The Synod of the Diocese of Perth met this last weekend amid ever-growing concern about the direction that the Diocese is heading under the leadership of Archbishop Kay Goldsworthy.
The matter which davidould.net has received most correspondence about is the proposed changes to Faithfulness in Service to effectively weaken moral requirements for church workers. We’ll come to that in a moment but, perhaps to set the scene of what is happening in Perth, here is a fascinating set of answers to questions. All documentation for this article comes from photos provided by attendees at the synod since the Diocese of Perth no longer publishes any of their synod documentation online (including the Presidential Address). Compare, say, to here.
How are things going in the lighthouse of Anglican progressivism?
So here’s the situation in the Diocese of Perth. Their theological college has 2 students serviced by 4.6 FTE staff at an annual deficit of almost $1.1m! And there’s no obvious way to turn any of this around. The Rev. Lennon also helpfully asked about whether there are any future students in the pipeline. Has the embrace of theological revisionism brought about the much-anticipated growth in the church?
Put simply, I don’t think they’re going to (remotely) make budget.
Allow me a little personal reflection here. The church that I have the privilege to work at is regularly sending more men and women to theological college every year than the entire Diocese of Perth. More than that, our equivalent of the “formation program” has more than 40 people thinking hard about whether living wholeheartedly for Jesus might mean some form of paid gospel work. Clearly one theological position is doing better than another.
Yet despite this the activists in the Diocese seem determined to push things all the way over the cliff and so, like a number of other dioceses before them, they’ve decided it’s time to change Faithfulness in Service.
It might be helpful to lay out in table form exactly what is being proposed here.
| Original Faithfulness in Service | Proposed Change |
| 7.2 Sexuality is a gift from God and is integral to human nature. It is appropriate for clergy and church workers to value this gift, taking responsibility for their sexual conduct | 7.2 Sexuality is a gift from God and is integral to human nature. It is appropriate for clergy and church workers to value this gift, taking responsibility for their sexual conduct. |
| 7.4 | 7.4 Your sexual behaviour should be characterised by faithfulness and integrity. |
| 7.7 You should avoid situations where | 7.7 You should avoid situations where your conduct breaches the standards of sexual conduct in this Code. |
Do note quite what is being proposed here. In the original section 7.2 the instruction to take “responsibility for their sexual conduct” is clarified by the clause “by maintaining chastity in singleness and faithfulness in marriage”. i.e. how do I know how to “take responsibility for my sexual conduct”? Well, I need to be chaste if I’m single and faithful if I’m married. That seems uncontroversial, right? No, according to some who spoke in the debate, this was “old-fashioned wording”, “offensive”, “negative” etc. and that “the current wording doesn’t help us to know what to avoid”. In particular, it was argued that the language of “chaste” was confusing and that “clearer and tighter wording” was required.
This argument may confuse some readers of davidould.net who may have thought the word was already clearly and tightly defined. For example…
chaste (Dictionary.com)
/ tʃeɪst /
adjective
- not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal
- abstaining from sexual intercourse, esp that which is unlawful or immoral
- (of conduct, speech, etc) pure; decent; modest
- (of style or taste) free from embellishment; simple; restrained
seems pretty clear. How about…
chaste, adj. (Oxford English Dictionary)
Pure from unlawful sexual intercourse; continent, virtuous. (Of persons, their lives, conduct, etc.)
Both proponents and opponents of this change were clear on what was happening here, because the language is clear. To remove the language of “chaste” from 7.2 is to state clearly that sex outside of marriage is now acceptable. It’s a change to sexual ethics. And on top of this the removal of any requirement for “faithfulness in marriage” – so adultery is now OK?
This change was then further cemented in 7.4 where an unambiguous instruction for chastity is replaced with a more general call for “faithfulness and integrity”. But consider – since the requirement for “faithfulness in marriage” has been removed, what is now intended by “faithfulness” here? Perhaps the drafters of this change intended to communicate that all sexual relationships (whether married or not) ought to be faithful. That’s the most reasonable reading, but if that’s the case then does it not effectively weaken the distinction between marriage and “not marriage” by effectively placing them on the same footing? This would hardly “make marriage stronger” as proposer of the motion, Rev Peter Manuel argued in his opening speech.
The final change to 7.7 serves effectively to remove the entire section. The amended section’s message is a simple “don’t breach the above sections”. So gone now are the call to flee from temptation or the appearance of breaching the code. In other words, there is now nothing wrong with someone visiting a brothel.
Prior to Synod, EFAC Western Australia had prepared a petition that at this time has garnered more than 1300 signatures:
An interesting fly in the ointment of the proposers was Professor Patrick Parkinson’s recent article on ABC Religion and Ethics, “Christian sexual ethics and the abuse of adolescents: Lessons from the Anglican Diocese of Newcastle“. Parkinson builds upon not only his own work in this area but Anne Manne’s book Crimes of the Cross. His thesis is damning. Referring to two different cases in the Newcastle he writes:
These were not cases of priests who knew what was right but had failed to live by the church’s teachings. There are many examples of male ministers of religion who have done that. No, here were two priests who, it seems, had simply rejected the Christian moral and ethical framework when it came to sexual relationships. There was a connection between their theology and their practice. For this reason, one of my recommendations to the bishop was:
The Bishop should reiterate his expectations of all his clergy concerning their public teaching on issues of sexual morality, and their adherence to that public teaching in their private lives.
Parkinson brings things together a little further on,
Manne’s account demonstrates that prior to the development of a rigorous process for enforcing professional standards, the diocesan leadership had adopted a somewhat ambivalent approach to traditional Christian sexual ethics. Certainly, it accepted non-celibate homosexual clergy. There was nothing closeted about Dean Lawrence’s long-term domestic partnership with Gregory Goyette.
The development of a rigorous professional standards regime, which dealt with complaints under the national code of conduct, Faithfulness in Service, began a transformation in how the diocese dealt with alleged sexual misconduct.
It’s important to note that Parkinson is at pains to argue that “There is no connection between paedophilia and homosexuality.” Nevertheless he shows the direct pathway from loosening Christian sexual ethics to abuse and the return journey that tightens up standards in order to reduce incidents of abuse. The proposer Peter Manuel in his closing speech to Synod argued that the changes would “make our churches a happier healthier and safer place”. Parkinson’s and Manne’s detailed analysis of abuse and teaching on sexual ethics would seem to indicate the opposite. Parkinson points us to what he calls “The risks of ethical ambivalence”,
The problem with churches that quietly condone or turn a blind eye to behaviours that depart from traditional Christian sexual ethics without articulating a theologically coherent revision of those ethics is that they do not merely expand Christian teaching to embrace same-sex relationships and non-marital heterosexual relations — they also abandon traditional teaching without replacement.
Lawrence, Rushton and their friends were given the message that they were not bound by traditional Christian sexual ethics that confined sexual relations to a heterosexual marriage.
It is understandable, therefore, that a number of those opposed to these changes pointed to Parkinson’s article in the debate. Surely the recent awful history of the Anglican Church of Australia ought to warn strongly against such a dilution of traditional Christian sexual ethic?
But to no avail. The motion was voted on in houses, passing in the Laity 141 to 79 and in the clergy 62 to 47. A vote by houses in the Perth Synod requires the Archbishop’s assent which she has up to 30 days to provide. The Archbishop indicated she intends to take that time to come to a decision. EFAC WA have told her that they will be holding nightly prayer meetings during those 30 days.
One last thought from your author. If Parkinson and Manne are correct then surely adoption of changes like this to Faithfulness in Service have the potential to increase risk of abuse in the future? Insurance premiums for such risks are a key cost for dioceses, only compounded by the reality that the National Redress Scheme‘s necessarily ready acceptance of claims has only served to push up the quantum of damages in this field. For a diocese to then adopt what could be considered a weakening of standards can’t help that situation. Has anyone asked Perth’s insurer what difference this will make to the premium? Or in other dioceses where similar changes have been made?
We’ll follow up this story when the Archbishop of Perth makes her decision.
Leave a Reply