Saturday, August 30, 2008
I am in the process of learning the New Zealand National Anthem "God Defend New Zealand" in preparation for my move. I have sung it at Anzac day ceremonies here and at Gallipoli and attended a Remembrance day service at the cathedral in Dunedin on my last visit so it is not new to me but I have now learnt the English words and am working on the Maori which is always sung first (and is not easy).
Here sung by The New Zealand National Youth Choir with great pictures
Then I had to search to find something similar for Australia's anthem "Advance Australia Fair". Here is Julie Anthony who I think sings it best with some more pictures.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
I am concerned that people reading my post on +Forsyth's visit to St James might think I am overly concerned with his involvement or otherwise in the ritual. I really would not mind if he had refused to take part in any of it although I think as our bishop he should be prepared to accommodate some aspects as he did. It is his and the other bishop's refusal to accept +Gene Robinson or even meet and take communion with those who consecrated him that concerns me. The Gafcon bishops are attempting to split the Anglican Communion possibly for many reasons but are using GLBT people as their whipping boy. This is why I oppose and avoid them.
I grew up in this evangelical diocese at a time when it was evangelical but recognisably Anglican. If any one had told me then that one day I would be worshipping and participating in high church ritual I would have thought them mad. However I did learn to love the Anglican liturgy, the robed choirs, the chants and the beautiful 1662 prayer book.
As a youth leader I organised youth services at evening prayer once a month. We probably horrified our elders with guitars and modern music but the basic order of service was not changed. My rector insisted that as a leader in the church, Holy Communion was not to be neglected. While I believed it was mainly a memorial service, I also believed that something special happened and this required consecration by an ordained (in those days) man.
I have a close friend who since his retirement from teaching has taken the role of leadership in a small Uniting church (The Uniting Church of Australia was formed in the 1970's by combining the Methodists, Congregationalists and some Presbyterians). He is very happy that after a year of study he is now allowed to conduct a Communion service in his church. I am happy for him and would be glad to attend some day. I would see it as just a memorial service (as does he) so it would not satisfy me on a regular basis but am sure this different view will not cause our loving God to reject either one of us.
While I love the 1662 service, I realise it had to be modernised but I do miss the Prayer of Humble Access which is so meaningful.
I think it is wonderful that I can travel to NZ, Europe and USA and still worship in much the same way. There are of course subtle differences but the service is essentially the same. However it grieves me that several people have told me they have migrated from England or even moved interstate in Australia to Sydney and feel completely lost in the average Anglican church in Sydney. One man told me he felt he had finally come home again when he first attended St James. I sometimes think it is false advertising to have the name "Anglican" outside these churches.
When I began to work in Catholic schools, I felt I should be involved in the worship program of the school and began to learn the rituals involved so I found myself recognising the altar and making the sign of the cross. I began to believe that something even more important happened when the bread and wine is consecrated. I am very fuzzy on my thinking here. I do not believe it becomes the actual Body and Blood of Christ (with all the problems of spillage etc) but like the concept (which I think is Lutheran) that it changes in some real way as it enters the communicant by the act of eating and drinking. So it becomes the Body and Blood TO ME (and obviously my fellow communicants).
I did not like the usual practice of receiving only the bread in the Catholic services but was often amused that when offered in both kinds at staff retreats it was usually mainly the Anglican staff members who took the wine.
By the way, a Jesuit priest told me that as a member of the school community I was welcome to partake although I know not all the priests would have agreed.
I find that the ritual gives more meaning to me and also helps to keep me focused. I would prefer to kneel during the consecration but this is not done at St James. I do kneel to receive and standing and kneeling at this time is about half and half in our congregation. Perhaps kneeling will be less possible as I age. My sister, being older than me, does not kneel at any part of the service but still does to receive. She tells me she prefers not to make the sign of the cross etc as she does not know what to do and this is okay by me.
So I have no complaint about evangelical forms of worship as the 34th article says "It is not necessary that Traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like."
I just ask that they be recognisably Anglican, usually follow the Lectionary in their program of teaching and be willing to recognise that others within the communion will prefer different rituals and are not to be condemned for so doing.
Monday, August 25, 2008
However, just for a day or two, I am going to be a hypocrite and sing the praises of Matthew Mitcham who snatched the diving gold medal in Beijing last Saturday night. He is an Aussie and he is openly gay. He seems to be a nice young man and beautiful to boot :-)
So often we see Olympic champions thanking and embracing their spouse or special friend of the opposite sex, just for once it is great to see someone proudly acknowledging their same sex partner.
I went to St James yesterday for the baptisms, confirmation and acceptance service despite the presence of Bishop Robert Forsyth. The service was long, 2 hour 10 minutes, and packed but I enjoyed it very much. I discovered all the people involved were not from our church but also several nearby parishes. There were 2 baptisms, one for a baby which I felt could have been at some other time. We often have baptisms as St James is a society church and many people want their children 'done' there. You can always tell when there is a large group in the front pews who are obviously lost in the service. The priest usually parades around the church with the baby to many 'oohs and aahs" for which there was no time yesterday. A young woman was also baptised and later confirmed. This was my first attendance at an adult baptism and quite emotional for me. Ten young people were confirmed and 3 older people including one man from our choir were accepted from other churches. When I was confirmed many years ago, it was the done thing for young people whose family attended the 'Church of England' and while I found it important in my spiritual life, for most of the others it was just another society event. I think there were about 40 and we were confirmed 2 at a time in a mid-week service so not as personal as yesterday when each were confirmed by name and their sponsor stood behind them.
I was pleased with Bishop Forsyth. A lady told me beforehand that when ++Jensen visited he stood bolt upright while the rest of the people at the altar bowed. Bishop Forsyth at least bowed his head at the correct times and made the sign of the cross during the blessing. He also carried a bishop's crook which I have not seen in Sydney before. He really got the works, being St Bartholomew day, as we only use incense on such days. The kyries are sung in Greek and the Gloria, Sanctus and motets are sung in Latin. However I noticed he was singing the 'Laudate Dominum' as they processed to and from the font. I was very surprised that he used the oil of Chrism to mark the sign of the cross on the forehead of each candidate. That was not done when I was confirmed in an evangelical church.
He preached on the gospel for St Bartholomew. He did comment that his photo was on the front of the newsheet (the icon of St Bartholomew) to raise a laugh. He also began by quoting from his friend Bishop Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham. The sermon was evangelistic but this is okay occasionally, my problem is when the preacher tries to convert the faithful week after week as often happens in Sydney churches. I felt it a little ironic that the quote from Bishop Wright was about God not being a vengeful God who is a 'spy in the sky'. I did leave by the side door rather than shake hands. I had my pink triangle badge in my pocket but decided to be discrete and left it there. I cannot forget that he is a gafcon bishop who will not take communion with those who consecrated Bishop Gene Robinson.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
I also feel highly honoured by all those who answered my request in the last post but especially Elizabeth Keaton. I am honoured that such a wonderful person even visits my blog let alone takes time to advise.
At the moment I will go, but I did not sleep well last night thinking about it. For many years I sat through sermons wondering if this was to be the one which would insult my sexuality and cause me to storm out. It is so wonderful now to know that I am in an inclusive church that welcomes " all people regardless of age, race, sexual orientation or religion" I guess +Forsyth will not preach a controversial sermon and even if he did I would know I am surrounded by those who support me, however I will be nervous all the same.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
As I am sure you all know, I worship at St James, King Street in Sydney which is a 2 hour train ride away. I do enjoy it and, although I sometimes groan when the alarm goes at 5am on Sunday morning, I receive many blessings once there.
Every few months CityRail decides to carry out trackwork on the weekend and replace trains with buses. I am quite happy in the train, seats are comfortable and I read the Sunday papers but I hate buses. The journey would increase to nearly 3 hours each way and I have never been able to read in a bus.
That was last weekend so I stayed home and relaxed.
I was upset to read the church notices and see that next weekend is adult baptism, confirmation and reception and therefore the visiting preacher will be the Bishop of South Sydney (our regional bishop) +Robert Forsyth.
Like all the bishops of Sydney, he is a fundamentalist, has made homophobic statements, boycotted Lambeth and attended GAFCON. If it was the Archbishop ++Peter Jensen, you would need to drag me there with wild horses. Even so, I will not shake Bishop Forsyth's hand but could duck out the side door. However I do not think I could even sit through his sermon.
We often have Bishops from other dioceses preaching at our important occasions such as Easter, Patronal festival and even the dedication of our new bells. I guess they must have our own bishop to officiate at confirmation, it is the only time I have known him to attend. I do not know how he takes the ritual and preaches under a crucifix. I am sure he will not preside at the eucharist, he would be completely lost.
On the other hand, it is an important occasion for the parish. There are 12 names on the list, I am not sure how many for each of adult baptism, confirmation or acceptance, and I feel I should be part of the congregation for these people although I do not personally know any of them by name. I also do not like going 3 weeks without the Eucharist although I only attended once in the 8 weeks I was in Europe but had no real choice then.
What shall I do?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
and please also read the sermon preached by J. Michael Povey in Povey Prattle
it ends with a wonderful poem
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him in!
("Outwitted" by Edwin Markham)
Also please pray for him and others in Florida as a Hurricane (we call them Cyclones) approaches.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
We have just had a heavy shower of rain and yes the forums are saying there was snow up at Katoomba.(grrr) It has always frustrated me that it is nearly as cold here but I miss all the fun. One of the many reasons I am looking forward to moving to Dunedin, NZ is that it sometimes snows down to sea level and I am looking at homes about 250 metres asl. However the vicar of the local church has just blogged
It was a very cold day. The water left from yesterday's rain was frozen and Dunedin streets were treacherous. Given that going out this morning meant that bones were guaranteed to be chilled and risked being broken, many opted to stay home and watch the Olympics instead. We had 8 people in church at 8am and about 90 at 10 am, well down on our usual muster.
Our service at St James was the smallest number I can remember on a Sunday but the whole city was rather quiet except for near the front of the church where 70,000 were gathering for the annual city to surf (14km) run. It makes it almost impossible to drive to church due to road closures so that combined with the cold weather would have kept numbers down. Father John commented that while so many were running (walking) to the sea, the gospel was on Jesus walking on the sea.
I enjoyed listening to his sermon and coming home to read the sermons by Madpriest, Doorman-Priest and Sister Judith Schenck on The Three-Legged Stool (4 different countries). Each had a different slant. Isn't it wonderful that the Anglican church round the world has the same readings except for most churches here in Sydney which pay no heed to the Church lectionary. One lady told us yesterday at the AGM for Anglicans Together that she had to explain to her Rector (recent Moore College graduate) what Lent meant?????
I have made 2 train journeys down to the city this weekend as the AGM was held in our church hall. Luckily, as a Senior citizen, the government allows me to travel all over Sydney and surrounding areas (I am 80km away) for just $2.50 per day.
I was pleased to hear they will soon be updating the Anglicans Together website which has been static for 2 years. I was disappointed to hear the annual dinner will be on October 31, the day I fly to Dunedin (not permanently yet).
While waiting on the platform for the train home, I heard a crash and a yell. At first I thought someone had fallen down the stairs but when I went to look, a young man was lying on the ground obviously in an epileptic fit. What shocked me was that everyone (mainly young people) was just looking and I had to run past about 20 people to reach him. A man did come the other way and had his phone out so I asked him to call the ambulance which I think he was about to do. A lady arrived soon afterwards and then the station staff began to arrive although the first looked hopeless but another arrived and ran for medical kit when I pointed out he was bleeding although not badly. Railway police then arrived and so did my train so I left but it does shake one up a bit. As a retired teacher I have some idea what to do but my first aid certificate is well outdated now. I just could not stand and look while there was no-one trying to help.
It is our annual cleanup this weekend. (The local council collects any junk we put out)
I am a terrible hoarder and have a huge area under my house (enclosed) to store junk. I cannot take it to NZ so it must go.
It is amazing what scavengers will collect. My sister stored a set of suitcases which I think she used for her honeymoon in 1961. You know the type, so heavy and rigid, it would take up half one's air allowance by itself. The hinges were all rusty. She said to throw them and they were scavenged in 10 minutes. Two old record players also went.
I have hundreds of plastic pots from when I was developing my garden, always intending to propagate, out they must go.
Tomorrow is my weekly bush walk with seniors. They are starting in my local area so I will not have to even spend $2.50 for a train, although they will be finishing at the next town up the line so it will be a 3km walk back home making about 12km in all with some steep climbs. Perhaps if there has been a decent snow dump up the mountain I may change my plans.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
I do not think I would agree with either and as it is in the evening (Wednesday 3rd September at 7.30pm) a long way from home I am unlikely to attend.
However it is being held at St John's Gordon and this reminded me that a lady recently told me she worshipped there and it is inclusive (like St James, she said). So I decided to google it. This search was unsuccessful but 'Gordon' and 'Anglican' brought up links to Rev Gordon Cheng with whom I have had words over his sarcastic comments about Heath Ledger in the Sydney Morning Herald at the time of Heath's death.
The link I found was to a blog called 'Sydney Anglican Heretics'. Sounds interesting, I thought and surfed on over. Yes it is full of criticism of Jensen and Moore College claiming they abandon Christian orthodoxy BUT this is because they deny "creationism"!!!! These bloggers (there appears to be several) believe in taking Genesis literally.
I really do not think anyone's acceptance by God depends on their view of evolution and creation. My only problem is the harm such people do to the name of Christianity. So many reject such obvious unintelligent views and sadly throw out the whole notion of God at the same time.
I do not think the blogger at "Sydney Anglican Heretics" will welcome me and feel slightly sorry for the Jensenites being attacked from two sides. However only slightly sorry.
However I do not think I am alienated from older forms of church just because I answered that young people may be. Not being young anymore myself, I love the older forms. I think the rest is true, am relieved I am only 4% fundamentalist, must work on getting rid of that :-)
What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com
|You scored as Emergent/Postmodern|
You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
ON EATING TOGETHER1
I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, and so following, but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you. 2
So says Shylock to Bassanio in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. As a Jew, Shylock will not eat with Gentiles. Given the anti-Semitism that underlies Shakespeare’s play, there may be some wisdom in his reluctance, but that is not its source. Rather, he will not eat with Gentiles for religious reasons. This is most clearly shown in his linking of eating, drinking and praying. He will join them in the ordinary activities of commercial life but he will neither eat nor pray with them. One cannot help thinking that the words might also have been said by those bishops staying away from the Lambeth Conference.
But I come to this quotation by way of beginning our thoughts about this morning’s gospel.
Jesus is followed into a deserted place by a large crowd, said to be comprised of five
thousand men plus the accompanying women and children. As evening approached, the disciples came to Jesus, concerned about feeding such a large crowd. They asked Jesus to send them away. Jesus replied that they should feed the crowd themselves, to which they replied that they have very little food. Jesus asked them to bring what they have to him. He blessed the food, broke it and distributed it to the crowd. Everyone was fed and there were twelve baskets of leftovers.
This is surely an authentic story; it appears in all four gospels.3 Matthew and Mark also have a parallel story of the feeding of four thousand, which is arguably a repetition of the same event.4
In that case, there are six accounts of the same miracle, which makes the story not
only authentic but very important. The stories all have similar contents, including the need to feed the multitude, the discovery of a small amount of food, and the large quantity of leftovers.
Now is, of course, the time to ask the quintessentially modern question: what actually
happened here? I say that this is a modern question only because we are the ones who are in search of explanations. We ought not to think that the gospel writers and their hearers and readers were either stupid or gullible. They knew as well as we do that five loaves and two fishes cannot feed over five thousand people and leave so much still to be eaten. Only their knowledge of the unusual nature of the event could account for its being remembered and written down. After all, if this happened every day, it would be commonplace. They knew that this was a miracle but they did not have our thirst for scientific explanation. Neither did they discount things that they could not explain or imagine that there must be an explanation, if only they could find it. We might say that they had more faith than we do or, to put it more exactly, they gave a different significance to such events.
While we might think that our predecessors failed to ask the obvious questions, we need to learn from them how to invest these stories with a true significance. We must not allow our quite proper question and its possible answers to obscure the meaning of the story.
Five different kinds of answers have been given to what actually happened. The first is that it happened exactly as it is recorded; Jesus made the small amount of food go around everyone.
The second explanation derives from Albert Schweitzer, who suggested that this was a
prototype sacrament in which small amounts were distributed to everyone and the story became inflated over time.
Third, this was a lesson in unselfishness and, following the example of Jesus, everyone shared the food they had brought with them.
Fourth, this story is a development of a time when Jesus and his followers survived on short rations in the desert.
These four explanations acknowledge that there was a real basis to the story but the fifth suggestion is that it has no factual basis. It is instead an allegory of the Eucharist and the fulfilment of all things when Jesus returns.5
I don’t know whether any of these accounts impresses you but I want this morning to
consider one discussion that is of the third kind of explanation: the lesson in unselfishness.
Some scholars consider this to be too facile an explanation to have any credibility. In part this is due to the idea that such a simple explanation can hardly account for the importance that the story has in the gospel record. While selfishness is a common human trait, so also is altruism. And while an occasion on which one overcomes the other might be noticeable, it is hardly miraculous. But the Catholic author Gil Bailie6 takes an importantly different slant to this explanation by setting it within its New Testament cultural context. Bailie begins with noting the significance of sharing food in the Jewish community of Jesus’ day; it was a dangerous activity.
The gospel of Mark, chapter 7, reports an incident in which the Pharisees berate Jesus
because his disciples ate food without first washing their hands. The gospel includes several verses explaining the Pharisees’ rules about washing. Whilst we might regard this as a quite proper sanitary practice, the Pharisaic objection is not that their hands were unwashed in our sense, but that they were defiled by possible contact with ritually unclean things. Thus the food they touched would also be defiled and its eating would render their bodies defiled. The possibility of such ritual defilement was very real and its consequences severe, requiring ritual cleansing and additional sacrifices.
Scrupulous persons had also to be careful of whom they dined with. This is why the
Pharisees were so concerned that Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners, including, it appears, prostitutes. Leviticus required ritual cleansing after sexual activity, so prostitutes were bound to be ritually unclean, having too much sex too frequently. As Bailie points out, Jesus was making a significant statement by his flouting of these rules: The meals Jesus shared with the outcasts were not, therefore, simply the occasion for the delivery of his message. They were the message. They served as “prophetic signs” meant to manifest the meaning of Jesus’ ministry.7
That meaning was the inclusion of the outcast in the kingdom.
Now we come to the hungry crowd in the deserted place. Bailie says:
… most religious-minded Jews of the time would have taken the precaution of bringing with them enough bread or dried fish to insure that they would not be forced to eat food whose ritual purity was in doubt. But taking the precaution of bringing a supply of ritually clean food would have been only one hurdle, and perhaps not the largest one. For eating these provisions while in the company of others of uncertain moral and religious character would have placed one in jeopardy of moral contamination from sinners and pagans. The fact that Jesus had a reputation for attracting and tolerating the socially marginal would have added to the anxiety of observant Jews in this regard. Not knowing the moral and religious status of those sitting nearby would have made many reluctant to bring out whatever provisions they had with them.
That this barrier could and should be broken down was Jesus’ suggestion. Bailie concludes:
By now the reader will have guessed what I think the miracle was. Jesus opened their hearts, and they, in turn, opened their satchels, and the greatest miracle of all occurred. Following a pattern that is still today embedded in the Catholic Mass, Jesus preached of a God of love and forgiveness and then invited those who heard his message to sit down together and live for a moment in the “kingdom” about which he was preaching.
So we can see that Bailie not only uses the third type of explanation, that of overcoming reticence about sharing, he links the miracle directly to the eucharist, making an allegory out of the reality, which is the fifth kind of explanation.
Whether or not you find this account satisfactory is not the point of my sermon this morning.
I want to go on from this explanation and explore how the miracle seen in this way can illumine our faith journey. My starting point is to note that the single most significant aspect of the divisions within Christianity and within the Anglican Communion is a reluctance to join others at the Lord’s Table. The services in this church contain an invitation to all baptised Christians to join us in communion. That invitation is itself a remarkable thing. It cannot be made in Orthodox or Roman Catholic services. It will not be made in sectarian meetings where close attention is paid to judging the worthiness of communicants. In the meetings of Anglican Primates those dissatisfied with the Episcopal Church for its consecration of Gene Robinson first decline to receive communion alongside the Episcopal Church Primate. By inventing the peculiar doctrine of ‘episcopal taint’, some Anglicans exclude bishops who have ordained women as well as both the men and women they have ordained. We need to note that the concept of ‘tainted hands’ is almost exactly the concept of ritual defilement against which Jesus argued.
One of the characteristics of such ritual exclusions as the Pharisees exercised is a high degree of uncertainty about one’s acceptability to God. Far from living as persons accepted by God’s grace, such people see themselves as having to achieve acceptability. It is inevitable in such a case that the exclusion of others becomes a way of achieving one’s own inclusion.
Another way of putting this is speak of identity. Only a sure identity can withstand the
temptation of uncertainty. In Jesus’ day, observant Jews found themselves in an increasingly cosmopolitan world. Perforce they had to associate with Gentiles and with their fellow Jews who succumbed to the foreign ways. They thought that it was imperative to insist on ever stricter standards in order to preserve their cultural identity. In some ways their reaction was similar to that of some Islamic communities today. It is, however, ironic that their identity, which is an interior thing, found itself turning to external observances for support.
In the light of this, we need to understand what great danger we are in when we exclude others or cut ourselves off from converse with those with whom we disagree. This morning’s gospel teaches us at least that.
If we need more confirmation, we might turn briefly to this morning’s story of Jacob
wrestling with the angel. While researching this story I came across a reference to
Rembrandt’s painting of the scene. Not surprisingly, this has been a popular subject for artists. Most depict two muscular men struggling together, one of them with wings.
Rembrandt’s painting is quite different. Far from engaging in an epic battle, the two
protagonists are almost in an embrace. One commentator says that they are dancing rather than wrestling. The angel looks at Jacob with compassion and love, while Jacob reluctantly turns to look at his assailant. This struggle is not about overcoming or being overcome. It is about being loved by God and about the transformed identity that God’s love brings. Its outcome is a new name for Jacob and, on the next day, reconciliation with his brother.8
The uncertain and fearful Jacob is transformed by this encounter with God just as the uncertain and fearful hearers were transformed by Jesus in this morning’s gospel. Both by invitation and by gift, our identity is transformed by the God who loves us. How then will we dare not to share our table? How then will we dare to imagine that the love that transforms us is not present with others?
1 Readings: Genesis 32:22-31; Psalm 17:1-7, 16; Romans 9:1-8; Matthew 14:13-21.
2 William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act I, Scene iii, line 36.
3 See Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-13.
4 See Matthew 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-10.
5 See http://girardianlectionary.net/year_a/proper13a.htm
6 See http://www.test-cornerstone.org/
7 Gil Bailie, Violence Unveiled: Humanity at the Crossroads, pp. 212-215. New York: Crossroad, 1995.
8 See also Walter Brueggemann, http://www.thewords.com/articles/walterjacob.htm and Claire Amos, http://www.rethinkingmission.org/article_clare.htm
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 1606 – 1669
Jacob Wrestling with the Angel
Sunday, August 03, 2008
' I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you,
walk with you, and so following, but I will not eat
with you, drink with you, nor pray with you.'
The preacher continued "Does that not sound like certain Bishops who refused the invitation to Lambeth"
Hopefully the full sermon will be online in a few days and I will post more.
Sadly our Organist is leaving. Peter has just gained a position teaching music and religion at one of our leading Sydney Catholic College 'St Josephs'. He related how he asked at the interview if they were happy to have an Anglican teaching religion and they said, coming from St James, King Street he is more Catholic than the Catholics.
At the door I told our assistant priest who had just presided at the Eucharist, that I have spent 25 years teaching in Catholic schools. When I started I was an Evangelical and when I left I was an Anglo-catholic. Father John laughed and said 'At that rate Peter will cross the Tiber.'
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Occasionally I have visited the one at Circular Quay after the afternoon Symphony at the Opera House (about 4pm) because the other coffee shops nearby have closed catering mainly for the officeworker trade, are too expensive (tourist trade) or have nowhere sheltered to sit. Lately we have preferred to go without, the coffee is awful.
I did visit one at LA airport and another in the Garden District of New Orleans in 2007 and both times the experience was even worse than the Quay. "Dishwater" comes to mind.
Now they are closing 61 0f the 84 stores in Australia, sadly not the one at the Quay, I guess the tourists will keep it open.
I agree with the comments in the Herald. A nearby Gloria Jeans (my preferred chain) manager to one branch that is closing.
He said he did not expect his business to benefit from the closure of the nearby Starbucks because the customers who went there were "not interested in real coffee anyway".
and another comment from a customer
"why would you want to sit around a pretend lounge room drinking a weak and expensive coffee, when you can go around the corner and have the real thing?"
The Herald writer concluded.
In my view, the key reason that they have been so unsuccessful in Australia is their inability to adjust to local market conditions. While the company's British and Asia expansion took it to markets without strong coffee traditions, Australia, with its history of European immigration, was always going to be a test. Starbucks has been trying to sell a watered down product in one of the most sophisticated and lively coffee markets in the world.
Why I just love ordering 'un expresso" in Paris and yes, the Turkish coffee in Istanbul was heavenly. Another of the many reasons to be thankful for Australia's migration program.