One of Sydney Anglicanism’s most remarkable women leaders is getting a book written about her – that’s the likely outcome of a symposium on Margaret Rodgers, lecturer and encourager of women in ministry, ecumenical leader and master of media.
She was called “Sydney’s Secret Weapon” for her media work – a quote from an appreciation of her I wrote after her death ten years ago. It was a little shocking to hear it cited in an academic paper.
The meeting at Moore College saw four papers on Rodgers’ life and work, and several more seem begging to be written.
Another story quoted from my profile of Rodgers, who ran Anglican Media, where I had two stints on the board, concerned a senior insider from the national Anglican Church wondering, perhaps grousing, that Sydney had a tremendous amount of media coverage while the national Anglican church was – and still is – largely invisible.
Part of the answer was that Sydney Diocese has always had vocal detractors in the press. Margaret Rodgers’ genius was not to run from that, but to take advantage of it because it gave great room for right of reply. It was Rodgers’ job to make sure the replies were articulate and timely.
She marshalled the best voices of the diocese to make sure that was so. She kept Archbishop Jensen out of the firing line, except when she wanted him there. The Bishop who was lobbed the hottest of potatoes was Rob Forsyth. Jensen then gained scarcity value and therefore was sought after.
“Her loyalty, her strength were all put in the service of the gospel of Jesus and all put to the task of helping a hopeless amateur cope with the sharp pool of the media with a helpless amateur. whatsoever,” Bishop Peter Jensen recalled. “No humble servant, she, let me say. She never ceased to be the feisty, intelligent, savvy, experienced Margaret.
“One of my fondest memories of her is a comment made to me after I was interviewed by a lady reporter, ‘Peter, you’re a sucker for us. You’re a sucker for a pretty face.’ Not much respect for the Archbishop of Sydney from his media officer. That was Margaret.”
Rodgers’ time as the media svengali of the evangelical Sydney Diocese was matched by serving for nine years as a full-time employee – Admin and Research Officer – of the Anglican General Synod ten dominated by the progressive wing of that church. Similarly her 30 years on the Sydney Synod was matched by extensive ecumenical work including as chair of the Christian Conference of Asia.
Peter Jensen paid tribute to Rodgers working so closely with him, as a “notoriously complementarian Archbishop,” a comment that reveals something about Rodgers I did not realise at the time. When women’s ordination was a red-hot topic in Sydney, Rodgers was a outspoken in support of equality of opportunity.
“She was prepared to engage in theological debates,” said Jensen “She changed the direction of the education of women and the expectations that went with it. She advanced into places in which the next generation of women could and would go.
“She led the way, not least into the political life of the church and was never shy. Not even if it may have made her unpopular at a time of considerable but political turmoil. She was never shy, let her views be never especially about the role of women. Thus, for example, people remember and have mentioned to me a powerful speech she made at a conference in the mid nineties, a conference I well remember Elder Trinity Grammar School, a conference at which I for one as principal of Moore colleagues spoke on the other side. I can guess who won that contest. Margaret for sure.”
Historian Colin Bale began the story of how Rodgers had changed the educational opportunities for women in Sydney Anglicanism by recalling her as the top student amongst her cohort as a Sydney Uni B.D honours student. “Here was a person who knew how to research and write history” he said of her thesis into the early history of Sydney’s Deaconess Institute – of which she was to become principal.
From Bale’s account she dragged deaconess training into the twentieth century, fixing the uninspiring food of the training college Deaconess House, getting rid of the old fashioned uniforms and encouraging women to tackle the B.Th degree along side the men at Moore College next door, and to preach. Deacon Jacinth Myles who was present was quoted by Bale remembering asking Rodgers why she was coming back to Deaconess House and hearing “You can only change an institution if you are in that institution.”
A paper by Archdeacon Kara Hartley revealed the respect that Rodgers had in the Sydney diocese ; she not only moved that Sydney have a Doctrine Commission but she became a founding member of it. She took up social justice issues in the synod. “She used her place in the diocese – a unique place for a woman such as her – to care for the overlooked,” Hartley said.
“At Synod you stand if you want to speak. I imagine it would have been to the peril of the president, the archbishop, not to call on her to speak.”
Despite being a prime mover in having women become deacons, and thus ordained in Sydney, Rodgers remained a deaconess. This came up in discussion – Rodgers was being strategic. by staying a lay person Rodgers was more easily elected to the key committees to exert her influence.
A paper by Rod Benson showed how Rodgers had remarkable media skills long before she worked officially in that role, knowing how to insert a key quotable line. “Where others may have spoken in platitudes or rebuffed journalists, Margaret knew how to manage information feeds and provided first-rate copy for media organisations, even though some of her colleagues may have preferred no publicity at all.
“For example, in 1987 The Canberra Times reported Deaconess Margaret Rodgers as calling on “Anglican parishioners to admit they had ‘failed as a church to deal with [the problem of domestic violence] adequately,” and closed the story with another quote by Rodgers: “Obviously any woman who has been bashed and violated by a man would find it difficult to talk to a [clergy]man.”
“Similarly, General Synod’s Social Responsibilities Commission published a report in 1989 encouraging bishops to establish a uniform policy and practice regarding divorced Anglicans intending to remarry. Margaret is reported to have called the church’s current policy on remarriage ‘inconsistent’ and in many cases producing ‘negative results.’ Demonstrating her capacity for deploying nuance and diplomacy on controversial matters, she affirmed that ‘the church would always regard marriage as a lifelong commitment,’ but added, quoting the report:
The Commission contends, however, that translating theological positions into pastoral practices which have the care of people and the development of mature personal relationships as their primary aim will not erode the importance of marriage in this society … Rather, it will demonstrate that the Anglican Church is more concerned about pastoral care than an apparent theological legalism.”
Benson summed up Rodgers: ”The work of Deaconess Margaret Rodgers in the public sphere and beyond the Diocese of Sydney was astonishing for its intentionality, its professionalism, its notable intellectual calibre, its demonstration of theological learning and diplomacy, its warm evangelical spirituality, its diversity, and its longevity.”
Such a powerful influence by a woman in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney might puzzle many. The subsequent invisibility is one reason why she was – as we began with – Sydney Anglicanism’s secret weapon.
Aka Dr Rodgers. [i.e. Diocsan spin doctor]