Talk:Anglican Diocese of Sydney

message: A long bulletin-board type discussion between Amandajm and angusj (which discussed how they would improve the church, rather than how to improve this article) has been deleted. As far as the Relationships within the Diocese section of the article, it is whiney and complaining and drenched in (anti-diocese) POV. I am in Iowa, USA and I am not Anglican so I have no dog in this race. Joe Hepperle (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationships within the Diocese

message: The prayer book question troubles me as an outsider- I live in the Hunter Valley- for a number of churches (The Cathedral St Peters Hornsby, St James Turramurra, John Mark Sefton Hill St Philips Church Hill to name just 5 I know personally regularly use the BCP and at least the Cathedral and SS Philips and  Peter are in no way high church. Does this need re writing Backnumber1662 07:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair question which I can't authoritatively answer (though I'm confident it's use is uncommon  at best). --angusj 09:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you will find there are more than that too... I remember St Johns Cathedral Parramatta and St Andrews Roseville also have regular 1662 services. They may not use them as regularly as you may like, but neither of these places fits the definition/description on the main page. --Petedenham 13:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Common Prayer / A Prayer Book For Australia 

message: [Moved from Angusj:talk] You've said "their". I think it should be "the" evangelical cause. Their is a bit personal.
From what I know about the Church league, the statement that their main purpose is to ensure that the Archbishop will be Evangelical is absolutely correct. --Amandajm 06:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that "their" was left from someone else's edit. I was simply trying to preserve as much of the previous edit as possible. I'm very happy if you want to change it. --angusj 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the reason why the original author used their rather than the evangelical cause, is the Sydney Anglicans have been accused of sheep stealing from other churches, i.e. involved not in prostelyzing, but in theft of church members. There is also a general consensus that the Anglican Church, because it is a self contained chain (like Coles), and the Dioceses own and control EVERYTHING, that it is very self contained, i.e. Anglicans are NOT ecumenical. This of course reflects the church structure 110.33.120.196 (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  furthering the evangelical cause 

message: Yes, it's biblical. But everytime it is used as a justification for something that is done by Sydney, it seems to me, as a woman who seriously considered ordination and who would have had to uproot a whole family and shift to another diocese to do it, to be highly offensive to every woman in my position. Please don't put it back. --Amandajm 11:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite happy with the way you've left that section now. However, I really couldn't leave your prior edit alone since it was plainly wrong. (The whole section needs significant reworking - it's hard to follow and has too much information of questionable relevance.) --angusj 13:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: ps: While this isn't relevant to the discussion here, you might be happy to know that I am in favour of women's ordination. --angusj 13:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I'm delighted that you're happy with it. :) --angusj 13:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Journeyman, when I substantially revised the "Robes" section several days ago I removed the statement that included "priesthood of all believers" because I didn't think it was relevant either. Perhaps you weren't aware of that - otherwise further discussion should really be for another forum (eg: http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/) since all discussion here should be restricted to the article. --angusj 07:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Angusj, I wasn't wishing to start a forum-style discussion here. The discussion on other pages had confused the priesthood of all believers with the ordination of presbyters and I wanted to clear up the confusion. That's all. Journeyman 20:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi again Journeyman. Yes your clarification was brief and helpful, so thank you. My suggestion should have been directed more explicitly at all of us (including me), since several of us have had a tendency to go off topic into discussions of theology and styles of worship :). --angusj 23:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robes & "the priesthood of all believers" 

message: "It has been suggested that the Diocese's very public and zealous defence of Scriptural orthodoxy is overshadowing its Gospel message."
There were three references attached to this passage. I followed them, looking for the support of this statement which begins "It has been suggested...."
Now, while, on one hand I accept that it may have been suggested...,  none of the three references were directly suggesting anything that was specifically critical of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. In fact, two of the articles are written by Anglican clergymen within the Sydney Diocese.
One might, of coures, use the material contained within the three articles to present an argument, if one wished to. But as it stands, the statement that "It has been suggested...." was unsupported by the references. So I deleted them.
--Amandajm 07:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I agree that the references didn't clearly correlate with the statement so I'll remove that too. By the way Amandajm, I think the pic you added is terrific! --angusj 07:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool. I changed the sentence from POV by adding the "It has been suggested" preface, but I didn't check the links. My Bad. Thanks. Journeyman 01:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re passage about defence of Scriptural orthodoxy 

message: I removed a link under See also to Christ Church St Ives. It wasn't working anyway. I think that there is a place for a link to a list of Sydney's Anglican churches, but I don't think that See also is the place for a link to every church in the diocese. --Amandajm 11:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --angusj 22:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same goes for the External Links area. We could start List of churches in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney but some might consider it cruft. --Journeyman 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just removed a link to an article on Narremburn Anglican, per the above discussion. I think the List idea might be interesting and have started an 'offline' version under my user page. Please contribute! :) Journeyman 01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to churches 

message: I deleted the reference to the roles of "Men and Women as set down in .....Genesis". 
My reason for doing this is that I believe some people mistake the description of Eve as the "help" of Adam as meaning that Eve has a subordinate role. 
There are two ways to help. A mother says to a toddler "Come and help me put the washing out! You can pass the pegs." 
The same mother says "Let me help you do your jigsaw puzzle. Why don't you try turning that piece around?" 
In these two applications of the same word "helping" takes on two very different meanings.
While men often see a wife as the person who passes them the light globe, the woman sees herself as the person who holds the ladder steady while he climbs it. 
When we say "God, help me!" we don't mean "God, stand by and be my assistant." What we mean is "God, save me!", "God, comfort me!" or "God, heal me!" 
Like the God who is called on in times of need and darkest distress, in her role as "help" a woman is anything but subordinate. Hence I removed the reference to a supposed ordained order. (On the grounds that it is open to interpretation and ought not be taken as a given)
--Amandajm 12:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proscribed roles of M&F 

message: 
--One Salient Oversight 01:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sydney Anglican userbox now available

message: There are a number of unsupported claims that various actions are "contrary to Canon Law".
Canon B5:1 reads, "The minister may in his discretion make and use variations which are not of substantial importance in any form of service authorised by Canon B1 according to particular circumstances."
Canon B5:3 defines what constitutes a variation "of substantial importance":
"All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter."
Any change according to scripture is according to Canon. These references need to be deleted or supported.
--Leadryl (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Canon Law

message: The article doesn't give a very good sense of why and how the Sydney diocese came to develop so differently from the other Anglican dioceses in Australia.  More information on this would be useful. john k (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is 1 word: Hillsong 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:70C5:1AAB:CD97:7A62 (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How did this happen? 

message: The buildings facing the intersection of Old Northern Rd and Castle Hill Rd have been demolished. Why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevDog32 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-location 

message: What's up with this CENSORSHIP??? This has nothing to do with WP:SOAPBOX or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but are valid criticisms of the subject matter at hand. Atheist3500 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This Talk page is for discussion of the article and how to improve it, not for rants about the subject of the article. EEng (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anglican Diocese of Sydney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822130340/http://www.media.anglican.com.au/tma/2006/05/thompson.html to http://www.media.anglican.com.au/tma/2006/05/thompson.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified