Ship of Fools: Archbishop Kay Goldsworthy

Thread: Archbishop Kay Goldsworthy Board: Dead Horses / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000717

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I'm not sure if this is the right board for this.

Bishop Kay Goldsworthy, currently Bishop of Gippsland, has been elected as Archbishop of Perth. She will be the first woman to become an Archbishop in Australia. Not doubting her qualifications at all, but there will be some in Perth who will be far from pleased that a woman has become Archbishop. Of course, it would not happen here in Sydney. We don't even have women ordained as priests.

[ 30. August 2017, 03:36: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think it's a Dead Horse, being about the role of women, initially a particular woman,in the church. Off it goes.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Did she do a good job as Bishop of Gippsland?

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

Indeed.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Only a short time there, as was her predecessor Bp John - who died very unexpectedly. There are some rather strong anti-women among the Perth clergy IIRC. I'd think that the great majority would support her.

Posted by Clutch (# 18827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Did she do a good job as Bishop of Gippsland?

I'd suspect that she would not have been elected to the Metropolitan if her administration/pastoral care of Gippsland was lackluster.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

As Perth was the first diocese to ordain women in Australia, and the first to consecrate a female bishop (who was Kay Goldsworthy), I have no idea what this thread is supposed to be about.

Posted by Baker (# 18458) on :

I don't really know the background of this story, as I'm not Australian. I'm Episcopal Church of the United States.

We don't call our head bishop an archbishop, we call them the Presiding Bishop, but it's really the same thing. And although our current PB is male, his predecessor was female. So we are used to such things.

One poster said the diocese that encompasses Sydney does not even ordain women. Here in the USA it's not diocese by diocese, there's only one policy across the church. I take it that makes the Australian church different?

What is someone from a church like mine was to move to Australia? I really wouldn't want to attend where women weren't on an even basis with men, so what would be the best thing to do?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Bae - Presiding Bishop Schori was in effect an archbishop, so she was the first in the Anglican Communion. ++Kay is the second but the first to have that actual title.

Ordination/licensing is on a diocese by diocese basis. All now accept women as priests save for Sydney, Armidale and (I think) NW Australia. The current ++ Sydney will license as a deacon a woman priested elsewhere. What she does in a particular parish is then a matter for he, the local parish council and her rector. All sorts of problems with that, but a real step ahead of the previous ban. A pretty common assessment is that ++Glenn would be happy to ordain and license women but knows he would face a revolt in synod from the conservatives.

What to do, you ask. Well, you could settle in a diocese where women are fully accepted as equals. That means most of Australia. In Sydney you could do as we do, and travel to a parish where women, gays, transgender are all accepted.

Posted by Baker (# 18458) on :

Thanks Gee D for the reply. I'm not really planning on moving, that was a hypothetical, but it still has meaning for me.

I was raised in a conservative Lutheran denomination, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Only recently were women accepted as voting memembers of congregations. And there are still no female clergy of course. So I'd never want to backstep in my attitudes.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes, I had assumed a hypothetical move. There are quite a few women working as priests in Sydney, even with the restriction (which of course still requires male consent of course). The present archbishop raises no objections. What he did do on being elected was to direct that women bishops in other dioceses be recognised as such. In ++Peter Jensen's day, the common description used in St Andrew's House was along the lines of "that woman who thinks she's a bishop"!

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baker:

What is someone from a church like mine was to move to Australia? I really wouldn't want to attend where women weren't on an even basis with men, so what would be the best thing to do?

You could come to a diocese that recognises the ordination of women, such as Perth. Simples.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

+ Kay was a meteor ascending from the time of her ordination about 35 years ago. Had she been male she would have been a bishop long before she was. She performed a fine task as assistant bishop in Perth, then as Bishop of Gippsland. Apart from one or two in Perth who feel a little bit of a "searched the world and found a local" syndrome, most recognize that + Kaye is a fine person for the job, and while there were one or two other possible candidates, at least one that I know well, I suspect she is the best pick for the vagaries of a cosmoplitan, diverse and isolated diocese. God go with her.

[ 05. September 2017, 01:29: Message edited by: Zappa ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

As a slight tangent, we shall have to see what happens this week in the Church in Wales. The issue here may be that the two women have only recently come to their present posts.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
As a slight tangent, we shall have to see what happens this week in the Church in Wales. The issue here may be that the two women have only recently come to their present posts.

Yes, an interesting opportunity although +Joan was probably too recently consecrated to be a serious contender.

Zappa - certainly agree about ++Kay.

Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
NW Australia.

Whose metropolitan she will be, so that will be interesting.

The Murray finally ordained a woman as a deacon earlier this year but doesn't appear to have taken any decisions about priesting women, so you can add them to the list.

[ 07. September 2017, 02:34: Message edited by: Knopwood ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Knopwood, thanks for that - it had escaped me. The Chancellor of the diocese is Robert Tong, a leading light in the Anglican Church League. A very odd combination indeed.

++Glenn is metropolitan to +Sarah Grafton. He did not go to her enthronement (she'd already been consecrated as an assistant) but did visit her afterwards. I understand that the meeting was very cordial, very cordial indeed. Of course he'd already given the Bishops' Farewell at +Barbara Darling's funeral. That was very moving and heartfelt.

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

So, is ++Glenn the Gorbachev or F W de Klerk of Sydney, the initially safe choice taking cautious steps towards a previously unimaginable shift in direction?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

++Glenn won't take any clear steps, just tinker as much as he can around the edges. He was not really the safe choice either. There were some funny things happen at the Synod. The Anglican Church League was promoting Canon Rick Smith as their candidate. Sydney has a strange electoral system with 3 ballots. The first ballot is to decide which candidates are worth considering further, nothing more. Despite 3 goes at counting, Canon Smith did not get over the line at this preliminary stage. ++Glenn was then elected unopposed.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

I appreciate the assessment from someone I know and trust, Zap. I was at Kay Goldsworthy's consecration. Till then, the memorial service for Diana was the biggest crowd we had ever had at St George's Cathedral (no one knows why). The consecration shattered that record - multiple fire hazards as well over a thousand gathered.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I remember that. I had to stand way up the back the whole time. [Big Grin]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Gee D

There will indeed be some in the diocese that will not appreciate a female archbishop: but thankfully not many.

I had a friend who approached their parish priest about the possibility of a vocation to ordained ministry and the parish priest told her to go home and raise children.

What I find bizarre, is that this kind of thing is tolerated in our diocese. When you are ordained you have to sign things saying you assent to the statutes etc and authority of the bishops and the Archbishop. Those in this diocese that do not accept the ordination of women are still given a license and authorised to be clergy. How on earth does that work?

Is it simply being too soft or an attempt at unity in diversity?

Curiously, I have found this disdainful attitude to the ordained ministry of women in the diocese present not only among my "evangelical" colleagues but my very high church ones as well.

I suppose it to be true that the extremes often end up in the same boat or holding hands at the edges where the full circle comes around.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Knopwood, thanks for that - it had escaped me. The Chancellor of the diocese is Robert Tong, a leading light in the Anglican Church League. A very odd combination indeed.

++Glenn is metropolitan to +Sarah Grafton. He did not go to her enthronement (she'd already been consecrated as an assistant) but did visit her afterwards. I understand that the meeting was very cordial, very cordial indeed. Of course he'd already given the Bishops' Farewell at +Barbara Darling's funeral. That was very moving and heartfelt.

In fact, +Sarah's enthronement was also her consecration. +Stuart Canberra and Goulburn was chief consecrator given ++Glenn's "unavailability".

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks Vulpior, I had thought that she was consecrated when she became an assistant in Canberra and Goulburn with +Stuart being the lead consecrator, and then enthroned at Grafton.

And welcome back.

Posted by magnum mysterium (# 3418) on :

+Sarah Grafton was never an assistant in Canberra and Goulburn. The most senior role she occupied in that diocese was archdeacon.

You may perhaps be confusing her with +Genieve, who was consecrated to be an assistant bishop in Canberra and Goulburn, and was subsequently appointed to Melbourne as an assistant bishop in that diocese.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thank you, I was.

Welcome back.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clutch:

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Did she do a good job as Bishop of Gippsland?
I'd suspect that she would not have been elected to the Metropolitan if her administration/pastoral care of Gippsland was lackluster.

I am not in any way commenting on her performance as Bishop of Gippsland as I know nothing of it, but I would caution that this statement does not necessarily follow. I have known of people promoted exactly because their administration was lackluster (or worse), and others promoted without any consideration of their previous performance.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

She did an excellent job in Gippsland as diocesan as she had in Perth as an assistant.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baker:

What is someone from a church like mine was to move to Australia? I really wouldn't want to attend where women weren't on an even basis with men, so what would be the best thing to do? [/QB]

If you were to live in Sydney, I'd suggest that you didn't attend an Anglican church, as with a few exceptions you would probably not recognise any similarities between an Episcopal church and a Sydney Anglican one. Sure there are 4 or 5 Sydney Anglican churches that are openly affirming of women in leadership(most of these are on the 'high' end of the church scale too) and quite a few more who are "soft complementation" i.e. women can preach but shouldn't be ordained/be in charge of a Parish. Because of these restrictions, even in the 'liberal' churches it's pretty infrequent that women get into the pulpit. What's more the whole male headship notion pervades Sydney Anglicanism and is quite wearying, sometimes even soul destroying. [Frown]

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

It must be really, really difficult to be a mainstream Anglican in Sydney. Does one have to move out to Newcastle?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The situation is not quite as dire as Evensong's post might suggest, although there are difficulties. The present Abp has adopted a policy that no-one can be appointed as a Rector without NT Greek to the standard taught at Moore College. That rules out very many people indeed, including some who have obtained senior ministry positions elsewhere. He will allow them on a temporary appointment or probation so that they can do the necessary courses part-time over a couple of years.

No explanation of course as to the benefit Moore College graduates have obtained from their knowledge of Greek. Their sermons vary the gamut from dreadful to woeful. Liturgy is even worse.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

You are more optimistic than me GeeD. There are few Anglican churches in Sydney that are welcoming to people who believe in the ordination of women and even fewer who are welcoming of gay people. I suspect that you go to a church in the city, near where you work & near the department stores ?(feel free not to respond to that). I wonder that the church I'm thinking of may not be punished when Fr. S retires for his outspokenness by finding yourselves with a more traditional Sydney Anglican minister who will teach you all about traditional marriage, as ordained by God (allegedly). This seems to be the pattern. Over the last few decades I've seen a Pentecostal Anglican church get a minister who preached ceassationism, a church with an interim female deacon who ran the church for years be replaced with a Rector who preached a lot about male headship and female submission and so on and so forth...

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

There's a lot in what you say, but although the numbers are not great, they are more than your comments suggest. And given the amount that SJKS remits to diocesan funds, the succession to Fr A S is almost certainly secure.

BTW, St Sanity is neither of the city churches you may imagine it to be. We tried them decades ago and while they served well in student days neither felt a real home parish for us. Others obviously feel differently; quite a few at the Bar and others now on the Bench have gone to SJKS for a long time and there are similar congregants at CCSL also. They were not alone, and if there is need for a cathedral-type service SJKS does very well, better than the rain shelter.

[ 17. October 2017, 10:38: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I hope you're right.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Money speaks - and that kept SJKS and CCSL safe for a long time, including the Jensen era. Those 2 churches and St Matthews Manly contribute very large sums to the diocese each year. All 3 have substantial property - St Matthews owns much of The Corso at Manly for example.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
It must be really, really difficult to be a mainstream Anglican in Sydney. Does one have to move out to Newcastle?

Why would one do that? Did one follow this at all? [hostly warning -- this article contains graphic evidence from a victim of paedophile rape.]

[ 18. October 2017, 03:05: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Ganesha, I'm an idiot. That last post shoukd have had a trigger warning, as the link contains some very troubling stories about rape. My sincere apologies. Can a host please help?
Sorry again.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Money speaks - and that kept SJKS and CCSL safe for a long time, including the Jensen era. Those 2 churches and St Matthews Manly contribute very large sums to the diocese each year. All 3 have substantial property - St Matthews owns much of The Corso at Manly for example.

Oh, I know it's all about the money (you do realise it's Evangeline-Sydney Anglican here, not Evensong who you mentioned earlier). I am familiar with SJKS & CCSL, St Matthews less so & their financial contribution. I don't think it's ever safe to assume that anywhere is safe, given the right set of circumstances I suspect that Standing Committee would love to be able to direct the property income from SJKS or CCSL into "gospel ministry". I am probably super negative about this-you are much less pessimistic. Having seen the ACPT up close and personal some years ago, I find it hard not to be pessimistic. I hope that you are right.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes, I was mistaken for a short while and apologise for that.

I hope my slight optimism is justified, We'll have to wait and see who succeeds ++Glenn. I'd say that everything is sort of safe as far as CCSL and SJKS are concerned. while he's there. I hear that his appointment to Epping, where he gave a job to a mate wanting to return to Sydney has not worked out terribly well. The new rector is in his late 50s/early 60s, ordained decades ago but is now learning liturgy for the first time, and learning on the job as well. The comments about his sermons are none too encouraging either.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I have heard sad things about Epping as well, they're a case in point, I suspect a number will be travelling into the city for church and ghee that's a long trip every week. I strongly suspect Enmore is going to end up in a similar situation.

The Abp. and Bishop of south Sydney acknowledge a real problem finding clergy for high churches & they have indicated concern over it. The reasons are of course multifactorial, can't be blamed entirely on the present Abp. I have heard it said that it's all the fault of the high churches because they never send anyone to MTC, which becomes a bit of a circular argument. On a positive note, I do think things are more positive than in the early years of Abp. Jensen's tenure and I tend to agree that SJKS & CCSL will remain "safe" but the smaller enclaves in the suburbs are in real trouble IMO, although Balmain were finally able to find someone acceptable and willing to undergo reprogramming at Moore, so there is hope.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

It is the insistence on Moore College Greek which is the problem, an insistence of the Abp's own making. Balmain is a good example - a senior clergyman, but trained out of Sydney and therefore lacking the Greek. Why must he, at this stage of his ministry, spend a couple of days a week out of his parish and going back to college?

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

Dark Knight, I apologize –

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
It must be really, really difficult to be a mainstream Anglican in Sydney. Does one have to move out to Newcastle?

[Dark Knight responded:]
Why would one do that? Did one follow this at all? [hostly warning -- this article contains graphic evidence from a victim of paedophile rape.]

Yes, altho' I write from the far side of the planet, I am aware of the truly horrendous histories of paedophile abuse in Newcastle. I was attempting, as I now see rather inappropriately, to ask a jokey question about what does seem to be a serious problem, i e what a mainstream Anglican, whether from up-candle or down, would need to do in a place like Sydney, where – given the size of the place – they must exist in some numbers – or have once existed.

But in comparison with much of the Anglican Communion,where I see variation more at parish level than diocesan, I get a sense that a number of the Australian dioceses are relatively homogeneously far out on one or more of the possible parameters of Anglican variation, and that a traditional Evangelical would not be comfortable in some of the northern dioceses any more than a traditional Catholic would be comfortable in say Tasmania. Is this a distortion of distance? (I've never visited Australia, only studied it from afar.)

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

GeeD, it's a minor point but I believe it's 3 years of Greek, it doesn't have to be Moore College greek BUT in essence I think that's just an excuse to keep the clergy pure of non-Moore people. I heard that one of the Balmain nominations had all the Greek & qualifications but because he came from outside the diocese, it was deemed that he was too young and it couldn't be justified to appoint such a person when there were so many candidates from Sydney awaiting a Parish. I suppose if there were more candidates from high churches who went to Moore-then it would be difficult to refuse to appoint them. CCSL had/has a student minister attending Moore. Their youth minister is also studying there.

Keibat, I suspect you are right, although Melbourne has a reasonable variety of Anglican churchmanship I understand, I think the problem is that if you are low/evangelical there are plenty of Presbyterian, Baptist, Evangelical independent churches and even some Uniting churches that will float your boat in dioceses where Anglicanism is too high for you. Whereas in Sydney there are just so few options if you like traditional low church Anglicanism (as opposed to the weird Anglo-Baptist, evangelical, Calvinism that is ubiquitous in Sydney). The traditional Anglicanism of decades ago, open, friendly, not overtly Calvinist, no bells and smells but liturgical, dignified worship-is what I miss about local churches. You can still find the Anglo-Catholic style in Sydney if you're prepared to travel but it's the traditional Anglicanism that is virtually non-existent.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

That is the type of church I grew up in, Evangeline. It is now known as a wedding church. Big grounds, small, quaint church offering good photo opportunities. Old as old can be in a relatively new history of white Cof E churches. When I was younger it was Cof E, never Anglican.

I guess that as the years go by, the rectors from churches like this have either retired or died. Their place is taken by newer graduates, most of whom may not have experienced churchmanship like that, only newer Moore training. And so the diocese itself has changed.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I very much agree Loth. It must be noted that the leaders/players in the Diocese have very much pursued this agenda. They have defined "Christianity" and "gospel ministry" in a narrow and quite idiosyncratic way and this view and hence the type of church produced by Moore trained ministers etc prevails at the expense of every other type of church.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

I realise the emphasis on the Greek is to use it as a filter to keep things their way. Over the last twenty or so years, I have heard some truly dreadful sermons from young Moore graduates. It would appear that three years of Greek have not done much to inform their sermons, but nevertheless they have done it. They are judged competent to be released on parishes

One at the Cathedral at Parramatta was appalling. On a passage from Matthew and it was excruciatingly bad. Delivered by a young minister in chinos and a Hawaiian shirt who had been sitting in front of me. I felt like leaning forward to tell him and probably wife to go get a room. It was embarrassing and straight under my nose. Then he was announced as preacher. I almost fell off my pew.

[ 19. October 2017, 01:41: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
I felt like leaning forward to tell him ... to go get a room.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Lothlorien thought that the behaviour in the pew in front of her was that normally conducted in more private circumstances than a church.

As to Keibart - most dioceses outside Sydney are MOTR to catholic - in some cases very much so. We've seen priests getting around towns in Ballarat diocese wearing cassocks and those broad-brimmed hats. Tasmania is eighteenth century England with cars and so forth added. The other exceptions are Armidale, much changed since the days of Bp Moyes, and NW Australia. Sydney money involves taking some of the huge output from Moore.

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I have heard sad things about Epping as well, they're a case in point, I suspect a number will be travelling into the city for church and ghee that's a long trip every week. I strongly suspect Enmore is going to end up in a similar situation.

St Alban's, Epping is the church of my youth, teens and to the mid-20s - and where my parents attended up until their early 20s, so I know it well.

Unfortunately for many it has seen a rapid decline in both numbers and finances under the current administration. The choir has shrunk since the Director of Music left after not having the support of the Rector. One or more of the churchwardens have been acting beyond the ken of their responsibilities and between them and the rector ruling the place as if it was their fiefdom. I have known since the early days of my association with Epping quite a few of the parishioners who have left, each describing in different ways the toxicity of the place.

It is NOT a happy place and unlikely to change for the better. Plans are afoot to assist those who have been displaced and provide them with both pastoral care and liturgical nourishment.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

My very reliable information is that there is no fault at all by any warden. The problems are basically 2-fold. The first is that the new Rector, a good friend of the Abp who appointed him, is a very poor fit for the parish liturgically, theologically and intellectually. Unfortunately he won't be going soon.

The second problem was the Choir Director, who got elected to Parish Council. He was able to persuade only 1 other member of council to agree with him on a couple of matters dear to his heart. As he did at St Luke's Mosman, he left when he was not getting his own way. What is sad is that a few other choir members also left with him. I understand that those left, including one who has been a synod representative for many years, are doing well in difficult circumstances.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I should add that I don't have that long history with St Alban's as you do, but we have some friends there now. I do have a much closer knowledge of Mosman.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I understand that those left, including one who has been a synod representative for many years, are doing well in difficult circumstances.

That last sentence would read better by changing "left" to "remain". Ambiguous otherwise.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The previous rector at St Alban's, Epping felt that the Sydney diocese was unhappy about the churchmanship at that church and had been putting pressure on generally for a number of years.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I think that was true of all the non-Sydney Anglican parishes under the Jensens, but things were starting to look better. Certainly the previous rector had set a very high standard.

I don't know quite what happened at Epping in the search for a new rector. Certainly ++Glenn has his policy of Moore College standard NT Greek as a requirement. While he will allow that level to be achieved within 2 years from appointment, I can imagine many possible candidates would be insulted by the suggestion that they undertake further formal education. That may have been the case. Many clergy would also feel some concerns about moving into Sydney with not a large number of congenial colleagues around. Then the usual family matters discouraging a move would creep in.

No matter what, the time to recommend an appointment to the Abp lapsed and ++Glenn appointed his friend. The new rector was previously a regional bishop in Tasmania but wanted to return to Sydney. I don't know much about that.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

Ah, is that where the ex Tasmanian assistant bishop went! He just disappeared after being given his marching orders.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks bib, I'll pass that on - very much along the same lines as the comments made to us. Any understanding why?

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

There were complaints from many people within the church and without, about treatment of individuals, financial issues and decisions made without proper approval. I'm not willing to add any more to this apart from the fact that he was asked to leave.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thank you bib - I understand that you are limited in what you can say, but can you say who told him to go? Our Epping friends are none too happy with what ++Glenn did.

We hope that your new rector is settling in well with you.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

This has not been my church for some time as they have become very "low" liturgically and so for some years now I am part of an Anglo-Catholic parish. In relation to your query, I am given to understand that the wardens pushed the issue, but this is just hearsay. Sorry, I can't help further.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I did not think you'd be going there any more but rather to Holy Trinity. Thanks for that, I'll pass it on.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Just out of curiosity, what's the percentage of active churchgoers in the Sydney Diocese? Is their conservatism reflective of a general local/regional conservatism, or are they just dead- enders making a last stand in the midst of a population that doesn't take them seriously?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Apart from the Catholic Church and those directed towards particular ethnic communities, I'd say that general attendance rates were around 5%, slightly higher in the State capitals than elsewhere. Anglican attendance in Sydney is about the same as in other capitals.

Sydney started out with eighteenth century Anglicanism, but in the 1840s there was a move upwards. Then 2 of the priests helping that move went to Rome and that was the end of that.. It remained with traditional low-church Anglicanism until the rise of the Moore College clique in the 1980s and 1990s, and then veered into Puritanism. Not monochrome of course, but not as diverse as Melbourne. Perhaps the best way to think of it is that Sydney is the reverse of Brisbane, where Anglo-Catholicism has had the dominant role.

Does that address the sort of things you were getting at?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Apart from the Catholic Church and those directed towards particular ethnic communities, I'd say that general attendance rates were around 5%, slightly higher in the State capitals than elsewhere. Anglican attendance in Sydney is about the same as in other capitals. The latest census figures (last year) show a dramatic drop in the numbers professing any religious beliefs. Sydney does not differ from other capitals in this. And Sydney is not a politically conservative area, indeed Labor is the natural party for the city as a whole and the State.

Sydney started out with eighteenth century Anglicanism, but in the 1840s there was a move upwards. Then 2 of the priests helping that move went to Rome and that was the end of that.. It remained with traditional low-church Anglicanism until the rise of the Moore College clique in the 1980s and 1990s, and then veered into Puritanism. Not monochrome of course, but not as diverse as Melbourne. Perhaps the best way to think of it is that Sydney is the reverse of Brisbane, where Anglo-Catholicism has had the dominant role.

Does that address the sort of things you were getting at?

[ 26. November 2017, 02:14: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Apart from the Catholic Church and those directed towards particular ethnic communities, I'd say that general attendance rates were around 5%, slightly higher in the State capitals than elsewhere. Anglican attendance in Sydney is about the same as in other capitals.

Source?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Last years census for general figures.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

The census is indicative of affiliation, not attendance.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

You are right, I should have referred to the National Church Life Survey.

And to clarify - the 5% figure refers not to the population at large, but to that (rapidly dwindling) section which claims any religious affiliation.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

No worries - thank you for clarifying.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0