When the Centre Will Not Hold: St Paul’s Bankstown, Lambeth Palace, and the Real Test of Faithfulness
When the Centre Will Not Hold: St Paul's, Lambeth Palace, and the Real Test of Faithfulness
The story of St Paul's Anglican Church, Bankstown, has become a microcosm of the wider struggle for justice, transparency, and faithfulness within the Anglican Church of Australia. As many of you know, our community has been fighting not just for bricks and stained glass, but for the soul of a church that claims to stand for justice, inclusion, and the dignity of all.
Yesterday, the Save St Paul's Action Group received a reply from Lambeth Palace, the historic seat of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The response, while gracious in tone, was clear: the Archbishop's office will not intervene, citing the autonomy of the Anglican Church of Australia. We are, once again, told to take our concerns to the local bishop—despite the fact that it is precisely the local structures that have failed to protect the heritage, trust, and spiritual wellbeing of this community.
The Silence Speaks Volumes
But the failures of local structures are not just theoretical. On June 2, I submitted a formal complaint to the Sydney Anglican Professional Standards Unit (PSU), detailing serious breaches of safe ministry standards at St Paul's Bankstown. These included allegations of spiritual abuse, bullying, misleading conduct, and breaches of the Faithfulness in Service Code by clergy workers. I followed up on June 5, and, as of today—June 10—there has been no acknowledgment or response from the PSU.
Out of concern for the lack of action, I escalated the matter to the Safe Ministry Commission, referencing the Church's public commitment to the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations and its stated openness to community feedback. I made it clear that, absent a response, I would be compelled to escalate to external authorities and the media. Still, silence.
This is not just a bureaucratic failing; it is a spiritual and ethical one. The Church's own Faithfulness in Service code, which I analyse in depth in my recent book, was meant to be a living document: a safeguard against abuse of power, a call to servant leadership, and a bridge between tradition and the demands of a changing world. But what happens when the structures designed to protect become the very instruments of exclusion or silence? What does "faithfulness in service" mean when appeals for justice are met with polite deferral and bureaucratic handballing?
The reply from Lambeth Palace is not just a procedural note—it is a theological moment. It forces us to ask: where does ultimate responsibility lie when the local fails, and the global shrugs? In my book, I argue that the true test of any code—be it legal, doctrinal, or ethical—is not how it reads on paper, but how it is lived out in moments of crisis. The Faithfulness in Service code, and indeed the entire Anglican tradition, is built on the idea that leadership is service, that power is exercised for the good of the least, and that the Church is called to be a sign of God's justice in the world. When those with the power to act choose instead to defer, we are left with a hollowed-out version of faithfulness—one that risks becoming little more than a slogan.
The reply from Lambeth Palace is, in many ways, a symptom of the decentralised structure of the Anglican Communion—a structure I explore in detail in Chapter One. While local autonomy can be a strength, it can also become a shield for inaction, especially when local processes are themselves compromised. The Faithfulness in Service code, as I show, was born out of a recognition that the Church's credibility depends on its willingness to hold itself accountable, even when it is uncomfortable.
So where does this leave us? It leaves us, as always, with the work of hope. The Save St Paul's Action Group will continue to pursue every legal, political, and public avenue available. We will continue to hold our leaders to account—not just for the sake of one building, but for the integrity of the Church itself. And we will continue to insist that faithfulness in service is not about passing the buck, but about standing with the vulnerable, the excluded, and the silenced.
To those who have followed this story, and to those who have supported our cause: thank you. Your solidarity is a reminder that the Church is not just its hierarchy, but its people. As I wrote in the introduction to my book, the Church's faithfulness is measured not by its ability to preserve institutional comfort, but by its willingness to embody the radical love and justice of Christ in the present moment.
Let us keep building that kind of Church—one act of faithfulness at a time.
No comments:
We Value Your Feedback!
Please take a moment to share a comment or your thoughts using the form.