ultimate authority in matters of faith.
General Synod met in Adelaide during the third week of February. There was a genuine attempt to loosen up the atmosphere, to minimise confrontation and to facilitate real dialogue.
Two innovations helped to make this a reality: first, the venue &endash; the Adelaide Hotel International; second, the breaking up of Synod into small discussion groups a number of times during various debates.
The atmosphere of the hotel's convention room significantly diminished the formality traditionally associated with General Synod, and the discussion groups gave members of Synod the opportunity of sharing with representatives from dioceses and traditions other than their own.
Some cynics saw this as an attempt to dilute opposition to the official line; others thought that it succeeded only in using up valuable time that should have been spent in the cut and thrust of debate. One bishop was overheard to say that although the Synod may appear to be the most conciliatory ever held, he was acutely aware of more politicking behind the scenes than ever before.
From 1978 until 1992, General Synod was preoccupied with the ordination of women. In 1995, most of the time was spent debating and amending the text of A Prayer Book for Australia.
This Synod, however, was concerned with a number of different issues and a good deal of housekeeping.
INDIGENOUS ISSUES
It was clear from the outset that much time would be spent on sorting out the representation of indigenous Australians in the life of the church.
An unreserved apology was made to the 'stolen generation', in a debate which included indigenous Anglicans telling their own stories. Towards the end of the week, in a penitential liturgy the Primate, Archbishop Rayner, washed the feet of Aboriginal Bishop Arthur Malcolm while Archbishop Ian George washed the feet of Torres Strait Islander Bishop Ted Mosby.
Synod also decided that the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Anglican Council (natsiac) should have direct representation on General Synod, with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander bishops as members of the House of Bishops.
STRATEGIES FOR THE FUTURE
In a rather devastating presentation, Bronwyn Hughes of the National Church Life Survey revealed that the majority of church attenders 'do not value reaching the unchurched, wider community care, or specific ministry to youth and children'.
Archbishop Goodhew of Sydney, whose diocese does conspicuously better than any other in these areas, moved a motion calling on 'all agencies in this church to adopt priorities which will enable us to move to a more effective engagement with our fellow Australians with the gospel of Christ'.
He went on to say that the church needs 'Éstructures which will concentrate our attention on mission and not maintenance.'
Bishop Bruce Wilson of Bathurst, who had described the Anglican Church as a 'Royal family church in a Princess Di world', pointed out that only eight per cent of churchgoers were in the 20 to 29 age group, and that most were already at least middle aged.
Members of Synod were clearly disappointed when Bishop Wilson's strategy for the future amounted to replacing the existing 'commissions' with 'task forces', a strategy seen by many as a shifting of deck chairs on the sinking ship. It was zealously opposed by Bishop Appleby of the Northern Territory who wanted the commissions to continue.
Archdeacon Jeff Driver of Canberra called for 'structures for the future not, as in the past, to control and confine, but to release energy, gifts and a broad range of talent in the church's life.'
After a two day discussion that went around in circles, Synod decided to do the really Anglican thing and referred the matter to a committee!
NON-TERRITORIAL BISHOPS?
In the context of a debate looking at how bishops responsible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities might belong 'by right' to the House of Bishops, David Silk, Bishop of Ballarat, opened up the idea of non-territorial episcopal ministry.
Discussion of this has until now been conspicuously off limits in Australian Anglicanism. But Bishop Silk gained considerable support from both liberals and evangelicals as he unravelled the essence of episcopacy, showing that in the pre - Constantinian church, bishops were apostolic ministers to communities rather than 'feudal barons' over geographical territories.
In England a kind of 'church within the church' has been established around the so-called 'flying bishops' provided for those parishes unable in conscience to receive the sacramental ministry of diocesan bishops who have ordained women. These networks function very much along the lines of what the Roman Catholic Church calls 'personal prelatures'.
In this country, evangelicals who believe that the ordination of women flies in the face of Scripture, and anglo-catholics who cannot bring themselves to believe that women purportedly ordained are, in fact, priests, have had a difficult time trying to persuade the liberal bishops that some such provision is necessary here.
The bishops have consistently refused even to discuss the matter.
The Bishop of Canberra-Goulburn, George Browning, had said as much after his Diocesan Synod approved the formation of a 'parallel' diocese for the defence forces.
According to an interview he gave at the time, he was worried about the precedent this would give for 'other groups' to seek their own arrangements, and signalled his intention to oppose the idea in General Synod. He even announced that he would resign if the kind of alternative episcopal ministry that prevails in England became a reality in Australia!
And so it was that the sensible idea of turning the network of defence force chaplains and their constituents into a diocese with its own full-time bishop was sunk.
Compelling arguments were mounted by those with chaplaincy experience and by the part-time Bishop to the Forces, Brian King of Parramatta, but to no avail.
WOMEN BISHOPS
When, however, Synod got around to debating a motion on women bishops, it was really forced to consider alternative episcopal oversight again. Dr Muriel Porter spoke eloquently in favour of legislation being drawn up to allow for women bishops. Dr Ann Young from Sydney was the major speaker against.
Bishop David Silk proposed the important amendment, that any draft legislation for women bishops include provision for alternative episcopal oversight. After a lot of good-natured debate, this was accepted by an overwhelming majority of the Synod, thus putting well on the agenda something specifically ruled out by the Primate in 1992.
Of course, many desperate anglo-catholics are saying that such an alternative episcopate should be a reality now as it is in England. But they are happy on two counts: first, there is now official recognition that sacramental communion within the Anglican Church of Australia has been impaired at the very heart of its life; second, there seems to be a determination at the grassroots not to discriminate against and unchurch the traditionalists.
Real leadership was shown throughout the debate by the anglo-catholic bishops (Silk of Ballarat, Farrer of Wangaratta, and Walden of The Murray). Others who spoke in favour of alternative episcopal oversight included people from Sydney, as well as some proponents of women bishops.
The draft legislation for women bishops and alternative episcopal oversight will be ready for discussion around the Church by the end of 1999. The next General Synod in 2001 may well see it enacted.
AVOIDING ACRIMONY
For quite some time, a number of conservative evangelicals and anglo-catholics have agreed to support legislation for women bishops, on condition that the legislation includes the provisions necessary for alternative episcopal oversight. They support the idea that if women can be priests, women must also be able to become bishops.
They also agree that the majority view of the Australian bishops (that you can have women priests but not women bishops) while politically useful, is the least tenable position of all.
Everyone seemed to agree that to go through another ten years like the decade of open warfare that preceded the 1992 vote for women priests would be a disaster. Anglo-catholics are now moderately hopeful that their concerns are at least being listened to by the General Synod as a whole.
LAY PRESIDENCY
The appearance of unity began to wear off towards the end of Synod when a motion was moved to affirm that only a bishop or an episcopally ordained priest could be the celebrant of the Eucharist.
This was in response to the Appellate Tribunal's surprising opinion that nothing in the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia precludes the possibility of deacons or lay people presiding at the Eucharist. The Tribunal also said that such a change could only come about with the authorisation of General Synod.
This has greatly displeased the liberal bishops who, back in 1992, forced through the purported ordination of women. These same bishops now invoke "catholic" arguments against lay presidency, arguments which many Synod members feel are simply not available to them now.
The point is: in the eyes of those who believe the mainstream Christian teaching that women are not able to become Catholic priests, lay presidency already exists in the majority of Anglican dioceses in Australia.
Because this debate threatened to open a can of worms, Synod voted that the motion not be put. But all can rest assured that the matter will not go away.
THE FUTURE
Until 1992, most Anglicans thought that the Fundamental Declarations at the beginning of the Constitution committed them to the Faith and Order of the Catholic Church. In 1992 when the liberals narrowly won the ordination of women to the priesthood, the local vaunted itself against the universal. Back then, many evangelicals and anglo-catholics pleaded for the Synod to legislatively "loosen the knot" that binds Australian Anglicans together. That was not allowed to happen, with the result that the consciences of many continue to be stretched to breaking point.
Since the victory of the liberals amounted to the shattering of Australian Anglicanism's fragile unity, it is perfectly understandable that many mainstream Sydney evangelicals now want to move forward into lay presidency of the eucharist &endash; an area where they feel "the gospel gives them liberty". It is also easy to see why anglo-catholics are more determined than ever to achieve a workable form of alternative episcopal oversight.
The logical result of these processes over the next decade is for the Anglican Church of Australia to devolve into a kind of 'Council of Anglican Churches in Australia', functioning in practice as three denominations. It is obviously not what anyone really wanted to happen. But would it be so bad? At least the consciences of all would be respected.
The evangelicals could plant their new churches around the country, and the liberals might converge with the Uniting Church. Meanwhile, anglo-catholics would be able to reclaim lost ground (perhaps planting new parishes of their own), deepen their relationships with 'Continuing Anglican Churches' and also resume the ecumenical journey to full communion with the wider Catholic Church, 'united but not absorbed,' in the words of Pope Paul vi.
This scenario is similar to what Aidan Nicholls envisages in the last chapter of his book. It is also fits in with William Oddie's projection in his recently published 'The Roman Option'.
Indeed, I find myself in agreement with the Sydney evangelical leader, Canon Robert Forsyth, who in 1992 said that the disintegration of Australian Anglicanism is inevitable. "The only question", wrote Forsyth, "is whether the disintegration will be chaotic or managed".
That will undoubtedly be the business of the next General Synod in 2001.
Fr. David Chislett was ordained in the Diocese of Ballarat, and served in a number of Ballarat parishes before moving to All Saints' Wickham Terrace, the well known anglo-catholic parish in the heart of Brisbane in 1995.
This article was first published in the UK and is reprinted here with the kind permission of the author. © David Chislett and ACL News.
Document added 1st July 1998
