Posted on by Rod Benson

Toward a common ecumenical future for NSW

Three councils, one Christian vocation: a practical and theological proposal

By Rev Dr Rod Benson

Introduction

There are many distinctive qualities about Sydney, Australia’s largest city, and one of those is its peculiar religious culture. A feature of this culture is the nature of ecumenical cooperation among the city’s churches (and, inevitably, throughout the State of New South Wales), and the strong though distinct conservative culture of the Anglican and Catholic traditions within the city and region. This article examines the fractured state of ecumenical cooperation in NSW and suggests a way forward.

No less than three separate organisations carry out overlapping ecumenical functions in NSW: the NSW Council of Churches, the NSW Ecumenical Council and the Christian Alliance Council of NSW. Their differing histories, constituencies and commitments provide legitimate reasons for independence, but also raise questions about coordination and service to churches. Many church leaders would welcome a single trusted and accountable ecumenical partner. That preference is an important proposition for consultation, not yet a demonstrated consensus and not necessarily a mandate for institutional merger.

Three distinct institutional contributions

The NSW Council of Churches traces the current council to an inaugural meeting in April 1924 and antecedents to 1889. It currently describes a fellowship of eight evangelical denominations, with a characteristic commitment to biblical authority, evangelism and public advocacy. The NSW Ecumenical Council reports 21 Member Churches across NSW and the ACT and pursues common theological reflection, witness, service, justice and peace. It is an ecumenical partner of the National Council of Churches in Australia and possesses its own governance.

The Christian Alliance Council, the new kid on the block, was publicly launched in August 2025 and has convened cross-denominational fellowship and public Christian events, including involvement with the OneSydney gathering in 2026. Its freshness and relational energy offers a potentially valuable complement to established councils, although this is often viewed as competition. However, event attendance by church leaders is not the same as formal denominational membership. The CAC’s constitution, delegation procedures and authority to make representative claims must be carefully reviewed before any binding proposal. Indeed, the CAC appears to be a different kind of institution than the NSWCC or the NSWEC.

The service argument: one trusted point of contact

The burden of carrying three separate ecumenical agencies needs to be acknowledged as far from satisfactory. Church leaders already manage substantial obligations in pastoral care, safeguarding, governance, finances and mission. Multiple ecumenical contacts can mean repeated consultations, uncertain referrals and overlapping events. A common contact service could provide a reliable directory, shared calendar, clear referrals and continuity across changes of leadership. Public agencies and community organisations might also benefit from knowing whom to approach for appropriately authorised interchurch consultation.

Such an argument requires an essential safeguard. One recognised contact point is not the same as one body entitled to speak for all Christians. The common service must be a gateway to the churches, not a gatekeeper over their independent relationships. Formal representative statements must identify which churches authorised them. Smaller and regional communities should benefit from accessibility rather than be subordinated to larger constituencies. Consultation should establish whether leaders want coordination, a common secretariat, or full constitutional union.

Theological limits and historical responsibility

The evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal and other Protestant churches differ over biblical interpretation, ecclesiastical authority, ministry and sacramental life. Their disagreements cannot responsibly be dissolved through vague constitutional language.

A historical inquiry should also clarify why the separate NSW institutions developed and whether their present separation remains theologically important or merely represent the passions and priorities of leaders whose agendas are obsolete. Its task is understanding, not assigning blame. Theological dialogue should identify shared commitments, disagreements compatible with cooperation and issues that constrain institutional union.

Conciliarity, authority and reception

A common framework must respect the distinct polities of each faith community. Bishops, synods, assemblies and congregations do not possess identical authority to enter agreements. The proposed arrangement should distinguish formally authorised church members, associate organisations and individual participants; prevent disproportionate voting through overlapping affiliations; and protect freedom of conscience. Conciliarity offers a principle of common discernment but not a common ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Reception is equally necessary. Proposals agreed by a steering committee should be examined by the appropriate governing bodies and understood in local and regional churches. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Christians should help define purposes from the outset; migrant, smaller, independent and rural churches should exercise meaningful rather than merely ceremonial participation. A credible process would give affected communities time and information to evaluate the proposal and offer reasoned suggestions for further changes.

A covenant and a practical experiment

An initial period of structured dialogue might bring together delegates authorised by the three councils, preferably with independent facilitation. A joint review could then examine histories, constitutions, membership, theological commitments, activities, finance and external relationships. If sufficient trust develops, the councils could agree to a covenant for prayer where appropriate, theological dialogue, reciprocal consultation and selected common projects. The covenant would preserve their autonomy and expressly limit the authority of any joint officers.

A longer service pilot could test the principal practical claim. With consent, the councils might operate a shared enquiry channel, coordinated calendar, maintained directory and referral procedures. Its costs, data protection arrangements and staff responsibilities must be agreed in advance. The pilot should not issue public statements or incur financial commitments on behalf of councils without explicit authorisation. Baseline and follow-up consultation should test accessibility, referral accuracy, costs, trust, local participation and unwanted consequences. Above all, care should be taken to enable the different faith communities to move forward together at an agreed pace and with adequate time for proper internal conversation as well as multilateral dialogue between interested churches.

Options after evidence and consultation

If the experiment proves useful, four possible outcomes merit comparison: a permanent covenant, shared services, federation or one incorporated council. A covenant is least disruptive but may leave duplication. Shared administration may reduce burdens without changing ecclesial relations. Federation might provide a common representative identity while entrenching old divisions or adding governance. Full union would offer clarity of institution but carry the greatest legal, financial and theological demands. None should be treated as an inevitable stage.

Any merger would require independent financial and legal review of property, charitable objects, liabilities, employment and contracts. Existing NSWEC relations with the NCCA, and the participation of ACT churches, would need direct consultation. Consent must be obtained through the constitutional procedures of each council and the appropriate churches; personal enthusiasm by leaders cannot substitute for it. Public communications should differentiate unanimous statements, statements of named members and unauthorised individual opinions.

Success criteria should be agreed at the beginning: improved relationships and theological understanding; demonstrably better service to leaders; equitable participation; accurate public representation; sustainable costs; and discernible benefits for common mission. Where essential conditions cannot be satisfied, merger negotiations should stop without ending cooperation. A conclusion that three organisations should remain independent but better coordinated may be a responsible outcome, not a failure.

Conclusion

The Churches of NSW and the ACT have good reasons to explore closer cooperation, and their existing councils possess complementary experience. Of course, while historically associated with their NSW counterparts, the ACT Churches now have their own ecumenical fellowship and may wish to pursue separate development. Cautious optimism is warranted by the possibility of practical benefits and deeper communion, not by an assumption that institutional consolidation is intrinsically superior. The appropriate first step is an authorised conversation, followed by a limited and evaluated experiment in shared service.

A trusted ecumenical partner is a reasonable aspiration; one incorporated council is only one possible instrument. The enduring objective is the fullest faithful expression of Christian communion that truth, consent and stewardship permit.

Rev Dr Rod Benson is the former General Secretary of the NSW Ecumenical Council. He lives in Sydney and writes about a range of topics from books and local history to food, faith, philosophy, ethics, research skills, and everyday life. Away from the keyboard, he enjoys cooking for friends, walking in the Australian bush, exploring a beach, discovering new restaurants, and reading philosophy, fiction and poetry. He is married to Emma and is minister of North Rocks Community Church, a Uniting Church congregation.

Click here for Part 1 and Part 2 of this series.

Selected sources and verification

Image source: author

Leave a Reply