Parish Family Tree

Long term readers of hebel will know of a slow, on going project to map the parishes of the Sydney Diocese.


View Sydney Diocese Parish Boundaries in a larger map

Partly this comes out of an appreciation of the Anglican parochial missiology. But it also comes from the present inaccessibility of parish maps. Well, related to this project has been an interest in the history of the formation of parishes in Sydney. Thanks largely to pre-existing family trees at St Philip's Church Hill and St Peter's St Peters, I've begun to compile a family tree of Sydney Anglican parishes. You might like to check it out below (click to expand):

So it begins...II

You may have missed it. Amidst the hustle and bustle of Christmas, the Australian Church Record released issue 1901. And inside the ACR published two more editorials with advice for the next election for the Archbishop of Sydney. In 2013. Peter Bolt comments that:

"Rumour has it that groups of interested parties have begun gathering to discuss the next Archbishop, and shopping lists are being compiled."

Which isn't very surprising. There's been a buzz about the election for a couple of years now. According to the ACR, 'it has the potential to mark a turning-point in the story of Sydney Anglicanism.' What is remarkable is the openness with which these discussions are taking place, following the lead of the ACR when they first laid the issue before the public in May 2010.

The focus of the two editorials might be summarised as "It's Time." Time for generational change. Time to pass the leadership of the diocese from the baby boomers onto which ever generation comes next. With this call for change comes a warning that the next archbishop must be present in the diocese now. The election of someone from outside the Diocese of Sydney will stand, argues Peter Bolt, not only as a rejection of the past 30 years the diocese trajectory but also as a symbol of the failure of the Baby Boomer leadership to provide training and prepare for the changeover of leadership.

"If the leadership of the last 30 years has failed to train someone who can act as Archbishop for the next generation, then that ‘leadership’ has failed abysmally."

Strong words from Peter Bolt. And we can only expect more over the next two years. Even Peter Jensen's Presidential address at CMS Summer School last week felt as though he was starting to establish his legacy - expect a post on this in the future. Do you agree with Bolt's assessment about the Baby Boomers? And is he missing anything from his Archbishops shopping list (which you'll find here)?

So it begins...

The next episcopal election for the Archbishop of Sydney is not until 2013. But there is already movement at the station, with the latest Australian Church Record not only containing two articles on leadership, but also a guide on what to look for in a future archbishop. Peter Bolt, besides suggesting that several of his colleagues at Moore College should be considered as potential candidates, offers several pieces of advice on how the next archbishop should be:

1. He must satisfy the basics (i.e. male, minister of the gospel with a character that matches the NT and BCP, etc.)
2. He must be under 57
3. He must be a local, already here with us in the Diocese
4. He must be capable of theological leadership
5. He must be psychologically robust, comfortable in his own skin
6. Must be committed to mission
7. He must be the people’s choice

So - it's on for young and old...except those over 57.

Southern Cross Letter II

Here is the letter that, as I mentioned previously, has been published in the October edition of Southern Cross.*


Ridley College’s Peter Adam has found himself at the centre of a nation-wide controversy. Peter Adam was in Sydney on 10 August as a guest of the Baptist Union of NSW/ACT to deliver the second annual John Saunders Lecture at Morling College. His lecture, Australia – Whose Land?, gained national attention with a carefully crafted and well considered analysis of the treatment of Indigenous Australians. It was a fine example of bringing Christian ethics to a significant national issue. For Sydney Anglicans it provides several avenues for thought and action.

It was a lecture that pulled no punches. Adam called for Australian Christians, and the wider Australian community, to repent and make just recompense for past wrongs. The wrongs, or sins, that Adam had in mind were the theft of Aboriginal land since 1788, and the large-scale murder and genocide that has accompanied it. What particularly caught the imagination of the media was Adam’s suggestion that all post-1788 arrivals in Australia should, in order to make recompense through restitution, offer to leave so the land can be returned to the Indigenous people. However, recognising how difficult this would be, Dr Adam’s suggestion was that if we can’t leave, we should make some form of recompense that would appropriately rectify the wrongs committed against indigenous people.

I won’t try to argue the practicality of Adam’s proposal. You should read the lecture, available on the Ridley College website. This is an important issue that requires serious thinking and action, and I’m really glad that Peter Adam has taken a lead on this issue. He has offered a vision for true reconciliation. Here are five steps we can take in response to Peter Adam’s comments:

1. We should repent. Repenting is the Christian thing to do. According to Dr Adam, while we may not have been personally involved in the dispossession of Aboriginal land and murder of Aboriginal people, we have all benefited from it. The land on which our homes, schools, workplaces and even our churches are built is land that indigenous Australians have unjustly been dispossessed of since 1788. We are effectively enjoying stolen property. Adam described this as a failure to treat those who are made in the image of God justly; a failure to love our neighbours as ourselves.


2. We also need to pray. It would be very easy to start working towards reconciliation. But mere activism is not Christian. We need to pray for wisdom for our church and its leaders to understand the issue at stake, we need to uphold our wronged Indigenous brothers and sisters in prayer, and we need to pray that we will have to strength and faith to respond in a way that gives God all glory.


3. We need to be informed and try to understand the gravity of what Indigenous people have suffered. The most moving part of the evening was after the lecture when people were invited to ask questions or make comments. Several Indigenous brothers and sisters spoke up, some in tears, and shared their experiences of being part of the stolen generation. They also expressed relief and excitement that the rest of the church, who they rightly described as “our brothers and sisters”, might finally recognise the issues they face. The Anglican Church must do more to understand the stories of Indigenous people within our churches and the wider Sydney community so that we can truly love and serve them. This will include taking up the pen and writing to our Governments. Advocating on behalf of our Indigenous brothers and sisters is one way that we can serve them.


4. Non-Indigenous Australian Christians must continue to minister to Indigenous Australians. This will involve continued support for the training of Aboriginal Christians in ministry and theology. There is an urgent need to develop Indigenous leaders in the church. Non-Indigenous Australian Christians must also take up the challenge of connecting with both Christian and non-Christian Indigenous Australians.


5. Perhaps it is time for the Anglican Church to discuss ‘acknowledging country’. This is different to a ‘welcome to country’. Acknowledgment of country is a statement of recognition of the traditional owners of the land. I’ve found one Sydney Anglican church that acknowledges country on their website. Should we have plaques at the entry to our church buildings acknowledging country? Should we do it at the start of major church gatherings, Synod, and the start of our conferences? It’s a difficult discussion to have, but that is by no means a reason not to start the debate.

God has called his people to be salt and light in the world. We should never shy away from seeking justice and showing mercy, even if it means speaking into a tense and complicated political issue. We follow a Lord whose humiliation and crucifixion have made him the head of a church where we know true love and reconciliation. It is tempting to assume that Kevin Rudd’s apology has ended the problems that Indigenous people face – it hasn’t.

Can I encourage you to listen to the case that Dr Adam has made and think about the ramifications it has for you, your church and the wider Christian community.



*Having tonight compared what I sent with what has been published, I have noticed that what is posted here and what appears in Southern Cross is slightly different.

Southern Cross Letter

Following up from Jeremy Halcrow's suggestion, I have a letter published in this month's Southern Cross (the Sydney Anglican newspaper) discussing some of the issues raised in the John Saunders lecture by Peter Adam.

You'll find it on page 24 of Southern Cross.

If you would like to read it but a) don't live on Sydney, b) aren't Anglican, c) Can't wait until I post the letter here, let me know and I'll email it to you.

Where's the Coverage?

I attended the the John Saunders Lecture in August where Dr Peter Adam discussed Aboriginal land claims, the history of injustice against Indigenous Australians, and appropriate Christian responses including the question of recompense. I followed the resulting media coverage with interest (including the SMH, The Age, and Melbourne Anglicans).

And so I was somewhat disturbed and surprised by the relative lack of coverage of the lecture in the Sydney Anglican media. Besides this quick mention in Russell Powell's weekly column and 26 words in September Southern Cross (see the picture), the lecture might well never of happened.

Despite Southern Cross reporting the lecture under the Anglican Communion Wrap: Melbourne, this landmark lecture actually took place in Sydney. I was there, along with several members of the Moore College Faculty.

Although the lecture was organized by Morling College and the Baptist Union of NSW & ACT, it had several Anglican connections. Peter Adam is Anglican, and the principal of an important Anglican theological college. The Aboriginal elder who helped organize the evening is an Anglican from Queensland. Several members of the Sydney Diocese Indigenous committee and Social Issues Executive where present. I think on the night that mention was made of support the lecture had received from the Sydney Diocese. And a collection was taken at the end of the night to fund indigenous theological training through the Baptist and Anglican churches. I thought that all this would make the lecture worth reporting in September's Southern Cross (particularity given page two caries a feature article on the bicentenary of William Cowper's arrival in Australia).

What really disturbs me is that the lecture received national coverage across the media spectrum and yet it has been virtually ignored in the Sydney Anglican mouthpiece. Peter Adam offered a Christian call for recompense that received national attention and we (Sydney Anglicanism) failed to engage with it. I know Sydney Anglican Media are facing major staff reductions, but I expected more from them. The 2009 John Saunders Lecture was of significant interest to Sydney Anglicans, and I'm disappointed that it wasn't reported to them.

Marcus Loane Dies

Sir Marcus Loane, former Archbishop of Sydney and primate of Australia - and the first Australian-born Archbishop - has died at the age of 97.

Peter Jensen has released this statement:

“We mourn the passing of Sir Marcus but give thanks for the life of a remarkable leader who served both church and nation.

As the first Australian Archbishop of Sydney and as Primate he was a formative leader in our church.

In national life, he offered leadership which transcended politics. In particular he spoke up for the poor and helped spark the Henderson enquiry of the early 1970s.

He offered distinguished service with our troops in New Guinea during World War II.

He was a prolific author with an international influence and ministry.

But he will be remembered most as one of the key architects of post-war Anglicanism in Sydney.”

A Rant on the Current State of Church Services

Once upon a time, you could walk into any Anglican Church in the world and you would know exactly what was happening in the church service. For centuries the Anglican church around the world had followed the same pattern of liturgy and worship. All this changed in the twentieth century with the updating of language and customs - which was quite right given the great difference in language from the 1662 to the 1970's when the first modern Anglican prayer book was published in Australia. But since then the rate of revision had been rapid and astronomical. After three centuries of exclusive use of the Book of Common Prayer, the Diocese of Sydney (formally) went through 3 different prayer books in just 30 years. Besides this, many churches have moved to type of informalism for their services.

Many of these changes have been necessary to keep up with the development of Australian society over the past 50 years. But accompanying this has been a worrying tendency. It has become all to easy to throw out anything the is old, traditional or formal (i.e. the creeds, communion, confession) for the sake of informality. Informalism for the sheer sake of informalism is not a desirable thing. In fact, if anything, it has often resulted in church services that are half-baked, half-arsed, and run according to whim. In pursuit of the noble cause of being informal, our church services are reduced to cliche's and entertainment - the congregation has no idea what will come next and so are reduced to being an audience as they await the next move.

The other problem is that the pursuit of this highest ideal is that our informal services are often just as unintelligible and alienating as the liturgy that they replaced. I saw this problem in my old church. The theory was that no one in the town would step into church, but they would spend all their time in cafes. So turning the church service into a cafe seemed the obvious thing to do. Except that it was a poorly run cafe - why go to there when people go to a nice and comfortable cafe two doors up the road. Nor only did it fail misread to the culture, it also failed to serve the people actually at the church. And has been stated elsewhere:

'The reason we eschewed formality in church services was because that was what WE on the inside wanted (or some of us, anyway) - the missiological reason was in fact only a justification for it'

Of course formalism for the sake of formalism is also dangerous. One of the great strengths of Anglicanism has been it's quality to culturally contextualise it's form and identity to whatever situation it's in. The challenge we face in our contemporary liturgy is to provide church services that allow for spontaneity the relaxed felling that informal service provide, whilst not descending to pure laziness or rejecting good practices on the basis of how formal they are. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

See also: Missiological assumptions?

On a mission...

My diocese is on a mission. Since 2002, our prayer has been to see 10% of the population of Sydney, Wollongong, Shoal Haven, Southern Highlands and Blue Mountains in 'Bible-believing churches' by 2012. So how are we doing? According to one estimate at Synod last year (and repeated at a talk I heard on Thursday night), in the first six years of the mission some 300 people have become Christians. Just 300 - despite all the prayer and planning and strategy. That amounts to about 1.5 people per church in the diocese. In fact, according to the figures we have, more people became Christians in the six years prior to the mission than in the first six years of the actual mission!

As a diocese, we are often proud of our strength. Our local tool of propaganda shamelessly boasts a readership of 70,000. Some of our churches are big. Not Hillsong big, or American mega-church big. But compared to many of mainline protestant churches in Australia, the Sydney Diocese is quite strong. Actually, comparing ourselves to the other Anglican dioceses throughout the country is one of our favourite games to play in Sydney. It shows how good we are - which is quite pathetic really, given that many of these dioceses are breathing their last gasps of air.

Why haven't we grown? Why aren't our churches full? Maybe Sydney is just too hard - we scatter the seed and it gets eaten up straight away. Maybe. That certainly makes it easier to spiritualize our lack of growth. 'God isn't working here for some reason, so we'll keep on doing the same thing we've always done and wait for things to change'. As a diocese we really only have one strategy for growth - church planting. Multiplying congregations is one of the goals of the mission, and scores upon scores of new churches have been started since 2002. The problem is that we spend all our time and energy producing church services that are essentially the same as the church up the road or in the morning. Even more so, constant church planting is a tiresome and exhaustive business that wears down our church members so much that they have no time to do anything else - even "connecting" to their neighbours.

According to a rector of a large church that I was talking to on Friday night, maybe the problem is that we have grieved the Holy Spirit. In our local evangelical culture we are quite wary of the Holy Spirit. Our foci's lies in completely different places, so much so that during the Connect 09 Big Day In the prayer before the sermon was for the archbishop to enlighten our hearts as to the meaning of Jonah. I have great respect and admiration for our archbishop, but the last time I checked, this was meant to be the work of the Spirit (working through Peter) and not the Archbishop himself.

Maybe we're scared of the Holy Spirit, not just because of pentecostals, but because our lives reflect to closely the lives of the city around us (I see this in my own life). We're proud and arrogant, we love stirring up controversy and arguments. Our tongues are full of bitterness and slander, and we like to gossip. We like promoting ourselves at the expense of others, and we enjoy our comforts so much that any sacrifice we might need to make, no matter how small, is to big a deal for us to cope with.

Instead, following Paul:

"(H)aving put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil. Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you."

Ephesians 4.25-32

The Lord have mercy on us.

What Matt Does When He's Bored

View Larger Map