Ship of Fools: New ++Sydney

Thread: New ++Sydney Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025996

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Forgive me if this has already been posted elsewehere, but do we have any views on the new Archbishop of Sydney ? The Church Times suggest that it's some kind of defeat for the Jensen gang. How does it look from closer to?

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

In the picture accompanying the linked article he is wearing a lounge suit. And, his wife is wearing a floral print dress.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

What's a "lounge suit"? Looks like a regular men's suit to me. This is Sydney; even if it's a big change one can't expect an instantaneous change to lace, crimson, and ermine.

And what does Ms. Davies' floral print dress have to do with anything?

Posted by would love to belong (# 16747) on :

Am I missing something? Not familiar with the politics of Episcopalian life Down Under, but do bishops' wives have to wear a special costume??

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Here's a commentary.

I knew Sydney was pushing other than priests and bishops to be able to preside at the eucharist, I didn't know they'd already been carrying it out. Traditionalists such as Hippolytus would not have approved.

On a good note IMHO, it is said (in other news reports, not in the linked article) that he will strongly advocate for asylum seekers.

[ 12. August 2013, 21:46: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Oh good, I've been wondering about this for days.

I had read that ++Jensen's brother had been supporting another person for the position. Is it possible that the man elected is perhaps not the man that the Jensens wanted? Will this mean a change in Sydney?

[ 12. August 2013, 21:51: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

According to that article, the new guy is still conservative, just not as conservative as his predecessor. Doesn't look like women will be ordained or same-sex marriages solemnized any time soon. As to whether the chasubles can come out of storage, the article doesn't say.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

lounge suit=business suit. The former is a UKish and slightly archaic term; the latter more North American. Really good suits are favoured by clerics who like hanging out with bankers and don't want them distracted by other attire, whether more informal or more clerical.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The election was very interesting. Originally, there were 2 nominees, + Glenn and Canon Rick Smith. Canon Smith was nominated by Phillip Jensen, Dean of Sydney and younger brother of now retired ++Peter. He was clearly the favourite of the Jensen camp.

The election process is staged. The first ballot is to choose those to proceed for consideration for election. A nominee must obtain a majority of eligible votes in both the Clergy and Laity Houses*. Each Synod representative has as many votes as there are nominees. There is then a second ballot to decide which candidates proceed to the third and final stage.

I cannot recall any previous election synod where there have not been at least 2 candidates proceed to the second stage. It is common for representatives to vote for more than 1 candidate in the first 2 stages. The counting of votes is. or rather should be, very simple. On this occasion, there was much confusion. After the first count, the general understanding was that + Glenn had received a large number of votes in each House and very, very comfortably made it to stage 2, but that Canon Smith had not achieved a majority from the clergy. There was then a second count, to ensure that the figures were correct. From this count it appeared that Canon Smith did not have a majority in either House. 2 further counts confirmed that as the position. That left only + Glenn as making it to the second stage. It was decided - I think by the Administrator, + Robert Forsyth - to proceed directly to the third stage, which is the election of the new Archbishop. Canon Smith nominated + Glenn, and he was quickly elected.

This result was a major defeat for the Jensen camp. Despite the heavy campaign in favour of Canon Smith, he had failed to make it to stage 2 of the process. The story is that he received well short of the 50% needed. There are probably several reasons why. The first is Canon Smith himself. So far, he has not held any administrative position within the Church, and was unable to demonstrate any management experience. Secondly, and flowing from that, was a concern that at least in the first years of his tenure, he might well be strongly influenced in his decisions by others. Then he is not yet 50, and if elected could have held office for many years.

There are more reasons, though. Despite much publicity, it's hard to think of any success ++ Peter had in reaching targets he had set. There was the great financial loss as part of the global financial crisis. Neither of these reflected well on the Jensen camp. And then, there has developed a swing away from the very hard line taken by the Jensenites.

It may be too early, but the talk along Philllip St is that the days of the Jensenites have gone.

As to + Glenn: He is a good and godly man. Although a strong evangelical in the traditional low church Sydney school, he differs from the Jensenites and accepts that this is not the only strand of Anglican expression. For example, when he visits us and similar parishes in his region, he has vested as a nineteenth century English bishop would have, although I have yet to see him in mitre and stole. He once preached to us on Assumption Day and gave a perfectly acceptable Marian sermon. He is a good preacher and a very sound scholar. In many respects, he is in the same line as ++ Harry Goodhew, an archbishop still fondly remembered and very welcome throughout the diocese.

* The Houses sit normally together, but votes are counted separately.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The election was very interesting. Originally, there were 2 nominees, + Glenn and Canon Rick Smith. Canon Smith was nominated by Phillip Jensen, Dean of Sydney and younger brother of now retired ++Peter. He was clearly the favourite of the Jensen camp.

Can this election be taken as representative of the diocese as a whole? (I guess what I'm asking is whether the representative bodies function as good representatives of their constituents, or whether they skew one direction or another. In other words, is it possible that the Jensens have so little support?!)

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

Olaf, that is a difficult question to answer. Basically, as in many other places in the Anglican Communion, Synod is composed of two Houses - Clergy (all those who hold a full-time, licensed position in parishes, and chaplains) and Laity (two elected from every parish).

Given that the 20-30 odd parishes in the Diocese which are not typical conservative Evangelical, then the pool of votes from these voters is comparatively small (in a pool of somewhere around 360 parishes in total).

So for the 'favoured' Jensen candidate to have failed in his bid quite so spectacularly means, as GeeD has succinctly put it, boils down to: the other candidates lack of personal experience; the likelihood of a very long episcopate (locking in the diocese to a even more conservative evangelical mould for decades to come; and the fail rate of the Jensen episcopate when measured against his own standards.

There has been a feeling among a number of us in the Diocese that the risk of implosion was significant under the Jensen double act. I think the election of +Glenn is a sign that others feel the same way and so have opted for a candidate that is more likely to be able to draw the differing parties together, rather than continue in the divisive nature that has been a focus of the last decade (both within the Diocese, the National Church, and the world-wide Communion).

Like GeeD, I see +Glenn as more in the line of ++Harry Goodhew, whom I hold much personal warmth and affection for. The Anglican Communities of Our Lady look forward to early discussions with him about the role and need for Anglo-Catholic worship opportunities in the Diocese where there are currently none.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
Like GeeD, I see +Glenn as more in the line of ++Harry Goodhew, whom I hold much personal warmth and affection for. The Anglican Communities of Our Lady look forward to early discussions with him about the role and need for Anglo-Catholic worship opportunities in the Diocese where there are currently none.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Anglocatholicism did spread throughout the Episcopal Church. We have the 1979 Book of Common Prayer to prove it.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Anglocatholicism did spread throughout the Episcopal Church. We have the 1979 Book of Common Prayer to prove it.

Indeed. I must confess to a bit of facetiousness in my earlier remark. I suppose I must also confess to being a bit

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Anglocatholicism did spread throughout the Episcopal Church. We have the 1979 Book of Common Prayer to prove it.
Indeed. I must confess to a bit of facetiousness in my earlier remark. I suppose I must also confess to being a bit

...stubby-fingered when typing on my cell phone.

In any event, I don't think chasubles will be the undoing of Christendom in Sydney. If the sensus fidelium of the diocese is evangelical, it will most likely remain such, even if Anglo-Catholic liturgy were to usurp the Sunday Fireside Chat or whatever they're calling it now.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Interesting, I hadn't seen a take on the new guy.

I'm wondering what this means for GAFCON, of which ++Jensen was a leading light and arguably the Sydney diocese was the most prominent 'Western' diocese in that movement.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:

Thank you for the explanation. It does seem to be a sad situation, as there is plenty of room in the Anglican Big Tent for all. Around here, most Episcopal bishops are perfectly okay with either donning a surplice and stole to be low church or with vesting properly for a Pontifical High Mass with smells, bells, and chanted Latin propers. It just depends on the parish.

The whole issue of an evangelical acting as a heavy-handed bishop seems a bit funny to me. It's almost as if they are afraid Anglo-Catholicism will spread. [/QUOTE]

I think Emli meant opportunities in areas where they do not presently exist.

Sydney is not as monochrome a diocese as many outside may think. Certainly, there has been the Jensenite camp dominant in power, but not overall numbers, for the last decade or so. As I said above, this election has been a complete failure for them. Then there are the Anglo-Catholic parishes to which Emli refers. With one or 2 exceptions, these are of the Aff Cath liberal school.

Perhaps the largest grouping though is that of low-church Church of Ireland descent. These fall into 2 groups. There are those who may be called Prayer Book evangelicals. A large group, concentrated in older suburbs, these parishes use either the BCP or An Australian Prayer Book, which is, by and large, a modern translation of the BCP. Another grouping, mostly in more newly established suburbs, will have at least one AAPB service, usually a Eucharist, each Sunday even if the main service is Sunday Light. Throughout this group, there will usually be some sort of vesting. This may be very limited, but many clergy will don the old English standard of black cassock, surplice and black scarf. Quite a few would vest in alb and stole. Most will not have either processional or altar candles, and with one exception I know of, no bells or smells.

Finally, there are a very few charismatic churches, widely scattered.

+ Glenn tends more to the Prayer Book evangelical school of liturgical practice than anything else. As I said, as regional Bishop he vested more formally (and presumably less) to suit the parish he was visiting. His theology is generally in the Foxe/Jewell line, but I doubt that he would subscribe to Jewell's views on the Real Presence. From my limited direct knowledge, he seems much more personable than did ++ Peter. Judging by his initial statement, he will be more outspoken on social justice issues than those statements of ++ Peter which received any publicity indicated. He will be conservative on SSM and licensing of women.

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Interesting, I hadn't seen a take on the new guy.

I'm wondering what this means for GAFCON, of which ++Jensen was a leading light and arguably the Sydney diocese was the most prominent 'Western' diocese in that movement.

I got the impression that GAFCON had curled up and died once +Nazir-Ali retired. Do they have any reason for existing all?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I wish.

Nazir-Ali retired in order to devote more time to them.

I think they are waiting to see how Welby turns out before putting their sanctimonious boot in.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

There is another GAFCON conference taking place in Nairobi in October, so no, it hasn't curled up and died.

Posted by Hebdom (# 14685) on :

This may be of interest...
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-spirit-of-unity-brings-peace-to-a-fractured-flock-20130809-2rncj.html

Let's hope Baird is right.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I had to laugh at this:

quote:
Davies drove home, asked his wife to sit down next to him, and told her she was married to the next Archbishop. Then, in true Anglican style, he prayed with her then celebrated with a cup of tea.

Not the style of most of the Anglicans I know!

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by GeeD:

quote:

Perhaps the largest grouping though is that of low-church Church of Ireland descent.

Was this the result of missionary activity or folk moving into Sydney to live there?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

There was no real missionary activity in NSW in the sense I think you probably mean. The original clergy were low church, and supported in this by some of the Ulster Irish in the population.. The first Bishop of Australia was in fact 18th century old-fashioned High Church, but those after him as Bishops?Archbishops of Sydney were low.

Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
In the picture accompanying the linked article he is wearing a lounge suit. And, his wife is wearing a floral print dress.

I think the use of the term "lounge suit," most properly went out the window when men stopped wearing morning coats and striped trousers, or morning suits, to business. The proper term now is not lounge suit, but business suit.

More important than the suit is Davies' selection of a layman's go-to-business tie with the suit.

"Mr. Davies, I thought you were an archbishop, not a lawyer. Perhaps you are a dentist, or something like that?"

Those Sydney "Anglicans," so called, sure don't look like the other Anglicans/Episcopalians I know. That Sydney crowd of super Evangelicals have always been sooo embarrassing to me. Blessed be the day when Phillip Jensen, Dean of Sydney, goes to his happy retirement.

*

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Thanks GeeD, I never knew there was such a direct link.

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :

If I could summarise the response of others in the Anglican Church of Australia, it would be cautious relief.

For a start, Davies is a known quantity. He has been on doctrine commission and General Synod and is generally respected as a personable chap.

He will advocate strongly for a conservative evangelical position, but will not favour removing the Diocese from the National Church. He knows how to relate to other Anglicans, even when in disagreement.

He is generally seen as a 'safe pair of hands' to settle the Diocese after a long period of uncertainty and ideological battles.

That said, I did hear some express the view that 'the more radical the next Archbishop of Sydney, the better' - the logic seeming to be that, with the right leadership, Sydney might pull out of the National Church and leave us all alone.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Can anyone explain why Sydney allows deacons to preside at the Eucharist?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Can anyone explain why Sydney allows deacons to preside at the Eucharist?

In a word: No. The resolution also allows for lay presidency. But neither is happening at this stage.

Jugular is right about + Glenn. OK, there are others we would have preferred, even if +Kay may need a bit more experience, but that sort of person would never get elected in Sydney. And anyone described by Phillip Jensen as "not sound" has quite a lot going for them.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0