ACR: Ed, thanks for chatting with the ACR in your role as a member of the Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission. In his presidential address to the Brisbane Synod on the 25 June 2022, Archbishop Philip Aspinall made comments that caused the Sydney Diocesan Standing Committee some concern. What were these comments?
EL: The Archbishop spent a large section of his speech focused on the Diocese of Sydney, and particularly its advocacy of the traditional Christian position in relation to human sexuality. He sought to downplay the seriousness of fundamental differences in theology by portraying them as simply typical of Anglicanism throughout its history.
In his opinion, arguments about human sexuality are just the latest in a long list of disagreements within the church dating back to the sixteenth century. He argued these differences come from two approaches to Scripture. One that is “a single, narrow interpretation which must be authoritative for everyone” and another which “allows for more exploration, a broader range of possibilities in shifting contexts, a tendency towards including rather than excluding”.
Aspinall then went on to argue that “Comprehensive Anglicanism”, which is the outcome of the second approach to Scripture, was the better course of action. Indeed, he argued elsewhere that authentic Anglican identity is based on comprehensiveness—that is its genius. This undermining of the Churches historic doctrine of the authority of Scripture, along with the claim that this relatively novel stance is an accurate account of authentic Anglicanism (in contradistinction to the position of Sydney Diocese) caused concern for Sydney’s Standing Committee.
ACR: As a result, Standing Committee requested that the Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission produce a report on Authentic Anglicanism. Can you tell us the particular aspects standing committee wanted covered?
EL: The Standing Committee asked the Commission to explore this issue particularly noting the Anglican Church’s confessional character, its fidelity to the supreme and final authority of Scripture, the contingent authority of ecclesiastical pronouncements and institutions as well as the role of bishops as guardians of the faith.
ACR: How does the report seek to answer the question “what is Anglicanism”?
EL: The report acknowledges that there are different ways to approach answering the question of “what is Anglicanism?” One way to answer the question is a descriptive approach which gives an account for what is practiced under the banner of Anglicanism around the world and declares that to be authentic expressions.
Another way to answer the question is a theological approach which looks at what authoritative formularies intended Anglicanism to be. In this idealistic approach, the question is genuinely interested in “authentic” Anglicanism because it is seeking to find out what Anglicanism ought to be. The Doctrine Commission chose to answer the question by taking the theological approach and in particular focus on its confessional, liturgical and episcopal character.
ACR: What were the key findings in the report regarding what defines authentic Anglicanism?
EL: The report begins its answer by highlighting the central role of Scripture as authoritative in the Anglican church. While this is not a unique character of Anglicanism but is rather a feature of all Christian churches, it was felt that highlighting this truth was an essential foundation for the report. This was especially so considering the context of the Archbishop of Brisbane undermining the Bible’s authority in his Presidential Address. The report highlights that not only were the Scriptures to be given supremacy in the church theologically, the outworking of that for Cranmer was the sustained and public reading of the Bible in the church’s practice. The Word of God, in the language of the people, is the bedrock of Anglicanism.
On top of this, the report showed that Anglicanism is confessional, adhering to agreed doctrinal standards. These doctrines are lived out in liturgical expression which is intended to have a commonality across all churches. Also, the church is governed episcopally, not because bishops are essential for the church but because they are helpful for the good ordering of ministry.
ACR: What critique did the report make of alternate characterisations of Anglicanism?
EL: The final section of the report seeks to contrast authentic Anglicanism with the fabricated claims that have been made for authentic Anglican identity. It refutes the false claim that Anglicanism is a via media (middle way) between Rome and Geneva. It also demonstrates that the idea that being Anglican is equivalent to being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury is historically novel. Finally, the report demonstrates the problematic nature of the relatively recent and yet widely pervasive contemporary articulation of Anglicanism’s distinctive character being its comprehensiveness. None of these claims for authenticity are robust in their historical or theological basis.
ACR: Why does this matter for the average minister of an Anglican church in Sydney, or the average congregation member?
EL: If you are an Anglican this report is significant for at least a couple of reasons. Firstly, just like the Presidential Address that prompted the report, there are sustained and powerful attacks that undermine genuinely authentic Anglicanism and compete for acceptance as the norm. We need to be aware of the history and theology of our church to ensure that we can assess between true and false claims. Secondly, we need to assess our own practice against what is authentically Anglican. What does it mean for our local church to be biblically based, confessionally driven, liturgically expressive and episcopally governed? Perhaps many of the ministries we call Anglican fall short of authentic Anglicanism. Hopefully this report will help all of us to be aware of what it actually is to be Anglican and reflective about our own situation in light of that.
ACR: Thanks for your time today, Ed.
You can find the full report here.
This interview was first published in the ACR’s Synod 2025 Journal.