Woes of Anglicans; Dances of Ecstasy

The slow-motion collapse of the worldwide Anglican Communion continues, with the US Episcopal Church being asked to withdraw for three years from a key governing council, in the hope of avoiding a rupture over homosexuality. Meanwhile in Australia, the authority of the Church is being challenged by a breakaway Anglican group that has consecrated a "flying bishop" to minister to parishes opposed to the ordination of women. Primate Peter Carnley has declared the bishop's consecration unacceptable, and his licence to minister within the Anglican Communion has been suspended. Also: a film exploring the world of ecstatic dance is about to make its Australian television debut.

Program Transcript

Archbishop John Hepworth on Anglicans
Archbishop Peter Carnley on Anglicans
Theo Hobson on Anglicans
Michelle Mahrer on Dances of Ecstasy

David Rutledge: Welcome to the program.

While the world-wide Anglican Communion has been tearing itself apart over homosexuality, smouldering away in the background has been the issue of the ordination of women. You could be forgiven for assuming that women priests are not as controversial as they used to be, and in fact last year’s Windsor Report concluded that divisions over women’s ordination, while running deep in some provinces, didn’t threaten the overall health of the Anglican Communion.

Well, a group of conservative Anglicans in Australia disagrees, and they’ve recently taken steps to put the issue back on the agenda, in a move that’s issued a direct challenge to the mainline Anglican church,

The dissidents go by the name of the Traditional Anglican Communion ...

Woes of Anglicans; Dances of Ecstasy
2 March 2005

print | Listen Real Media | Windows Media
Help with listening

The slow-motion collapse of the worldwide Anglican Communion continues, with the US Episcopal Church being asked to withdraw for three years from a key governing council, in the hope of avoiding a rupture over homosexuality. Meanwhile in Australia, the authority of the Church is being challenged by a breakaway Anglican group that has consecrated a "flying bishop" to minister to parishes opposed to the ordination of women. Primate Peter Carnley has declared the bishop's consecration unacceptable, and his licence to minister within the Anglican Communion has been suspended. Also: a film exploring the world of ecstatic dance is about to make its Australian television debut.

Program Transcript

Archbishop John Hepworth
on Anglicans
Archbishop Peter Carnley on Anglicans
Theo Hobson on Anglicans
Michelle Mahrer on Dances of Ecstasy

David Rutledge: Welcome to the program.

While the world-wide Anglican Communion has been tearing itself apart over homosexuality, smouldering away in the background has been the issue of the ordination of women. You could be forgiven for assuming that women priests are not as controversial as they used to be, and in fact last year’s Windsor Report concluded that divisions over women’s ordination, while running deep in some provinces, didn’t threaten the overall health of the Anglican Communion.

Well, a group of conservative Anglicans in Australia disagrees, and they’ve recently taken steps to put the issue back on the agenda, in a move that’s issued a direct challenge to the mainline Anglican church,

The dissidents go by the name of the Traditional Anglican Communion, and they see their role as providing pastoral care to conservative Anglicans who feel alienated by the liberalism of the mainline church. Two weeks ago, the Traditional Anglican Communion consecrated as bishop, Brisbane cleric Father David Chislett, a long-standing opponent of women’s ordination, in a ceremony that took place in Philadelphia in the U.S. Their idea was that David Chislett would remain a priest in the Brisbane Anglican diocese, but would also act as a so-called ‘flying bishop’ for the Traditional Anglicans, travelling around Australia and ministering to parishes that refuse to accept women priests.

The result has been an acrimonious row, which rather like the crisis over gay bishops, throws into relief the complicated question of exactly how the Anglican church is run, and who’s in, and who’s out.

The Anglican Primate, Archbishop Peter Carnley of Perth, said last week that the Traditional Anglican Communion is not part of the Australian Anglican Church, and that therefore David Chislett has put himself outside the organisation. The Anglican Bishop of the Murray, Ross Davies, who went so far as to co-consecrate David Chislett, disagrees, and he has licensed Chislett to act as a bishop in his diocese. Meanwhile Brisbane Archbishop Phillip Aspinall has stood down David Chislett, and already appointed another priest, a bishop, no less, to run his parish, while the whole mess goes before a team of canon lawyers.

David Chislett has declined to be interviewed for The Religion Report, but I did speak with Archbishop John Hepworth, Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

John Hepworth: The Traditional Anglican Communion came into being nearly 30 years ago now in the United States and Canada, and Australia. At the moment it’s about 450,000 communicants on any given Sunday, and in Australia it’s particular mass is the Torres Strait region, where almost en mass the islanders rejected attempts to put women priests and deacons amongst them. The real point to make here I think is that we have never attempted to leave, we have always claimed to be in full communion with all those parts of Anglicanism that we could be. So we’ve made as wide an ambit claim as possible, and it’s others who’ve decided whether they wish to have that relationship or not.

There are those Anglican churches that are determined that a more liberal interpretation of Anglicanism, particularly in relationship to sexual issues and to women’s rights, will be the only tolerated position, so the United States and Canada have passed legislation which denies anybody membership of their Anglican churches if they disagree with them. So you cannot be a member of the Episcopal church in the US and be against the ordination of women, they can revoke your position instantly. So there are those who are determined that our position should just simply leave the church and find a home somewhere else.

David Rutledge: But at a time when the world-wide Anglican Communion appears to be staggering towards schism, I suppose the question begs to be asked why the Traditional Anglican Communion should want to come into the fold. Isn’t that a bit like putting up your hand for a berth on the Titanic?

John Hepworth: Well Anglicanism has been good at Titanics for about 500 years. It was the one group of the Reformation that took on Rome in a confrontational way and at the same time attempted to maintain a great deal of pre-Reformation Christianity, so I guess whether you talk about the Titanic or walking with one leg each side of a barbed wire fence, that is the Anglican way. Our position is clear: we’re not seeking to join in a total way the Anglican Community, we’re seeking to minister within the Anglican Communion to those who are deeply hurting in conscience and find that they have no home, no worship centre, cannot accept the sacraments as they’re provided or indeed the beliefs of some of their bishops. So it’s a pastoral provision that we’re attempting to make, and we’ve tried in Australia to present ourselves in a pastoral way, rather than a canonical way. The canonical way leads to synods, confrontations and defeats, and doesn’t sit very well with the pastoral care of people.

David Rutledge: Well if we turn to the recent consecration of David Chislett as bishop, obviously the immediate aim is, as you’ve said, to provide alternative ministry for Anglicans who are opposed to the ordination of women. But what message are you sending to the hierarchy, to the Australian Primate and the Archbishop of Canterbury?

John Hepworth: We’ve made the message pretty clear. We’ve said that we want in the first place, for this ministry to be provided within an Anglican Communion, and an Anglican Church of Australia context. The response is to try and find ways of excluding David Chislett from the Anglican Communion. I’m fairly confident that without passing special canons to do that, it can’t be done.

David Rutledge: Could you have predicted that the Archbishop of Brisbane would suspend his licence to minister within the Anglican Communion?

John Hepworth: He’d signalled his response very clearly in advance. He’s written two letters to his clergy late last year, one of them on Christmas Eve, stating that if David Chislett accepted consecration from the Traditional Anglican Communion, then he would be dismissed. We feel it’s an unjust response. It’s really a checkmate, and it’s been checkmate for some time, and the consecration in large part was designed to break the checkmate, force people to be honest and given that David Chislett was consecrated in part by the Traditional Anglican Communion and in part by a sufficient number of Anglican Communion consecrators, there was a deliberate joining of those involved in a common ministry, and we believe he’s a legitimate bishop of the Anglican Communion right now. And we are confident that it was not uncanonical; the mere fact of being consecrated has been proven on a number of occasions in the last 100 years in Anglican churches not to itself provide grounds for removing somebody from their parish.

David Rutledge: Well one sympathetic observer has drawn a parallel between this situation and the consecrations undertaken in Soviet prison camps during the dark days of Stalinism. Is he getting a bit carried away there, or do you see this is a comparable persecution?

John Hepworth: I have suggested in my response to the Windsor Report late last year, which attempted to say there has been no controversy within Anglicanism over the ordination of women, which is an absolutely mind-boggling claim. I suggested that the problem is that those people opposed to the ordination of women attempting to be Anglicans in the world, have in fact been made invisible in the same way as prisoners were made consciously invisible by the gulags. So I guess it’s taking that analogy and running with it. The fact is, over the last 12 years those whose conscience leads them to be opposed to the ordination of women, and therefore have a sacramental crisis with their church, which is about as serious as a crisis can get for a Christian, they have been marginalised, in many cases their bishops have attempted to remove them, both priests and laity, they’ve been told they have no place in many dioceses and to go and look elsewhere. So we’re responding to a persecution; it’s a real persecution. Whatever the argument about the ordination of women, Anglicans did agree that it’s an open issue, and that both sides are legitimate for the time being while the church discerns the truth. You can’t discern the truth while you’re being persecuted out of existence. I don’t think one can be too strong in one’s wording for the sort of crisis of conscience that this has produced.

David Rutledge: What do you do now? Because the strategy of the Anglican Communion seems to be more or less to ignore what you’re doing, and say Well if you want to consecrate bishops, go right ahead, we’re not going to recognise them. How can you force the issue?

John Hepworth: Well the issue will be flushed out now in a number of places. The Archbishop of Brisbane has done something which is now to be tested in the courts, and conversations between lawyers are already happening. The crucial thing is the Traditional Anglican Community is absolutely committed in Australia to alternative Episcopal oversight of a just and fair way. If we can’t negotiate that with the Anglican church in Australia, we’ll do it anyway; that will be like the death of a thousand cuts, because every individual and parish will have to be fought over individually. The other way is that we just agree that there is a small minority of people that are still there, and they need to be decently provided for. I’ve suggested the alternatives, and we’ll run with whichever way it runs, because at the end of the day the response is going to be that of the Anglican Primate and we will respond to it.

David Rutledge: Archbishop John Hepworth, Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion.

Well the Primate of the Australian Anglican Church, Archbishop Peter Carnley, has just returned from last week’s five-day Anglican Primates’ meeting in Northern Ireland, where issues of sexuality in the church were thrashed out. The meeting ended with a delaying tactic: the US Episcopal church, which has appointed an openly gay bishop, and the Anglican Church of Canada, which has allowed its members to bless same-sex unions, were asked to withdraw from a key global Communion Council for the next three years, while they decide either to repent or to provide compelling theological justification for their actions.

Divisions over sexuality seem to be splitting the Anglican Communion right down the middle, and last week’s Primates’ meeting was expected to be something of a bunfight between moderates and evangelicals But according to Archbishop Peter Carnley, the mood was largely positive. Peter Carnley is talking with Noel Debien.

Peter Carnley: Despite some press reports it was a fantastically good-natured meeting, full of grace; everyone felt it was a very good experience I think.

Noel Debien: Then in terms of the way the primates themselves have talked it out, how significant is this breach with US Anglicans?

Peter Carnley: I wouldn’t call it a breach. I think we’re still certainly in full communion. Clearly there’s a very profound difference of opinion on the question of how we deal with gay and lesbian people, but the process was very good. Everybody was very happy on both sides at the end, and everybody was unanimous about the statement we finally issued, so I think all that’s a pretty good outcome.

Noel Debien: Evangelical Anglicans are certain in their own minds that homosexuality is sin, and that homosexuals should not be ordained as priests or bishops, but on the other hand the Primate of the US church, Frank Griswald, he hasn’t given any indication that the US church is willing to compromise on this. Indeed he seems to think that Americans are leading in this debate. How right do you think he is?

Peter Carnley: Well I think we all agree on the authority of scripture. The difficulty is that people read the scriptures in a different way, and often that conditioned by different cultural contexts. Certainly the cultural environment in America and Canada is quite different from that which prevails in Africa, let us say. And I think it’s true, as you say, the Americans are very unlikely to change their minds, certainly not overnight, but I think they’re very regretful of the fact that they went ahead with what they did without consultation, and didn’t listen to another voice, and those who weren’t listened to, felt that their viewpoint wasn’t valued, and so there was a complete breakdown at that point.

Noel Debien: How significant then is reformed evangelical theology as typified by Sydney in this dispute about homosexuality, which seems to be about faith and order as well now?

Peter Carnley: I think the viewpoints of different people on different sides is significant whatever the viewpoint. So I wouldn’t want to devalue any. I think what the communion needs now is time to process this difference of opinion and to work out where truth lies, and I think time will be needed to do that.

Noel Debien: In terms of that sorting out though, the Traditional Church has now ordained four new bishops, again, by Rwanda and South East Asia as missionaries to the United States church; is there not a significant rise in the influence of the evangelicals as typified by Archbishop Jensen and the Sydney diocese in marshalling conservative Anglican forces?

Peter Carnley: I think around the world conservative forces are on the ascendant, I think there’s no doubt about that, but I think I wouldn’t suggest that Sydney was playing a huge part in those forces, I think they’re very widespread around the world and they look after themselves.

Noel Debien: Just coming back to home. The Brisbane priest, David Chislett has been ordained bishop by the Traditional Anglican Communion. He’s now had his licence suspended by the Archbishop of Brisbane. In your view as Primate, is David Chislett an Anglican?

Peter Carnley: Well I’ve assumed that we had discussions about how we could minister to conservative-minded Anglicans, and I thought we had a path mapped out in which we could do something canonically, so I was surprised by that consecration in America, and I assume that he, David Chislett, had decided to join the Traditional Anglican Communion, that after our talks he didn’t see any future in what we were proposing and so decided to go to the Traditional Anglican Communion.

Noel Debien: Effectively you’re saying that’s a decision made by him but not by other Anglican bishops?

Peter Carnley: Yes, I think it’s basically his decision. I think you can’t belong to two churches at the one time, you can’t really be a priest in one and a bishop in another, you can’t owe canonical obedience to a bishop and be the person to whom canonical obedience is owed in another church. So I think that’s an impossible position.

Noel Debien: There will yet be canonical argument over this I believe, and we have reliable reports that the legal argument over the Chislett case is actually being provided by the diocese of Sydney - for the canon law to be done. Had the Anglican bishops of Australia anticipated this sort of alliance?

Peter Carnley: I don’t think we anticipated this eventuality. I don’t think anybody has thought that he would go off and be consecrated somewhere else in another church.

Noel Debien: Is it yet possible that canonically, he might be accepted as a bishop operating within the Anglican church of Australia?

Peter Carnley: Well that was what we proposed. The suggestion was that he might become Assistant Bishop in an Australian diocese and minister to a particular group of Anglicans in Australia, just as the bishops of the forces ministers across diocesan boundaries to defence force personnel, and indigenous bishops likewise are invited to minister across diocesan boundaries to Australian indigenous peoples. We were looking at that model, and I think it was quite a sensible model to look at. But had that have happened, we would have had to follow the canonical procedures for appointing an Assistant Bishop in an Australian diocese for it to happen.

Noel Debien: So effectively you’re saying that the Anglican bishops were looking at a way of consecrating David Chislett an Assistant Bishop, but effectively the Traditional Anglican Communion has gone ahead against this planned agreement.

Peter Carnley: I couldn’t say the Australian bishops, because it was only me and one or two others who were involved in those discussions, and it was only the very first discussion, and the agreement was we would continue the discussion.

Noel Debien: This matter of David Chislett has become a bit more complicated in that Anglican Bishop Ross Davies of the Murray co-consecrated Chislett in the United States. And now the Archbishop of Melbourne has directed his clergy not to issue any invitation to Bishop Davies or to any bishop of the church not in communion, without his specific written authority. How far does this amount to Ross Davies, the Bishop of the Murray, now being in schism?

Peter Carnley: I wouldn’t say he’s in schism, but certainly he’s acted contrary to the directives of the Anglican Communion, there’s a directive of the Anglican Communion that we should not be involved in ordinations and consecrations outside of our own church, because a bishop is not a private individual, he can’t operate as a private individual, he can only represent a church. A bishop has a representative role not just nationally but internationally, outside his own diocese, and therefore we’re discouraged from participating in the ordinations and consecrations of churches outside the Anglican Communion.

Noel Debien: Is there a sense that Bishop Chislett and this situation that’s emerged in Australia, is in a sense, a microcosm of what is happening world-wide in Anglicanism, that the instruments of unity that are under discussion, don’t even at this point reach to cover all these situations that are emerging?

Peter Carnley: I think there’s a grey area, yes, in canon law between the various churches of the Anglican Communion, it’s very undeveloped. For example, we’ve spent a great deal of time working out covenants of agreement between us and the Lutheran churches and other churches around the world, but we’ve put very little time into working out the covenant arrangements between the actual churches of the Anglican Communion. So some work has to be done on that, and certainly the instruments of communion need to be strengthened. I think everyone recognises that. And the Windsor Report drew attention to all these matters.

Noel Debien: Do you think there will be an influence from this current dispute about Bishop Chislett on the upcoming vote for the Australian Anglican Primate?

Peter Carnley: Well I think it’s going to be a continuing problem for the incoming Primate, probably for a little time, yes. It’s not going to go away.

Noel Debien: Archbishop Peter Carnley, thank you for joining The Religion Report.

Peter Carnley: It’s a pleasure.

David Rutledge: The Anglican Primate of Australia, Archbishop Peter Carnley, speaking there with Noel Debien.

PSALM 133

David Rutledge: The words of Psalm 133, ‘Behold how good and how joyful it is, for brethren to dwell together in unity’. It’s a psalm that may have been sung through gritted teeth by some of the 38 Anglican Primates who gathered last Tuesday evening for a prayer service in Northern Ireland’s Armagh Cathedral.

The pessimistic view is that the crisis over sexuality has exposed the world-wide Anglican Communion as unviable. But it’s also highlighted some fundamental problems concerning Anglicanism’s relationship to secular culture, and its relationship to the political order, particularly in England, where Anglicans hold the dubious privilege of belonging to the e stablished church. Or at least they do for the time being, but they may not for much longer.

That’s the view of Theo Hobson, who’s the author of a book about to be published on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, entitled ‘Anarchy, Church and Utopia’. And Theo Hobson is on the line from London.

Theo Hobson: An established church has to reflect the culture. If it’s established in the liberal culture, which Britain is, then it can’t be a kind of defiant, reactionary, minority voice, it has to represent the common mind of the culture, to a large extent. Now over the gay issue, it is not doing that if it goes down an anti-gay line. And that’s going to be a real problem. There’s going to be calls for disestablishment on the grounds that the church is no longer representing the national mood, because the secular consensus is now that gay rights are human rights, and that if there is a body of opinion that is against that, then it is sub-moral in a sense, and a church cannot be seen to have that image.

David Rutledge: So if the church was to endorse the ordination of gay bishops for example, would that then mean that the liberal wing of the church would become better reconciled to being part of an established church, or would there still be a problem there for liberals?

Theo Hobson: There would still be a problem I think, because there are other issues involved. For instance, the monarchy, which we might come on to. In a way I think the liberals are deceiving themselves that this is the only issue, and that if the gay issue is resolved in their favour, then all will be well, and hoping things go deeper, I think the problem of establishment actually is a deeper one, and that this issue is, in a sense, a distraction. And perhaps both sides are jumping on to this issue because they have a problem of identity as an established church. They fear being seen as going along with the liberal consensus, or going along with the conservative consensus. So it’s a way of trying to create a distinctive identity. But as an established church, that is a difficult business, because you might be going against the culture.

David Rutledge: So you’re saying both sides, for their own reasons, are uncomfortable with the idea of being part of an established church?

Theo Hobson: On some level they are, yes. Not that they admit that or articulate that, but in my opinion, the average Anglican is uncomfortable with being privileged by the constitution. We are a little bit guilty about this, to be honest, and that affects the way that both the liberals and the evangelicals are opposing each other.

David Rutledge: It’s ironic in a way isn’t it, because you get the sense sometimes that the fact of the established church is the only thing that’s keeping those two wings together.

Theo Hobson: Yes, that’s right, that’s historically been the case, that the broad church, the famous liberal “big tent” of the Church of England, has always needed the structure of establishment to hold it together. It’s a unique phenomenon that Catholic and Protestant elements are held together in one institution like this. Nowhere else in Christian history do we see this, and it’s an incredible achievement on one level, but it has always needed this political structure of establishment to hold it together.

David Rutledge: And in what way is all this connected to the forthcoming wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles? Because you’ve indicated that there is a connection there.

Theo Hobson: Yes, there is. Just because it’s another reminder that the church is compromised in a sense. It’s tied to constitutional arrangements that raise a few eyebrows. In the case of this marriage, it’s of course controversial because in the past monarchs were not allowed to marry divorcees, even abdicatees in the 1930s, so there is this history of the monarch must bow to the will of the church, and it now seems that the church is adapting itself to the will of the monarchy. So that doesn’t look good, it makes the church look a bit weak and going along with whatever suits constitutional necessity.

David Rutledge: Why is the church adapting itself to the will of the monarchy, because it’s not as though the monarchy is the potent force it was 100 years ago.

Theo Hobson: Well in this case, it’s not that clear-cut an issue to be honest. You know, the consensus is that no-one minds too much if Charles marries his mistress, so it’s only a few radicals within the church on the evangelical side, who say this makes him unfit to be the supreme governor of the church. Most people shrug their shoulders and say it’s not a big enough issue to get really excited about. So that’s really why the church has fallen into line so easily.

David Rutledge: Theo Hobson, author of ‘Anarchy, Church and Utopia’, available later this month through publishers Darton Longman and Tod.

DRUMS

Woman: In western culture, we’ve all been taught how to control. I grew up with a Catholic guy. From that religion I did learn to hate myself and I did learn to hate my body, because of that suffering I found what I was looking for in the dance. God is the dance.

David Rutledge: A short excerpt from a new film that’s going to be screened on national television this Sunday night. The film’s called ‘Dances of Ecstasy’, and it explores the world of ritual, rhythm and trance. And I do mean the whole world: the film features footage of Sufi dervishes in Turkey, a Yoruba Priestess in Nigeria, shamans in South Korea and the Kalahari desert, and much more.

The film was made over a five-year period by the producer-director team of Michelle Mahrer and Nicole Ma, and I spoke to Michelle Mahrer in Melbourne.

Michelle Mahrer: Well the film is about how different cultures all over the world connect with a divine power through dance and rhythm. And I was very inspired by in contemporary culture I think, the growth of dance in for example, the raves, where young people dance all night and I was just interested to explore how people have been working with trance for many, many years in traditional cultures, and was there a link between the two?

David Rutledge: Well you cover such a wide range of cultures in the film, and presumably you could have made a fascinating documentary just about Sufi dervishes or just about modern trance in the West. Why have you gone for the big picture, cross-cultural approach?

Michelle Mahrer: Because I think what’s important is what is common between us. I think dance and rhythm way of connecting with something bigger than ourselves, and you know, what people can call the divine power. And that led me to exploring these different cultures, and I wanted to see what links us, the sort of yearning, or even the way these rituals are accessible to us, the fact that there are whirling dervishes performing in concert halls around the world, the fact that the shaman rituals that we filmed, they very much wanted to communicate their rituals through film, and they wanted the film to be seen. There’s some sort of resurgence, like a lot of shamanic rituals are also very much coming back before they were banned for many years in Korea, in different cultures, shamanism was banned. And the fact that there’s a resurgence I think there’s this sort of calling back, and it’s something within all of us if we’re just open to it.

David Rutledge: That’s interesting, because when we talk about the spiritual aspect of the contemporary dance scene, particularly dance parties, there was I think, this sense back in the early ‘90s that dance was going to turn out to be almost like a new religious movement, and the dance party phenomenon heralded this new communal spirituality taking form. But since then, I suppose like everything else in the West, it’s all become highly commercialised, subject to fashion trends, and I wonder if the spiritual aspect has run out of steam a bit?

Michelle Mahrer: I don’t agree. I don’t think the spiritual aspect has run out of steam otherwise people wouldn’t be going, because they’re getting something out of it. Having been to lots of raves myself when we were making the film, there is something that young people are getting from these dance experiences. Where else do young people get together and connect with a sense of tribe, a sense of oneness, which is what I think a lot of spiritual experience is about, being connected to something bigger than ourselves, which is very difficult in our modern culture where we all live in our little family units, and in a more isolated fashion.

David Rutledge: I wonder if there’s a sort of incongruity between the medium and the message, if dance is about reaching an altered state through this intense immediate physical experience. You’re trying to get a sense of that across via the medium of film, which is how you experience it passively while sitting in a chair. But how do you address that problem? Do you see it as a problem?

Michelle Mahrer: Well the film result is a very sensory film. It’s not a traditional documentary, and because of my own dance experience and dance background, I really wanted to take an audience into that experience of trance, and that’s why the way the film looks, it’s very visual, it’s inter-cutting, it’s very rhythmic, it’s like a very sensory experience, and we’ve actually been screening the film as part of an event where we show the film and then have a global music dance party. So people get to watch it, and then they get up and dance. So it’s actually not such a passive experience. It’s a bit different watching it on television.

David Rutledge: Well maybe our Compass viewers on Sunday night will be able to find somewhere open after the program screens and experience it that way.

Michelle Mahrer: Yes, or maybe people who’ve got home theatres, they can have a few people over and experience it as a group and with the sound loud, that would be great.

David Rutledge: Well you heard the lady, get your friends round on Sunday night for a pyjama dance party. That’s film maker Michelle Mahrer, and you can catch Dances of Ecstasy this Sunday night, March 6th, on this week’s edition of Compass, ABC-TV at five past ten.

And that’s the program for this week. Thanks this week to Noel Debien and Michelle Goldsworthy.

Guests on this program:
Archbishop John Hepworth
Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion
Archbishop Peter Carnley
Archbishop of Perth, Primate of the Anglican Church in Australia
Theo Hobson
Author, Anarchy, Church and Utopia: Rowan Williams on Church
Michelle Mahrer
Filmmaker, Dances of Ecstasy

Publications:
Anarchy, Church and Utopia: Rowan Williams on Church
Author: Theo Hobson
Publisher: Darton Longman and Tod (March 2005)

Further information:
The Messenger
Official newspaper of the Traditional Anglican Communion
http://www.themessenger.com.au/news.html
The Windsor Report
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/downloads/index.cfm
Dances of Ecstasy
A film by Michelle Mahrer and Nicole Ma
http://www.dancesofecstasy.com

Presenter: David Rutledge

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.