Talk:Anglican Diocese of Sydney/Archive 1

message: This article is clearly written from a Sydney Anglican perspective and needs some added views to balance it to become sufficiently comprehensive to be taken seriously as an objective appraisal.
Jonathan1000 
I want to know who wrote the article, as a sydney anglican insider I consider it to be very accurate, and has captured the mood of our tribe really well.
-monkeyboy
:It was a person who used to do MTS. Hence its accuracy :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 15:24, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's me boys... but I'm a non-homogenous group spouting Presbyterian now. --One Salient Oversight 23:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I go to a Chinese independant church now! Try that one on for size. :P - Ta bu shi da yu 05:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how...One Salient Oversight 07:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original authorship

message: Any way of expanding the lead section? If so I might see if I can get some pictures from St Andrews Cathedral of Phillip Jensen preaching. I reckon that would be pretty representative of Sydney Anglicans. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Wikipedia articles are not well served by a paucity of links. All of the links provided are referred to in some way in the article. It will not confuse readers to have this many links. One Salient Oversight 06:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting the links 

message: I'm not sure that the bias issue is that bigger worry in the present article for two reasons: 1) To get a true expression of the attitudes and influences present in the diocese the article has to be written by an insider who understands the thinking which drives the organisation's key figures. Those on the 'outside', no matter how 'neutral' they try to be, cannot express accurately such views. The bias which will naturally come with an insider is out weighed by the close representation of the diocese's mood which he or she will bring. Sure get the view of Anglicans Together, but will they be able to really express the inner convictions of those who are currently influencing the life of the diocese? 2) The article as it stands, I think, has actually done a good job in trying to avoid unhelful bias anyway. There is an absence of the blatant back slapping and overly positive and unreflective hype which seems to now accompany any talk of the diocean mission (re the 2004 MTC graduation), and there is a regognition that minority groups within the diocese feel isolated and sidelined. This last concession relfects badly on those who are running the show. - monkeyboy
:Agreed. However I think they can still make a positive contribution. Are you an evangelical insider who is a little concerned about what is going on? -- One Salient Oversight 21:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverting the links 

message: I have requested citations throughout the section on Evangelical Distinctives as per Wikipedia:Citing sources which states citing sources is mandated in order to avoid original research and to ensure verifiability.  From the policy statement on No orginal research:
 Wikipedia is not the place for original research.  Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite  reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
Wikipedia:No original research is one of three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The policies are complementary, jointly determining the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main  namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from each other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. 
--A Y Arktos\talk 00:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources required 

message: Rather than Amandajm and I carrying out a discussion about the articles POV on our user pages I'd like to move it to the article talk page. Therefore, I quote a message from Amandajm:
:Journeyman,
:What you are writing is a justification for the Sydney way of doing things. What I am trying to write is an explanation, for non-Sydney people, of the way in which Sydney substatially differs from Anglicanism, as practised in England, where Evangelicalism leads to a very different style.
:It wasn't me that wrote the description of Calvinist and so on, background, but I must tell you that leaving it out greatly diminishes the understanding of other eductaed Christians as to the style of Theology in Sydney.
:Your paragraph about Broughton Knox and Moore is valuable and should stay in. So is your comment about people identifying with their local "meeting", but the very fact that you call it a "meeting" separates you from Anglicanism in general. Please remember that we are talking about the Anglican Church, for a world-wide audience. There are understandings as to how anglican church performs and is conducted. You are writing as if Sydney presented the 'norm'. The term "Eucharist" is widely used and understood by Anglicans, world wide. It is only considered a sign of Roman Catholicism in Sydney.
:I am about to reinstate what I have written, incorporating some of what you have written.
:And let's be honest about what happpens at youth services. Perhaps where you are there is some sort of respect for the basis of liturgy, but don't imagine it's universal.--Amandajm 07:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Journeyman, the term Eucharist is extremely common in Anglicanism (I can't speak for Sydney). In Canada and the United States at least it is the normative term for the sacrament. You may be thinking of the term Mass, which is indeed used usually by Anglo-Catholics (though sometimes broad churches will use it phrases like "Midnight Mass", "Jazz Mass", etc.) Carolynparrishfan 20:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Sydney, its Holy Communion, Communion or the Lord's Supper, using 'Eucharist' would get you funny looks. In An Australian Prayer Book the services are called First Order of Holy Communion, etc. Journeyman 00:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point-of-view 

message: The article implies (but does not state) that the Diocese has no problem with women celebrating the Eucharist. Is that true? As long as they are not ordained? If so, it should be explicit. Carolynparrishfan 20:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would expect that Women would only be allowed to celebrate Holy Communion when only women and children are present. Journeyman 00:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Women and Lay Presidency

message: --Amandajm 03:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  liberal, charismatic, Anglo-Catholic and traditionalist Anglican churches in Sydney. 

message: This is a point that I want someone with more subtle skill than I to sort out.
There is a reference to some Churches being "liberal" (uncapitalised). Nonetheless, I'm a bit worried about this reference, because it might be associated with so called "Liberal Theology", such as I believe is espoused by Spong. (I am hesitant on this point.) Anyway, "Liberal Theology" implies that an acceptance of the Resurrection isn't necessary. I don't know of any church in the diocese where "Liberal Theology" is openly accepted, let alone preached. 
I think what is meant is that some churches are more liberal in thinking, and in accepting such people as practising homosexuals, and marrying divorced people. It doesn't mean that they are not also Evangelical in style
--Amandajm 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're referring to my recent edit of the section "Relationship with the rest of the Australian Anglican Church"? If that's the case then I think the included citation clarifies (with at least one example) what more liberal might mean. (Anyhow, I don't think any Anglican diocese would condone preaching which denies the resurrection.) --angusj 11:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal Theology 

message: Who wrote about Archbishop Mowll? Its wonderful and I love it, but it's just a little colourful. I would love to wax just as lyrical about Harry Goodhew and his gentle moderate loving determination. Hey, I remember Mowll at a confirmation service getting stuck in a particularly small pulpit.
OK! Who's going to write the paragraph on Marcus Loane?
--Amandajm 07:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Bishops 

message: This was a very well-phrased justification. But as it was speculative and not verifiable and referred to the ambiguous "they", it had to go. 
Yes,along with Cranmer, any intelligent person can see that traditions can evolve in a wrong or mis-interpretted direction. 
But let us write about what actually happens, not what "they may see" that is similar to what Cranmer saw.
Some of the traditions that have been abandoned in freeing ourselves from the constraint of the prayerbook, like saying the Lord's Prayer for example, I consider rather valuable. It is the thing, more than any other, that unites us to other christians around the world. And nowadays, an increasing number of our youth have been denied that tradition, because of the style of services that are offered to them.
Anglican Media is the mouthpiece of the Sydney Diocese. This article is not. This article needs to convey factual information that can be read by people who are not from Sydney and not Anglican. It needs to show how it is that Sydney can be described as unique within the Anglican Communion. If it gets too dumbed-down in the interests of political correctness, or if it merely reflects a precisely Sydneyfied point of view, it achieves nothing.   There is a link to Anglican Media at the foot of the page.
--Amandajm 14:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cranmer and tradition