Sydney Anglicanism: church or cult? (revised)

Sydney Anglicanism: church or cult?
Revised edition

The revised version of Keith Mascord’s Open Letter to the
Standing Committee of the Anglican Church, Diocese of Sydney


January 2007, Dr Mascord offers a revised edition of the ‘open letter’ that caused much controversy amongst Sydney Anglicans. The updated version, according to Keith, ‘avoids some of the perceived inadequacies of its predecessor.’


I am writing to lay before you some deep concerns I have about the direction in which we appear to be going as a Diocese, to call for a change of heart, and to make some practical suggestions. The concerns are not only mine. They distil countless conversations I have had with many people right across the life of the Diocese; including its leaders and teachers, including many who feel voiceless and powerless.

A vision for the Diocese: If someone were to ask me, ‘What sort of a Diocese would you like this Diocese to be?’ I would probably reply along these lines: ‘I would like to see a more gracious and loving Diocese, within which all people are treated with tender love and respect. I would also, secondly, like to see a more humble Diocese where we all readily acknowledge that we can and must learn from each other. And, finally, I would like to see a Diocese where lively and respectful debate is carried out on the range of issues that face us as a church coming into this 21st century; where other points of view are valued (even when we disagree with them), because they help to sharpen our own thinking – and also because we might learn something from them!’

That is the sort of Diocese I would like to see, but sadly that is not what I am seeing emerge. If anything, the trend is in the opposite direction. What has fuelled my concern has been my own experience and the experience of the Parish of South Sydney over the last 12 months. I am sure that not one of us doubts the importance of love (or, for that matter, humility and openness to enquire after the truth). I am also sure that our Diocesan leaders are motivated by love. However, love is primarily practical and is measured by how well we treat each other, and not just those we agree with or get on with. For a large part of this year, after an early promise of full consultation, the Parish of South Sydney was almost totally sidelined from the process of choosing a new Rector, its appeals ignored, its respectful questions fobbed off (for more details, see appendix). Christian love treats people with respect, but a similar failure to love also happened in the appointment of four new members to the Indigenous Peoples Committee (see below), with its indigenous Chairman, my colleague at South Sydney, not even consulted.

Love has characteristics that simply were not shown in each of these instances, and I suspect that these are not isolated occurrences. I would urge Standing Committee to investigate. Love is also a matter of ethos or spirit. People and churches can be known for their love. Love is a fruit of the Spirit. It ought to characterise us as a Diocese, but, sadly, alarmingly, I simply cannot remember us ever being described as loving! I talked with a minister recently who had just come back to Sydney from another Diocese. He was staggered by the critical coldness of some of Sydney Anglicanism’s more ardent sons and daughters. This might just be the enthusiasm of youth, but I couldn’t help but think of Jesus’ words, “by their fruit you will know them.” If our Christian youth are known less for their ‘love, joy, peace and patience’, and more for their suspicion, coldness, aggression and self-righteousness, then we have failed them; and the spirit that animates them is not the Spirit of Christ.

I would, secondly, like to see a more humble Diocese. There are all sorts of reasons why we should be humble. We are creatures, not God. We are sinful creatures whose tendency is to distort even the truths we do know. We are profoundly and often negatively shaped by the cultures we grow up in, including our church cultures. We are often blind to our own faults. We over-react to the faults we perceive in others, creating an opposite extreme. We therefore have more than enough reason to be humble, but I am seeing a disturbing lack of humility. Every year during my time in College, students would turn up thinking that they had pretty much learnt everything they needed to know already and were viewing College as a finishing school. More often than not these were students who had come through the Ministry Training Scheme. College does a pretty good job of knocking that sort of arrogance out of students, but often not completely. And why do we have the problem in the first place? Our feeder congregations are clearly failing the Diocese in not teaching and modelling the sort of epistemic humility our Reformed theology ought to demand.

And it is not just in their theological convictions that the sons and daughters of the Diocese are not being humble. I keep hearing stories of students and graduates of Moore College who bull-doze their way into situations because they think they know best; they have the formulas they believe will work best, regardless of the situation, regardless of whose feelings and opinions are disregarded in the process. Of course, there are exceptions to this – many fine exceptions. I have been on nine Moore College Missions and was almost always proud of the team. Often it was just one or two who made a bad name for the rest of us. However, lack of humility is clearly enough of a problem for Sydney Anglicanism to be known for its arrogance.

Arrogance, or even perceived arrogance, would be understandable, though still inexcusable if we Sydney Anglicans had the truth pretty much bottled up; if our understanding and application of the Bible was the best there is in Australia, or even the world. I think sometimes we think and act as if this was the case. It is, in fact, unjustified arrogance. Speaking personally, I have benefited hugely from studying and teaching at Moore College. It is a fine College with many strengths. But there are also weaknesses and blind spots. One of Moore College’s great strengths, its Biblical theological approach to drawing out the meaning of Scripture, is not matched by an equally rigorous exploration of the history that lies behind and beyond the text – leading all too often to simplistic and formulaic approaches to preaching and application. The point of saying this is not to criticize Moore College, but to say that we all still have a long way to go in our efforts to understand the Scriptures, not to mention the world and ourselves.

I would, finally, love to see the Diocese become a place where lively and respectful debate was carried out in a context of love, in the pursuit of truth. I don’t see this happening, in fact the opposite. There is a disturbing trend towards greater control over and censorship of thought. For example, a questionnaire has recently been trialled with third year ordination candidates asking a series of quite detailed theological questions. Students are assured that some theological diversity is acceptable. However, on certain issues, and these are not specified, “greater unanimity and clarity of conviction” is required. The effect of these words, in a context where students are also well aware of the (strongly held) opinions of those with power to determine their future, is that dishonesty and fearful compliance is encouraged.

One of the issues canvassed in the questionnaire is whether or not it is acceptable for a woman to preach to mixed audiences of men and women. Phillip Jensen is well known for his view that it is sinful for a woman to preach to men, and also sinful for a man to allow this.1 This is a position he holds passionately and publicly, as ordination candidates who have attended Ministry Training and Development days will readily attest. I understand that he believes it to be the only acceptable view.2 Knowledge of such strongly held views (shared by others in MT&D) will inevitably put pressure on students to tick the acceptable box, a pressure that would only increase if answers on other questions are likely to put students out of the mainstream. Such pressure exacerbates an already existing culture of fear that exists within the Diocese.

People are increasingly afraid to voice alternative views; to argue a different case than the dominant line, for fear of being verbally abused and/or socially isolated. People are afraid to go public through fear of being crushed. This is appalling, more characteristic of a cult than of a church. I understand the desire to safeguard the truth. I too am passionate about truth, but the irony is that truth is the first casualty of efforts to stifle healthy and robust debate. It is a sign of lack of confidence in the truth that we attempt to shut down efforts to understand it better, and if the only people we listen to are those who agree with us.

I am worried about the Diocese. I am worried about its future. I am worried about the all engrossingMission which is producing its own pressures and disappointments. I suspect that one reason that the Mission is not yet thriving as we had hoped it would is because, as a Diocese, we are not sufficiently living in ways that are consistent with the gospel we preach. Not only will God not honour our efforts if we continue to be like this, the people of Sydney who we are seeking to reach are not attracted to this style of Christianity. That certainly is the message I keep hearing in my part of Sydney. In the name of Christ, I am therefore calling for repentance, for a change of heart. I am praying that God will make us more loving, humble and open to truth as together we seek the will and glory of God.

Recommendations:

  1. That an enquiry be commissioned to discover whether the concerns expressed in this letter do indeed reflect the views of people and congregations throughout the Diocese;
  2. That a HR policy be developed that creates guidelines for the respectful treatment of people and congregations within the Diocese, creating clear lines of accountability so that grievances can be justly resolved and reconciliation achieved;
  3. That the administration of the Diocese keep reminding itself of its role as servant of the Parishes; that it adopts a policy of not over-riding a parish’s theological and cultural distinctives except in extreme circumstances. It may be that Parishes need to be encouraged to be more assertive of their ecclesiological priority.
  4. That the present reluctance to allow non-Sydney and non-Moore College trained people into the Diocese be relaxed (even just a little) to help create a healthier diversity and as a statement of justifiable humility.
  5. That Ministry Training and Development be developed in such a way that students and ministers are given permission to differ, and are encouraged to pursue truth in an environment which is supportive of good thinking and scholarship. Within the guidelines of a confessional culture, differences must be allowed; discussion and debate must be encouraged so that a persuasional rather than a coercive or compliant culture develops;
  6. That the need for and form of the Questionnaire for 3rd year Ordination candidates be reviewed by a Task Force of suitably qualified and suitably diverse theologians and pastoral leaders.
  7. That the Council and Principal of Moore Theological College be encouraged to create and maintain a healthy mix of viewpoints on Faculty. I am often heartened by students who tell me that the Faculty is more diverse and more willing to express divergent points of view than the student body. It would be nice if this greater openness was more general;

Let me finish on a personal note. As you may know, I have recently accepted the position of National Chaplain at Mission Australia. I have started part-time and from next February will be full-time. This is an exciting move for Judy and me. MA wants to reassert its Christian character; to be more decidedly Christian both in its compassionate work and in how the organisation runs. Please pray for me as I contribute to this. Judy and I will be living in Sydney and attending an Anglican Church. I want to continue to work at being more Christ-like myself and to encourage a more Christ-like Diocese. My personal style (born of Christian convictions) is to not burn bridges, but to stubbornly hold onto friendships, even with those with whom I have differences.

I am grateful to you for giving the time to read this.

Yours sincerely,

Rev Dr Keith Mascord

  1. Implied by this view is that Narelle Jarrett, Principal of Mary Andrews College, is sinning when she preaches as she does occasionally at her church. Also implied by this view is that Michael Hill, the retiring Vice Principal of Moore College, sinned when as a Rector of Seaforth he allowed women to preach to men. Also implied by this view is that Phillip’s brother, the Archbishop, is sinning when he licenses women to preach around the Diocese.

  2. I am happy enough for this to be Phillip’s personal view. I respect his right to come to it, but I am uncomfortable with Phillip as Head of Ministry Training and Development strongly urging this view to ordination candidates. It undermines the Faculty of Moore College where views on this subject are mixed. It puts pressure on students. More than half of this year’s fourth year do not believe that it is sinful for a woman to preach to mixed audiences of men and women.


Appendix: South Sydney Parish and the Indigenous Peoples Committee

When John McIntyre accepted the invitation of the Diocese of Gippsland to become its bishop and left Sydney in early February of this year, a suitable replacement needed to be found. The elected Parish Nominators soon discovered that the Parish had lost its right of nomination. However, they were assured that they would be fully consulted in the process of finding a new Rector, which was very generous and encouraging.

Consultation, however, was very limited over a long period of time. This created problems, but worse was yet to come. After months of delay, suddenly a name was suggested: Rev Paul Dew. Paul was given a guided tour of the Parish. There was some haste. Paul had another offer on the table. He met with the Parish Nominators and Parish Wardens; a promising start to what could have been a productive dialogue. However, within two days of this meeting, Rob Forsyth phoned the President of the Nominators to inform him that a letter of invitation would be sent to Paul Dew inviting him to become Rector of the South Sydney. The nominators and wardens had not been asked to give their opinion of Paul’s suitability (hardly possible after just one meeting!). Paul himself indicated his inclination to accept the offer, and thus within a few days (after months of delay) the Incumbency of South Sydney had been all but determined, and the promise of full consultation had been broken.

This was disappointing for all sorts of reasons. It was disappointing because the Parish Nominators had been so diligent. They had prayed and called on people to pray, they had resisted negativity; they had tried to be responsible and representative. It was disappointing because this action strained the relationship between Paul and the Parish almost from day one. The impression that Paul had been imposed upon the Parish, that his coming was a fait accompli, made it extremely hard for people to embrace Paul as their Pastor, though they have tried very hard (and with increasing success) to do this. It was disappointing because Ray Minniecon, South Sydney’s aboriginal pastor, was not consulted as to his opinion about Paul’s suitability. Ray was away in Switzerland at an indigenous people’s conference for two of the three weeks that Paul had to accept or reject the offer of South Sydney. Moreover, for one of those weeks Paul himself was out of action – in hospital with a burst appendix – making it more difficult for the Parish to get to know him. They hadn’t yet heard Paul preach (still haven’t). It was also disappointing because when the Parish Nominators asked Paul to ask the Archbishop for an extension of time (so that both Paul and the Parish could have more time to discern God’s will), the Archbishop said no. I also interceded to ask for an extension of time, but received no reply. The president of the Nominators asked for an extension of time. He also received no reply.

How could something like this happen in a Christian organisation devoted to the gospel of the Lord Jesus and to living in ways that are worthy of that gospel? I find that question hard to answer. One could argue, I guess, that we are in a voluntary organisation of churches that gives the Archbishop the right to appoint pastors in certain defined circumstances; such as when its income drops below a certain point. One can well imagine situations where the discretionary power given to the Archbishop by the Presentation and Exchange Ordinance might be useful, even necessary, such as when a Parish has become dysfunctional. However, permission given by an ordinance does not, by itself, constitute moral grounds for taking the sort of action that has been taken in this case. The fact that a Parish has lost its right of nomination may actually provide stronger moral grounds for respectful consultation. For example, a congregation may be struggling mightily with the effects of demographic and cultural change; may have been trying its hardest (with great wisdom and appropriateness) to minister the love of Christ in their locality, but with little success. In such a case, to not respectfully consult could well be both immoral and un-Christian; as well as a failure of pastoral care.

In the case of South Sydney, it is hard to see any morally justifiable reasons for what was done. The Parish is anything but dysfunctional. It had only just dropped under the local revenue target, and will be close to reaching it again at the end of this year. It is a vibrant and growing Parish. It is unified and inclusive in its love. The wider community is on side. It is a fantastic Parish, in great shape, which makes its treatment all the more mystifying and disappointing.

What has been even more disappointing than any of the above is that despite this disappointing and unnecessary treatment, the Parish Nominators decided (with some difficulty) to remain godly and to seek reconciliation with the Archbishop (the Biblically mandated thing to do when we are out of fellowship with a brother). They wrote a respectful letter (copies can be made available on request) outlining in detail their reasons for feeling aggrieved, only to receive a letter in reply from Phillip Selden (also available) which did not address even one of the points raised in the letter. This has left the Nominators in even more serious need of reconciliation.

A related example of failure to love in action concerns the Indigenous Peoples Committee. Earlier this year, four new appointments were made to that committee: Deryck Howell, Ken Allen, Greg Anderson and David Woodbridge. What was problematic was not the expertise or otherwise of the appointees, but the manner in which the appointments were made. There was no consultation; none! Its chairperson, Ray Minniecon, wasn’t consulted. None of the indigenous people on the committee was consulted about who was to go on to this committee – or off! The Archbishop, under the then current SAIPM ordinance, had the right to make appointments to the committee without consultation. But for there to be no consultation, especially when indigenous people were involved (people with a violent history of marginalization and paternalism), is another disturbing example of failure to love.

Both of the cases mentioned above are serious and in serious need of resolution. However, there is some light emerging at the end of both tunnels. In the aftermath of the decision to appoint new members to the Indigenous Peoples Committee, the new committee, with the exception of Greg Anderson, who had not yet arrived from NT, wrote to the Archbishop (mildly) protesting this failure to consult. The committee hasn’t (at this point) heard back from the Archbishop, but the Archbishop has now met with Ray Minniecon and been reconciled with him. Praise God! On the South Sydney Parish front, there has also been a promising first step on the road to reconciliation. At Paul Dew’s induction to the Parish on the 19th of November, a letter was read out from Bishop Robert Forsyth apologizing for the way the Parish had been treated. I am again hoping and praying that the Archbishop will be reconciled both to the Nominators and to the Parish in general. Please pray with me along these lines.

Rev Dr Keith Mascord
Since lecturing at Moore Theological College in philosophy & theology, Keith has worked as a parish priest in the South of Sydney.

In 2007 Keith takes up a full time position as National Chaplain of Mission Australia.
Visit Keith’s Green Square Community Church website

About Father Dave

Preacher, Pugilist, Activist, Father of four
This entry was posted in Social Justice and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Sydney Anglicanism: church or cult? (revised)

  1. Dennis says:

    The article at the link below is called ‘Beware of the Borg’. It seemed appropriate.

    https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2004/19-november/comment/beware-of-the-borg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.