|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Jensens Jensens everywhere!
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
The Ship of Fools is a place that values tolerance, diversity and Christian unrest. This is anathema to the Jensens. Is it therefore so surprising to find so many people who disagree with them?
Indeed.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
As I said, I have no intention of discussing the merits or otherwise of the brothers Jensen. I have heard Phillip speak a couple of times, Peter not at all, and I think everyone else here, atleast all the Sydney and Canberra people, seem to know more about them than I do. But I wish to reiterate that someone can agree with atleast the core of what they say and still wish to discuss and debate a whole range of issues about Christianity, Anglicanism and the like with others who have different views. If anyone wants to give particular views on why they disagree with the Jensens' views, or evangelicalism or whatever, feel free to PM me, but I don't want to enter into debates about the Jensens' particular actions as I don't really know exactly what is happening in the Sydney diocese. Other than that, hope to see you all at the Canberra meet!!
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
shareman
Shipmate
# 2871
|
Posted
Thanks, CJS. It seems that a lot of what spurs the Jensens on is a rejection of "postmodern" values. In that, I'd agree, but surely the answer is not a kind of mindless fundamentalism. I'm not saying all fundamentalists are mindless, but it IS mindless to dismiss anyone who doesn't have your particular viewpoint, and that seems to be what the Jensens are doing, IMHO. Jugular and Sine, among others, have spoken of the pain caused to those who don't share the Jensen's worldview. Surely that's not Christian behaviour.
As for mindless dismissals, I've been as guilty of that as anyone else, and maybe that's the thing, for me at least. I grew up surrounded by extreme Pentecostals, and developed an intense loathing for that kind of "Christianity." It's only through places like the Ship that I have begun to ditch that anti-fundamentalist, anti-evangelical bigotry. I alway felt kind of smug that we Anglicans didn't behave like that. The Jensens force me to be less smug, since we obviously DO behave like that, at least in some quarters. Maybe they ARE doing God's work after all, if forcing people, at least me, to stop being smug is God's work. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) All the same, surely the issue is tolerance, which, despite my tattered smugness, is a virtue I've always thought the Anglican Church was strong on, at least on the surface.
--------------------
Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob was a stranger in the land of Ham.
Posts: 516 | From: on a rock AND a hard place | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
boofhead
Shipmate
# 4478
|
Posted
Well I am one Christian who has benefited from the faithful ministry of both Peter and Philip over a long period of time. I have heard both of them speak many times and I would like to add some balance.
1. Philip and Peter stand firmly in one tradition of the anglican church - the evangelical one, one that has been there in the Anglican Church since the time of the reformation. And yes we have always been awkward devils. Sola Scriptura, Sola Fidei, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus and to reflect their reformed understanding of the Bible, Soli Deo Gloria, or for us boofheads that dont speak latin and prefer to speak in their own tongue, Scripture alone, Faith alone, Grace alone, Christ alone for the glory of God alone. Putting it simply no other way to God the Father except through Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible..... This forms the basis for their understanding of the world and our place in it.
2. Philip is much more blunt than Peter when he speaks publicly. But despite the claims of many objecters, he is not preoccupied with illicit sex or women's ordination or the heresies of Hillsong or..... Since they are both committed to expository preaching and teaching the whole Bible as God's word, there are times when they will speak against sex outside marriage, or women's ordination or.. But I have also heard Philip preaching against materialism and advocating a vote for the Labor Party because of the injustices he saw in some Liberal Party policies. And Peter also came out very publicly in opposition to the government's refugee policy because of the way he understood the Bible.
At the same time, if someone can persuade them from the Bible that they are wrong, then they will go back to the Bible to work out if they have misunderstood it. I saw Philip modify his understanding of some passages over many years when he was persuaded that he had not properly understood it in the first place. Similarly there were times when he made it clear as he was teaching the Bible that this was only his opinion or where he set out the diferent options. e.g. the somewhat difficult eschatalogical passages in the Gospels.
They are both happy for people to challenge them. But if they are to be challenged, then they expect to be challenged using the Bible as the basis for argument. Discussions and question times with both of them tend to be rigorous and vigorous.
3. The blunt public image they present is not what you get when you speak to them personally. In private, they are compassionate when they need to be and they will speak the truth in love when they need to (e.g. when some married bloke needs a good kick up the butt)
4. The Anglican denomination is not the church. There are local churches as representatives of God's church on earth and there is the Church of God which is the gathering of all Christians, but the Anglican denomination is not the church.
Posts: 111 | From: Sydney | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
boofhead, your post indicates that you have a strong personal admiration for theJensen Bros which admirable as this might be, does not make a good argument either for effective evangelisation or for effective pastoral care of those outside the group of male theological students. Who kicks the female butts, I wonder?
It also implies that in expecting "the bible" to be used in a reference point in any debate that any non-"biblle based" issue is simply not open to debate. That effectively knocks out any debate with any individual who is not "bible-believing". This rather limits what either cleric is prepared to discuss.Your use of the the adverbs "rigorously and vigorously" gives a strong impression of tacts which could verge on the bullying i.e. "I'm right and you're not".
A case in point is the recent vandalising of the altar in St Andrew's Cathedral; I understand that the Dean holds that it is not an "altar" but a "holy table" and that there is "no sacrifice" necessary since Christ has already died for our sins. Well, hello! What about "Do this in memory of me" that sin might be forgiven? This amounts to denial of sacrament.
Finally, as to your assertion that the Anglican Church is not"the church"-well, every Bible-believing RC knows the answer to that("thou art Peter" etc)!
m (ever unimpressed and unconvinced)
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
I know nothing about the Jensens other than what I've read on these boards. On the basis of what I've seen I would say that I admire their commitment to mission, and its success in terms of church growth in their diocese which appears very much against the trend in Australia (and the rest of the Western world).
But I would certainly not endorse everything they say or do. And they would probably regard me - a charismatic who supports women's ordination - as a liberal!
But Junior Fool is right. I don't see much difference between the intolerance of the Jensens and the intolerance regularly displayed on these boards towards evangelicals. Many of the liberals who preach tolerance rarely practice it (and you know who you are Mike).
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
greenhouse
Shipmate
# 4027
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
A case in point is the recent vandalising of the altar in St Andrew's Cathedral; I understand that the Dean holds that it is not an "altar" but a "holy table" and that there is "no sacrifice" necessary since Christ has already died for our sins. Well, hello! What about "Do this in memory of me" that sin might be forgiven? This amounts to denial of sacrament.
What do you mean by 'vandalising of the altar'?. I have read this thread previously, then re-read it now and can find nothing that this could refer to. Do you mean the use of individual cups? Or possibly a reduction in communion services?
Posts: 94 | From: North West | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
I think the reference is to putting it on wheels so it can be moved in and out as needed.
I suppose the next step is for it to be "needed" less and less.
As for boofhead's summary of their views as "no other way to God the Father except through Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible" -- hell, even I believe that. There must be something else going on there.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
CJS, thankyou for providing a balance. The (to my mind) intolerant attitudes I outlined are clearly on record, both in the words and actions of Peter and Phillip, and thus not "outrageous and unsubstantiated".
What's more, I personally respect the right of the individual to hold these views if they so wish. I am grateful that the Jensens and Jensenists show tolerance and respect in the context of informed debate. However that still doesn't excuse the pain that has been caused to those who DON'T agree with them.
I think particularly of the Central Coast, Bathurst and Orange parishes told that they don't preach the gospel. The Cathedral congregation who have had their liturgical style destroyed arbitrarily. The women whose ministry has been derided and declared invalid. The Anglo-catholic clergy and parishes who have been treated like corrupt heathens.
The Ship of Fools is a place that values tolerance, diversity and Christian unrest. This is anathema to the Jensens. Is it therefore so surprising to find so many people who disagree with them?
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jugular:
CJS, thankyou for providing a balance. The (to my mind) intolerant attitudes I outlined are clearly on record, both in the words and actions of Peter and Phillip, and thus not "outrageous and unsubstantiated".
What's more, I personally respect the right of the individual to hold these views if they so wish. I am grateful that the Jensens and Jensenists show tolerance and respect in the context of informed debate. However that still doesn't excuse the pain that has been caused to those who DON'T agree with them.
I think particularly of the Central Coast, Bathurst and Orange parishes told that they don't preach the gospel. The Cathedral congregation who have had their liturgical style destroyed arbitrarily. The women whose ministry has been derided and declared invalid. The Anglo-catholic clergy and parishes who have been treated like corrupt heathens.
The Ship of Fools is a place that values tolerance, diversity and Christian unrest. This is anathema to the Jensens. Is it therefore so surprising to find so many people who disagree with them?
Apologies for blank post, its been a long day.
Just a couple of points. I reckon that we need to be a little bit careful speaking in blanket terms like 'Jensenites' and then associating one or both of the Jensen brothers with any and every foolish or inadvised thing that an evangelical in Sydney says or does. So for example Peter Jensen has no involvement in the church plants mentioned above and Philip Jensen has only only a limited role in some of them and neither were responsible for comments reported on the Central Coast regarding 'gospel preaching'. In the same vein we need to recognise that the rejection of an opponents position does not involve a wholesale dismissal of the opponent. Peter's concerns regarding anglo-catholicism's role in pursuit of the objectives of the diocese may cause offence but does not mean that he considers anglo-catholics 'corrupt heathens'or Anglo-catholic theology totally and utterly devoid of merit. It was Peter Jensen who taught me that your first reading of someones position should be as charitable and empathetic as possible (I'm still working on that one).
Secondly I accept that some of their views, and the fact that they act in a way consistent with those views upset people who hold contradictory views. That 'pain' is always going to happen when people disagree. We all hold views that cause others 'pain' when we express them or act on them. That doesn't make us intolerant. Intolerance is trying to silence the one who I disagree with.
The pain we can avoid is the pain that we inflict from carelessly chosen words (I don't mean Jugular specifically). When I read on this board that I am a fundy, ignorant, intolerant, stupid, a philistine, arrogant, a tamborine waving, bad-chorus-singing barbarian blah blah blah, because I am an evangelical from Sydney does the nasty,black emotional reaction I have count as pain? There was a time that I would have described myself as a liberal and believed things that I cringe to think of today. At that time I came contact with a bunch of dyed in the wool 'Jensenites'. I remember saying the most outrageous things about the authority of scripture to one of them (a Moore College student to boot!) and getting nothing in response but a series of polite questions that led me to see how much rubbish I was speaking. It was only years later when I had begun to think of myself as an evangelical that I found people rubbishing my beliefs and dismissing my faith with contempt. My point is not that all evangelicals are sweetness and light, just that if nothing else a 'trip down amnesia lane' on these boards is enough to show that they are in general no more guilty than anyone else.
Sorry that got a bit twisted and longwinded.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
It was Peter Jensen who taught me that your first reading of someones position should be as charitable and empathetic as possible (I'm still working on that one).
Why doesn't this come through regularly? Why are we presented with a silent blank wall? Why will the Jensens refuse to engage in discussion? - if they are as empathetic as you claim them to be?
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Well, I've just finished watching the SBS special on the Jensens, specifically Phillip.
I am pleased to say that Phillip appeared almost human! What struck me most, though, was the way he could have gone entirely the other way. What I mean is, if at a young age another belief system with its own internal logic had converted him, he would just as vociferously defend that.
The other thing that surprised me was his statement that he would rather die than celebrate the mass. Now, I am not a huge fan of RC sacramental theology, and I can understand why an individual would not want to understand the Eucharist in this way. But am I take this as another assertion that RC's are "sub-Christian"? Similarly, his statements about the Anglican church being a rubber band that can only stretch so far before it breaks also suggested that there is only one legitimate version of Christianity.
What most disturbed me, however, was his seemingly constant assertion that he was a prophet, and his argument that prophets do not have honour in their own time. I mean, really? Surely a prophet does need to make these arguments about him/herself? It sounded quite melodramatic and pathetic for a grown man to be constantly moaning about how everyone's out to get him. Maybe they are, but he just undermines himself by his constant harping on about how the world wants to bring him down. I personally wanted to reach into the telly and tell to get the f*ck over it!
Any other thoughts? The link to the transcipt will be up soon, so I'll post a link.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
I watched some of the same program and I have to say I agree with Jugular that Phillip has a bad habit of saying how much he is persecuted before anyone has even said anything about him and it is very annoying. Not sure how the program made him seem more human, he seemed his normal self or perhaps more antagonistic than usual, but perhaps you have had particularly bad experiences of him in the past and he seemed more human by comparison. I found Peter to be impressive as usual though.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
quote:
It was Peter Jensen who taught me that your first reading of someones position should be as charitable and empathetic as possible (I'm still working on that one).
Why doesn't this come through regularly? Why are we presented with a silent blank wall? Why will the Jensens refuse to engage in discussion? - if they are as empathetic as you claim them to be?
I am honestly perplexed by the idea that we are 'presented with a silent blank wall', at least as far as Peter is concerned. Every time I turn on the radio he's talking to some journalist. Every time I turn on the TV while eating breakfast he seems to be talking to Steve Lieberman debating this or that. When he was principal of Moore College he let an ABC camera crew roam around the place and agreed to be interviewed for the ABC interview despite the fact that he was in England on leave at the time. When he was elected AB he was on TV being interviewed responding to all the usual questions (women's ministry, the Bible, the anglican communion etc).
I'm guessing, but as I believe that you attend the Cathederal, Philip may be more on your mind. Can I make a suggestion? If you have concerns with his approach or theology, why not ask for an appointment to have coffee with him and discuss your concerns one-to-one and see what happens?
BTW I've just seen the Insight thing and was pretty underwhelmed by the quality of the piece in general, from the poor quality filming, to the shallow 'same old, same old, treatment of issues. As an example, I thought that the 'death rather than mass' thing was pretty striking, but the journalist went nowhere with it, no attempt to explore what could elicit such a strong statement. I though the same thing with the bit regarding Peter's conversion at the 50's Billy Graham crusade. That had the potential to give us an interesting insight but it just sort of hung there and we moved on. I may not like the way the ABC covers Sydney Anglicanism, but they certainlly have a a higher level of journalistic skill and stronger production values.
BTW(2) is it just my jaundiced evangelical view or is it fact that every time they have the obligatory 'liberal' bishop on these pieces they seem a) angry or b) dismissive or c)both? They never smile! This time I was especially touched that I am 'not a thinking person'. But there you go.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
I'm guessing, but as I believe that you attend the Cathederal, Philip may be more on your mind. Can I make a suggestion? If you have concerns with his approach or theology, why not ask for an appointment to have coffee with him and discuss your concerns one-to-one and see what happens?
I have.
It doesn't work.
Nothing changes.
Except for things he wants to change.
And then nothing gets in his way.
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from CJS quote:
Every time I turn on the TV while eating breakfast he seems to be talking to Steve Lieberman debating this or that. When he was principal of Moore College he let an ABC camera crew roam around the place and agreed to be interviewed for the ABC interview despite the fact that he was in England on leave at the time. When he was elected AB he was on TV being interviewed responding to all the usual questions (women's ministry, the Bible, the anglican communion etc).
But does he talk to the people in his diocese who are unhappy about some of his decisions?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Moo, these blokes don't talk "to" or "with" their flock, they talk "at".
Dialogue is not a Jensen strong point.
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
CJS, firstly, I do NOT attend the Cathedral, for which I am immensely grateful. People in there are very very upset about what Philip is doing. Last night one congregational member was telling me with tears in her eyes how X, Y and Z (whom I knew) now have severe health problems and deep unhappiness as a result of the ongoing stress. She said the atmosphere in at the cathedral during services is oppressive, and it is intensely distressing. The Dean has failed to understand that many of those at the Cathedral flocked there originally because his brother's disciples were forcing them out of their own parishes; many people went into the cathedral because it offered a traditional style service with moderate evangelical theology, while their parish churches were instituting calvinism in its extremist form and guitars and drums - without any concession to those who had been in the parish for 30 something years.
For the Dean to therefore go on changing things in the way he has and is, is committing a grave pastoral crime (in my opinion). *sigh* But I suppose it's fruitless for me to argue with you: if you love the Jensens and fall willingly at their knees you will not be able to hear alternate points of view - or at least, that has been the majority of my experience.
I tell you, if I were in at the Cathedral today, Philip would not be able to sleep for the amount of things I would have to say. I'd be leading the opposition to his changes. But I am not in there, and do not have to face first hand the distress of what he's up to.
Secondly, you said:
quote:
talking to some journalist
Talking to journalists does not mean he is answering them or engaging with them, nor does it mean he is actually getting to the heart of issues. Recently one of the Jensens was interviewed on 2BL following the congregational meeting. He made no attempt to engage with the questions the interviewer was posing but instead effectively gave a gospel spiel saying "Unless you are a Christian you can't understand what is going on," with the implication that the interviewer had no hope of understanding the situation in at the cathedral. It is a simple situation: a new, radical, fundamentalist, evangelical minister has arrived at a new parish, and he immediately starts destroying the fabric of the services without regard to the congregation. And in this case, it's not JUST a parish but a Cathedral, and people expect things of a cathedral.
This to me is stonewalling.
We have invited the archbishop to our parish on several occasions. And he has declined each time. He refuses to be involved in ecumenical or interfaith discussions. Apparently the Dean will listen to people's complaints - but he ignores them and does his own thing without offering a reason for his actions or pastoral comfort and support for those feeling grieved by the changes.
If this isn't stonewalling, I don't know what you would call it... being tyrannous?
[Actually I don't understand this full on bull-in-a-china-shop approach. The Jensens have been so patient and insidious over the past 30 years; why would they ruin it all by a lack of diplomacy? All the changes Philip has made at the Cathedral could have been made one by one over a series of several years, and the resulting tension dealt with. The congregation probably would have been more receptive of this sort of approach too. I wonder whether this is showing that Philip is not, as the Archbishop his brother asserted, "the best man for the job"... What works in a parish, does not necessarily work at the cathedral level...]
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Insight transcript (last story on page)
As other posters have said, I had a range of feelings.
Far too short and, as CJS said, whenever it seemed it was getting somewhere (such as the removal of "catholic" things; the "I'll never celebrate a Catholic Mass") the topic changed far too quickly.
As jugular and junior fool said, the "a prophet is persecuted" line grated on me a bit: a bit too much faith and belief in oneself for me.
Interesting to here ++Peter say:
quote:
I thought his language [in a sermon] was a bit overblown myself, speaking technically as another preacher but he fundamentally is right.
I do see a fundamental difference between the way the two preach. We had ++Peter come to our church for our 120th anniversary last year and he (to me) got in his point across in a calm and non-threatening way. Philip Jensen (the times I have heard him) was a lot stronger in language.
Overall I thought it was interesting (and as jugular said showed a more personable side to him), but far too short.
CJS, not sure if the non-evangelical (I won't say liberal) speakers are always dismissive and non-smiling, but I always notice they are in the priestly garments while the evangelicals are in suits!!! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
magnum mysterium
Shipmate
# 3418
|
Posted
From the transcript:
REPORTER: What is it about relativism that irks you?
quote:
THE VERY REFEREND PHILLIP JENSEN: Well, relativism that irks me? Amongst other things, it's stupid. I don't really like being stupid. I kind of fight against it all the time, really. REPORTER: What is it about relativism that irks you?
THE VERY REFEREND PHILLIP JENSEN: Well, relativism that irks me? Amongst other things, it's stupid. I don't really like being stupid. I kind of fight against it all the time, really.
Well, that's a real demonstration of their reason, isn't it! Wow, gosh, such astonishing scholarship and erudition!
And later he asserts that:
quote:
THE VERY REFEREND PHILLIP JENSEN: The Holy Spirit transforms and changes people. The touch of God is the love of one another, not the transportation of my senses into another realm.
(in relation to music). Well, at least he acknowledges the power of music to transport one's senses. But ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 3095 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Toby
Shipmate
# 3522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:
From the transcript:
REPORTER: What is it about relativism that irks you?
quote:
THE VERY REFEREND PHILLIP JENSEN: Well, relativism that irks me? Amongst other things, it's stupid. I don't really like being stupid. I kind of fight against it all the time, really. REPORTER: What is it about relativism that irks you?
THE VERY REFEREND PHILLIP JENSEN: Well, relativism that irks me? Amongst other things, it's stupid. I don't really like being stupid. I kind of fight against it all the time, really.
More absurd misuse and simplification of the term 'relativism'. I get the feeling that whenever church leaders of the Jensen ilk feel the urgent need to attack something that they cannot quite define, they attack relativism and postmodernism (which are things they do not understand). Our own vicar constantly launches vague attacks on 'postmodernism', 'political correctness' and 'relativism', without ever really defining them, conveniently leaving it open to the parishoners to impose whatever little prejudices and (usually conservative) political meanings on his words and go home happy in the knowledge that God hates postmodernism.
And they oppose women's ordination? In NZ we got over that years ago, and I am glad to say some of the most competent and effective priests/deacons I know are women.
--------------------
'Civilization is only savagery silver-gilt'
Allan Quartermain
Posts: 99 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote from CJS quote:
Every time I turn on the TV while eating breakfast he seems to be talking to Steve Lieberman debating this or that. When he was principal of Moore College he let an ABC camera crew roam around the place and agreed to be interviewed for the ABC interview despite the fact that he was in England on leave at the time. When he was elected AB he was on TV being interviewed responding to all the usual questions (women's ministry, the Bible, the anglican communion etc).
But does he talk to the people in his diocese who are unhappy about some of his decisions?
Moo
He seems to spend a lot of time visiting parishes (in response to invitations). I was at a church for one of these visits and afterwards he ran an forum where the people in the pews could ask anything they wanted to and they did. Some of them raised issues where they disagreed with the AB and they discussed these things back and forth.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
I'm guessing, but as I believe that you attend the Cathederal, Philip may be more on your mind. Can I make a suggestion? If you have concerns with his approach or theology, why not ask for an appointment to have coffee with him and discuss your concerns one-to-one and see what happens?
I have.
It doesn't work.
Nothing changes.
Except for things he wants to change.
And then nothing gets in his way.
Fair enough, but surely it suggests that he does not 'refuse to engage in discussion'?
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
But I suppose it's fruitless for me to argue with you: if you love the Jensens and fall willingly at their knees you will not be able to hear alternate points of view
I haven't finished reading your post, but I'm not sure what I've done to deserve this sort of hubris.
[fixed code]
[ 14. June 2003, 15:58: Message edited by: Scot ]
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Admiral Holder:
CJS, not sure if the non-evangelical (I won't say liberal) speakers are always dismissive and non-smiling, but I always notice they are in the priestly garments while the evangelicals are in suits!!!
The funny thing is most of the evangelicals wouldn't wear a suit to church on Sunday, they put them on for the TV or the cathedral.
[fixed code]
[ 14. June 2003, 15:58: Message edited by: Scot ]
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean
Shipmate
# 51
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
I'm guessing, but as I believe that you attend the Cathederal, Philip may be more on your mind. Can I make a suggestion? If you have concerns with his approach or theology, why not ask for an appointment to have coffee with him and discuss your concerns one-to-one and see what happens?
I have.
It doesn't work.
Nothing changes.
Except for things he wants to change.
And then nothing gets in his way.
Fair enough, but surely it suggests that he does not 'refuse to engage in discussion'?
Doesn't sound much like discussion to me.
quote:
THE VERY REFEREND PHILLIP JENSEN
If Christianity is true, I put the word 'if' in again, and I obviously believe it is, at the moment, until people persuade me otherwise, then I think other religions are in fact the deceptions of the evil one because the chief weaponry of Satan, according to the Bible, is lies.
Wonderful piece of logic that:
my religion is (assumed to be) right => other religions are wrong [ok, not too bad so far]
=> other religions are lies [iffy logic step 1]
Bible says that a weapon of Satan is lies [assumption]
Therefore other religions are the deceptions of Satan [completly bollocks logic step 2]
--------------------
"So far as the theories of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain; so far as they are certain, they are not about reality" - Einstein
Posts: 1085 | From: A very long way away | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
But I suppose it's fruitless for me to argue with you: if you love the Jensens and fall willingly at their knees you will not be able to hear alternate points of view
I haven't finished reading your post, but I'm not sure what I've done to deserve this sort of hubris.
I should have phrased it better CJS: if one is a devoted admirer of the Jensens it is difficult to see other points of view. I didn't mean it as personally and discreetly applicable to you, but I recognise that the context, wherein I was addressing you personally, was misleading. Sorry.
[fixed quoted code]
[ 14. June 2003, 15:59: Message edited by: Scot ]
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shareman
Shipmate
# 2871
|
Posted
"THE VERY REVEREND PHILLIP JENSEN: The Holy Spirit transforms and changes people. The touch of God is the love of one another, not the transportation of my senses into another realm."
I beg your pardon? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) The touch of God IS, for me, about transporting my senses into another realm. Worship lifts my senses up to something higher. What a mundane view of God, IMHO!
--------------------
Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob was a stranger in the land of Ham.
Posts: 516 | From: on a rock AND a hard place | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
boofhead
Shipmate
# 4478
|
Posted
Multipara. I must apologise fopr my slowness in replying. You said
quote:
boofhead, your post indicates that you have a strong personal admiration for theJensen Bros which admirable as this might be, does not make a good argument either for effective evangelisation or for effective pastoral care of those outside the group of male theological students. Who kicks the female butts, I wonder?
What is effective evangelisation? I would say that at the most elementary level, it is that the gospel is proclaimed clearly. This means that it doesn't matter whether you are part of a church of 1500 or part of a church of 20 because in the end it is not about numbers. It is Christians faithfully living and proclaiming the good news about Jesus. And here we have to acknowledge that people are different. Some people are awkward. Some are rude. And some have great people skills along with a love for Jesus and a boldness to speak that allows God to work through them to bring many different people to relationship with Jesus. There were and are both at St Matthias. But God worked through all of them to bring people into relationship with Jesus.
Beleive it or not, butt kicking of women at Matthias is generally done by women. The pastoral care of the women is generally done by women just as the pastoral care and butt kicking of men is done by men. Sometimes the senior male leaders would be involved in the pastoral care of women but generally it was only for very serious or very provate issues. This could be anyone from a friend (such as the friend who smacked me around the head for my insensitivity when my wife was pregnant for the first time) to a Bible study group leader to one of the paid staff workers to the congregation's pastor.
In the Matthias context it generally worked reasonably well. Not always but generally. People did slip through the cracks. Leaders did not always have the time, the energy or they were just too lazy to follow people up as they should. Sometimes people did not want to be contacted. But generally, people looked after each other fairly well.
quote:
It also implies that in expecting "the bible" to be used in a reference point in any debate that any non-"biblle based" issue is simply not open to debate. That effectively knocks out any debate with any individual who is not "bible-believing". This rather limits what either cleric is prepared to discuss.Your use of the the adverbs "rigorously and vigorously" gives a strong impression of tacts which could verge on the bullying i.e. "I'm right and you're not".
Am I allowed to say that you had to see it work. I don't like public confrontation. I rarely asked questions in one of the public question times. But this was not the only forum in which you could ask questions. You could also ask them privately after a service or one of the feedback cards or by email or.... When I used the words rigorously and vigorously, I wanted to give the idea that the question times involved participation, not only by Philip or one of the other pastors giving the sermon, it also involved the congregation. The congregational members were quite capable of challenging what was being said. And correcting the preacher where necessary. In the years that I heard Philip teach, I saw him treating people with respect as they asked him questions, often with far more respect than they showed him. At any rate it was assumed that where the Bible spoke, we treated it seriously.
In doing my job, I don't look to the Bible as the definitive source of information on the propagation of waves in transmission lines. But I would look to it as the definitive source in describing how I should treat my workmates and my boss. This was what was inculcated. Tradition has its place. Emotion and experience has its place. Reason has its place. But everything is placed under the authority of God's word, the Bible. Where Go speaks, we should treat it seriously.
quote:
A case in point is the recent vandalising of the altar in St Andrew's Cathedral; I understand that the Dean holds that it is not an "altar" but a "holy table" and that there is "no sacrifice" necessary since Christ has already died for our sins. Well, hello! What about "Do this in memory of me" that sin might be forgiven? This amounts to denial of sacrament.
Obviously I need to chase down Anglican church law. From the days of the reformation in England within the Anglcian Church it has been a legal requirement that the holy table is to be movable. This is certainly the case in Sydney. It is not an altar because the sacrifice, unlike the sacrifices in the Old Testament, has been done once, for all and it is never to be repeated. I am sorry that this does not reflect a Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist, but this is not and has never been the understanding of a significant proportion of the Anglican church, including the reformers who established a protestant church in England. They believed that this was what the Bible taught. This is what is taught in our prayer book, it underlies the 39 Articles and the homilies. Our sin is not forgiven becasue we share in the sacrament of communion. Our sin is forgiven because of the atoning sacrifice of Christ in our place to bring us to God. We share in communion to remember and to remind each other of that once for all sacrifice. But communion itself does not save us. Communion does not purify us.
quote:
Finally, as to your assertion that the Anglican Church is not"the church"-well, every Bible-believing RC knows the answer to that("thou art Peter" etc)!
m (ever unimpressed and unconvinced)
So the Anglican Church is sub Christian because it is not the one founded by Peter? I am sorry but I don't believe that any denomination is the Church of God. I think denominations are man made structures. Most denominations are a historical and geographical conglomeration of churches. I believe in the local church as God's people gathering here on Earth in a particular location or because of another common interest (e.g. the congregation of God's people that meets in a small church building in Boambee or the congregation of Korean Christians meeting in Strathfield) and the Worldwide invisible church of God who will be gathered with Christ on the day he returns. I do not believe in denominations as the church of God. There are Christians in churches meeting under all sorts of denominational banners all over the world, Southern Baptists, Coptic Orthodox.... even Anglicans. Not all the people meeting in these churches are Christians. In some of them very few are Christians. Being a member of a denomination will not save them. Family relationship with Jesus because of his atoning sacrifice on their behalf will.
------------------
As ever the views expressed above are my own.
Posts: 111 | From: Sydney | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
A bit of a thread derailment, but I must say that I am sorry that the issues about styles of worship becomes such a point of disharmony within the Anglican church. Not that I think Christians should put up with error (see Lovecraft thread in Hell for my opinions) but arguing over music and clothing and the way in which sacraments are received seems to be blown way out of proportion. I don't really think that the details of such things are hugely important, which probably pushes me to the low church end of the spectrum, but I don't want to disagree with others who think differently from me. I am sorry that such minor things seem to be blown out of all proportion. As Screwtape once said, were it not for the constant efforts of he and his cohorts the different churchmanships within the C of E might be oppourtunities for humility, charity and learning by each side, instead he has managed to make it a source of envy, pride and discord.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
boofhead:
my fundamental problem with your POV is the notion that other "denominational members" may not be "Christian".
Who are you among the ministry and footsloggers of "your" denomination to judge what makes a christian?
I am at least relieved that you have conceded that being a member of a particular denomination does not guarantee salvation.
cheers ,
m (unrepentantly subchristian)
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Cantata
Shipmate
# 3304
|
Posted
Anyone got an update on the Corpus Christi School Excursion to Mother Borgia's Meeting Hall?
--------------------
Mr Cantata Signing Off
Posts: 88 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sakura
Shipmate
# 1449
|
Posted
Have read the transcript and am absolutely fuming. If he is Elijah or Moses, I am the Queen of Sheba.
He made the point of saying "I can be wrong" but everything else in the interview strongly suggests that he doesn't actually think he ever could be.
--------------------
Keep me as the apple of Your eye.
Hide me under the shadow of Your wings.
Posts: 478 | From: Melbourne | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Sakura, if you're the Queen of Sheba just be thankful that he ain't Solomon.
cheers,
m (trying to look on the bright side)
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Cantata:
Anyone got an update on the Corpus Christi School Excursion to Mother Borgia's Meeting Hall?
I and a friend are planning to be there. I will be wearing a cloak.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
*hands in the air Nunc runs screaming in fury from the room*
Seriously thinking of applying for the position of Fury in the 7th Level of Hell (or whereever it is).
Do you think I'd do ok in that job? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Just a few responses to you boofhead,
You wrote:
quote:
What is effective evangelisation? I would say that at the most elementary level, it is that the gospel is proclaimed clearly. This means that it doesn't matter whether you are part of a church of 1500 or part of a church of 20 because in the end it is not about numbers. It is Christians faithfully living and proclaiming the good news about Jesus.
Amen to that. Except that, for extremist Calvinists like Phil and Pete, you have to be proclaiming the right good news about Jesus. If your good news happens not to involve subtitutionary atonement, or the fallenness of creation or eternal damnation, then you are in error. Not just different, but wrong. This is the "evil" of relativism. It's kind of like saying every other version of Christianity is "guilty until proven innocent", that is, every belief is assessed in the light of a perceived truth, and if it doesn't hold up, it's wrong.
quote:
Beleive it or not, butt kicking of women at Matthias is generally done by women. The pastoral care of the women is generally done by women just as the pastoral care and butt kicking of men is done by men.
This is all fine and nice, bofhead, but what about those men who have received pastoral care and butt-kicking from women, both lay and ordained? Like, I dunno, ME for example. My experience of a faith community is that gender neither limits nor equips people for pastoral ministry. I can see the argument for this (to my mind) subjugation of women, but refuse to accept being told (as HAS happened) that women cannot exercise ordained leadership.
quote:
But everything is placed under the authority of God's word, the Bible.
Hang on, I do this. Or try to... I take the scriptures as supreme authority, both in the sense of being the foundation and the test of faith. Yet MY faith, to the Jensens, is liberal relativism. I study the bible hard, I read it regularly and it has shaped and informed my life. Once again, it is not a case of the authority of scripture, but understanding scripture in the "right" way. I don't, so I'm damned. It's all very nice to say that the extremist calvinists argue politely, but so what, they still come out the other end believing that they hold a monopoly on truth.
quote:
It is not an altar because the sacrifice, unlike the sacrifices in the Old Testament, has been done once, for all and it is never to be repeated. I am sorry that this does not reflect a Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist, but this is not and has never been the understanding of a significant proportion of the Anglican church, including the reformers who established a protestant church in England.
Your argument, is, of course, completely correct and based in fact. It also, of course, completely misses the point. The question at St Andrew's Cathedral is precisely the same as in the theological questions above. It is about a priest, in an abusive and authoritarian way, without a mandate from the congregation, and in a way that harms and belittles vulnerable people - imposing his version of truth with little or no regard for the faith and spirituality of others. It's the same old, "I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it" attitude. For an unelected person to waltz into a faith community and demean the identity of that community is abuse. But if you are single-mindedly intent on enforcing your version of truth, then a few tears and hurts won't really matter.
Boofhead, I value your faith and commitment to Christ. I probably disagree with you on lots of things, and you with me. I want you as part of the Anglican church because we would be poorer without you.
Oh, for the day we liberal, charismatic, anglo-catholic, relativist, progressive, conservative, radical, heretics can hear the same from the mouth of a Jensen!
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
If one more person refers to the Jensens as Calvinists I think I shall scream. Calvinists do not have alter calls and formalised sinners' prayers, are very indifferent to contemporary Christian music, have parted company with Billy Graham, and have a number of other differences with the Jensens and their mainly Arminian followers. Some Calvinists are receptive to charismatic gifts. The Jensens and Calvinism have many things in common, but also a fair number of differences, and confusing the two doesn't help the discussion.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
It is for this reason, Junior Fool (and I feel a sense of guilt about addressing you with this nomenclature) that I have used the term "extremist calvinists". For better or worse, the Jensens are MASSIVE Calvin fans.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
*sings
Tiptoe, through the T.U.L.I.Ps.....
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
Jugular I am going to change my name soon, it was just a case of "what should a newbie on ship of fools call himself until I can think of a creative name?" hence jf. Now I've passed 50 posts I really should think of something.
You missed my point: the Jensens are atbest very moderate Calvinists. They may indeed be big fans of Calvin, but many people are without being Calvinists. As your second post pointed out, the label Calvinist has, for better or worse, come to mean one who adheres to the canons of the Synod of Dort, which as far as I can tell they don't. As always, tell me if I am wrong as I haven't heard a huge amount of their teaching but what I have heard contains very little that is particularly Calvinist.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Junior Fool, thankyou for assuaging my guilt!
Thanks for your corrective point, also.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
quote:
Originally posted by CJS:
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
But I suppose it's fruitless for me to argue with you: if you love the Jensens and fall willingly at their knees you will not be able to hear alternate points of view
I haven't finished reading your post, but I'm not sure what I've done to deserve this sort of hubris.
I should have phrased it better CJS: if one is a devoted admirer of the Jensens it is difficult to see other points of view. I didn't mean it as personally and discreetly applicable to you, but I recognise that the context, wherein I was addressing you personally, was misleading. Sorry.
[fixed quoted code]
No worries, at least I got a chance to use the word 'hubris'. For what it's worth, while I would probably support many of the things that Philip is doing in his new role, I do think that the changes which he considers necessary should be made more slowly, with more discussion with the congregation. I am sorry about the way your friends are feeling.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cosmo
Shipmate
# 117
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by boofhead:
Obviously I need to chase down Anglican church law. From the days of the reformation in England within the Anglcian Church it has been a legal requirement that the holy table is to be movable. This is certainly the case in Sydney.
That may well be the case in Sydney but it is certainly not true that the 'holy table' or altar in the Church of England has to be movable. Indeed the Canons suggest the reverse is the case. Canon F2(1) says 'In every church and chapel a convenient and decent table, of wood, stone, or other suitable material, shall be provided for the celebration of the Holy Communion, and shall stand in the main body of the church or in the chancel where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said.'
That 'stand' (rather than 'be placed') certainly implies that the altar (as it is now permissible to call a holy table following the decision of the Court of Ecclesiastical Causes Reserved in re St Stephen's Walbrook) should not be movable to the extent of being trundled in and out according to the whim of the Minister.
Not only that Canon F2(2) says that 'The table, as becomes the table of the Lord, shall be kept in a sufficient and seemly manner'. Whilst what constitutes 'seemly' is open for debate, I would certainly argue that wheeling in an altar as and when one fancies its use rather in the manner of a fairground barker shouting 'Roll up! Roll up! All the fun of the fair!' is not 'seemly'.
All this, of course, now has no legal status in the Diocese of Sydney follwing several Ordinances and decisions in the Court of NSW, but if Mr Jensen is claiming English Canon Law as a back-up to his argument it ought to be refuted quickly.
Cosmo
[Fixed the One Whom Smart Girls Carry's blown code.]
[ 16. June 2003, 16:35: Message edited by: Wood ]
Posts: 2375 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
Last week it was reported that the dioceses of Canberra/Goulburn, Riverina and Bathurst have decided semi-amalgamate their admins, etc. While this has been touted as an cost-saving, entirely pragmatic/secular move, Graham Downie, respected journalist on the 'Canberra Times', suggests this morning that this is really a move to counter the growing power of the Sydney diocese, esp its church-planting activites - the development, as it were, of an alternative power-bloc. I'll try to find the link, but it was only a short article and may not be in the web edition.
Any comments?
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
magnum mysterium
Shipmate
# 3418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Christine:
Last week it was reported that the dioceses of Canberra/Goulburn, Riverina and Bathurst have decided semi-amalgamate their admins, etc. While this has been touted as an cost-saving, entirely pragmatic/secular move, Graham Downie, respected journalist on the 'Canberra Times', suggests this morning that this is really a move to counter the growing power of the Sydney diocese, esp its church-planting activites - the development, as it were, of an alternative power-bloc. I'll try to find the link, but it was only a short article and may not be in the web edition.
Any comments?
I'm sure that an 'alternative power-bloc' to the Jensens is only a minor part of the motivation for this move. I think it's a really good idea to try and consolidate the administrative rigmorale though - a case of preventing the reinvention of the wheel, as it were.
Posts: 3095 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
Yes, the alternative power bloc theory really has no merit.
The whole thing actaully grew out of the process for selecting ordinands. The original intention was that Canb-Goulburn, Bathurst, Riverina, Newcastle and Grafton would have a common selection process. This would then be saying "This person has been deemed suitable to minister in ANY of these dioceses". The three rural broad-church dioceses (although Riverina tends to be a bit further up the candle) and the Defense Force chaplaincy now have a common process called the Tri-diocesan Panel, and Newcastle and Grafton work much more closely than before, though not formally. Anglicare, insurance and lay education (including child protection) are just three other areas where it makes sense for the dioceses to centralise.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
Thanks, guys, I bow to your superior knowledge on the matter.
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
magnum mysterium
Shipmate
# 3418
|
Posted
Wow, Christine, that was one heck of a way to derail a thread! You stopped it in its tracks entirely!
Posts: 3095 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
The thread wasn't killed, it was just lying dormant until the next Jensen comes along and is appointed to some nice job in the Sydney diocese. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
