Challenging Tradition: The Debate Over Chastity for Anglican Priests in Perth

In a move that has set the Anglican Church in Australia ablaze, the Diocese of Perth recently revised its "Faithfulness in Service" (FIS) rulebook, causing a stir not only in the pews but in the corridors of power within the broader Anglican community. The revised code of conduct, which now removes the requirement for clergy to maintain chastity, has sparked fierce division, with the progressives cheering for inclusivity and the conservatives lamenting what they view as a descent into moral chaos.

Published by The Australian on November 29, 2024, the article by Jamie Walker explores the rift that has emerged after the Diocese of Perth's decision to revise key sections of the FIS guidelines. The terms "chaste" and "chastity" were deleted from the church's expectations for clergy, a change largely aimed at accommodating same-sex relationships. In their place, the church now expects clergy to "take responsibility for their sexual conduct" and ensure their behavior is characterized by "faithfulness and integrity." It’s an approach that allows for more flexibility but has led to accusations of moral relativism from the church's traditionalists.

For many of the conservatives, including Archbishop Kanishka Raffel of Sydney, the revision feels like a theological betrayal. "Chastity, what’s that? Is it still a thing?" Raffel might as well have said, given the fervor with which he and other critics argue that the removal of chastity is a fundamental erosion of biblical teaching. He’s alarmed that Perth has now become the eighth of Australia’s 23 dioceses to "water down" its provisions. According to these critics, the very notion of chastity was not just a guideline, but a sacred rule, embedded deeply in the church’s ethical DNA. Without it, they argue, what’s to stop clergy from throwing off all sexual restraint and embarking on a wild, free-for-all of sexual permissiveness?

But Archbishop Kay Goldsworthy, the progressive and bold leader of Perth, has fired back in defense of the revision. She insists that the removal of the term "chaste" doesn’t represent an endorsement of sexual recklessness. In fact, she argues that the new guidelines are actually more stringent. Rather than simply focusing on sexual activity, they call for a broader sense of faithfulness that encompasses the entire person—heart, mind, and body. Goldsworthy's position? Integrity is what counts, and that should extend beyond the bedroom to all aspects of one’s life.

"Why are we still hung up on the word ‘chastity’?" Goldsworthy seems to ask, adding that, in fact, this shift is part of a growing trend within the church, with similar revisions already made in several other dioceses across Australia. But for the critics, this looks like another domino falling in the long march toward moral permissiveness. Archbishop Raffel is quick to point out that these changes could potentially "undermine years of work to stamp out sexual abuse in the church." After all, if sexual conduct is now governed by vague ideas of "faithfulness" and "integrity" instead of clear-cut rules, where does that leave the church’s effort to protect the vulnerable?

The controversy is particularly significant given the broader context of same-sex marriage, which has become a flashpoint for Anglican communities worldwide. Conservative factions, led by the likes of Raffel, argue that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman—an idea that some progressive dioceses, like Perth, have moved away from in recent years. The failed motion at the 2022 General Synod to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in church law was the tipping point that led to the formation of a breakaway group, the Diocese of the Southern Cross. And now, changes like this in Perth have further stoked the fire, fueling the divide between conservatives and progressives, each with their own interpretation of what "faithfulness" should look like in the modern world.

It’s a classic case of tradition versus change, with both sides using the Bible as their weapon of choice. The conservative argument leans heavily on a literal interpretation of scripture, particularly the call for chastity and faithfulness within marriage. For them, this change represents a dangerous redefinition of what it means to be a Christian in a fallen world. To suggest that clergy can now be sexually active outside the confines of marriage—whether heterosexual or homosexual—feels like opening Pandora's Box.

On the other side, the progressives argue that this change reflects a more inclusive and holistic understanding of what it means to follow Christ. For Archbishop Goldsworthy, the shift is not about eroding moral standards, but about embracing a more nuanced and compassionate approach to the realities of modern life, where LGBTQ+ relationships are as valid as heterosexual ones.

As one might expect, Perth's move has not been universally welcomed. Critics like Reverend Marc Dale, who serves in the Highgate parish in inner Perth, describe the changes as a "radical departure" from traditional Christian orthodoxy. According to Dale, the church has held a consistent position for over 2,000 years on the importance of chastity in singleness and faithfulness in marriage. To him, removing this requirement is akin to throwing out the moral compass altogether. However, his criticism misses the underlying point: the world is changing, and so too must the church’s understanding of sexuality and relationships. This is not a license for promiscuity, but rather an invitation to understand that faithfulness and integrity can take many forms.

Goldsworthy’s defenders, including other bishops like Peter Stuart of Newcastle, argue that the new code of conduct is actually about upholding a higher standard of sexual ethics—one that emphasizes dignity, respect, and the sanctity of relationships, whether in marriage or not. Stuart points out that the church is not encouraging "casual intimacy" but rather urging clergy to model healthy, respectful relationships. The new guidelines seek to prevent exploitation and ensure that all sexual conduct is aligned with the church’s broader moral teachings.

In the end, the debate in Perth—like many debates in the church—is about more than just sexual ethics. It’s about how the church defines itself in a rapidly changing world. Is the church a timeless institution bound to tradition, or is it a living body, adapting to new understandings of human dignity, love, and justice?

The clash between progressives and conservatives over chastity is just the latest chapter in the ongoing saga of the Anglican Church in Australia. For now, both sides seem as entrenched as ever, each holding fast to their interpretation of scripture. But perhaps, just maybe, the real challenge here isn’t in the words we use, but in how we embody the values of faithfulness, integrity, and love that are at the heart of the Christian message. After all, as the apostle Paul once said, "Now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." Maybe it’s time for the church to consider whether love—rather than chastity—might be the guiding principle for its future.