quote:

---

This pulpit - which I have been invited to occupy - stands in the centre of this great city and this great diocese.

It is a privileged opportunity for me to commence this work with you tonight.

But it is a humbling privilege - for no one is worthy or sufficient for the task. For the task is more than speaking - it is speaking the word of God. The task is not just intellectual, moral or physical - it is profoundly spiritual.

---

quote:

---

(Or maybe he didn't? Perhaps Sydney have also dispensed with the Anglican formularies regarding ordination?)

---

Yes, Coot, but you see, Word is placed before Sacrament, therefore, Word is more important than Sacrament, and Sacrament can be dispensed with.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
About the sort of level one would expect, really.

Remember that the vast bulk of Sydneysiders will regard them with contempt.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Your experience in Sydney all sounds horribly familiar - the same has been happening in England, but fortunately not in cathedrals, but in ordinary parish churches up and down the land. Sympathies.......
 

---

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Leaving aside the issue of cathedral worship I can't help thinking how convenient it is that the new dean is the bishop's brother.....
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
I like what Coot said about exclusivity vs. inclusivity. The church should exist as a non-judgmental welcome to all who will come, without imposing some sort of examination to determine whether they are worthy to enter. Judgment is the Lord's, not our own.

I was offended by the statement that other paths to God are all "deceits of Satan." I suppose that a case could be made for it, but this kind of proclamation from a cathedral dean, to whom I assume it is given to represent Christianity to the greater community, sounds very much like an aspiration to be part of a group that becomes smaller and smaller as it is more determined to keep people out, rather than invite them in to see what the church might have to offer in their lives.

On another note, did anyone else find the interminable comments of affection for Sydney a little fatuous? I perhaps have no right to say anything, but if it were about my city I would think it a bit insincere to wax quite so ecstatic about a place which is later revealed as full of those who would destroy the church and its mission.

Sorry if I seem to be shooting from the hip here, it might be that those of us truly from Oz are more entitled to comment.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

rather than invite them in to see what the church might have to offer in their lives.

---

quote:

---

By the way, Nunc, seen any new drag queens lately? Not around St Andrew's I'll bet!

---

Only Mogadona the MTV Dragqueen - we had an interesting session with "her" 2 weeks ago at a shipmeet in Paddington...
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 

quote:

---

Only Mogadona the MTV Dragqueen - we had an interesting session with "her" 2 weeks ago at a shipmeet in Paddington...

---

quote:

---

10.30am Holy Communion - Choral
Setting: Smith (Kyrie) Schubert (Sanctus)
Introit: Bourgeois Bread of the world in mercy broken
Psalm: 116:11-18
Motet: Byrd Bow thine ear

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeke:
I was offended by the statement that other paths to God are all "deceits of Satan." I suppose that a case could be made for it,

---

Yes indeed, but it is a really crap case
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 

quote:

---

Those who live in the actual parish boundaries of the Cathedral live in high-rise appartments and are predominantly of Asian descent... Good luck mate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeke:
I like what Coot said about exclusivity vs. inclusivity. The church should exist as a non-judgmental welcome to all who will come, without imposing some sort of examination to determine whether they are worthy to enter. Judgment is the Lord's, not our own.

I was offended by the statement that other paths to God are all "deceits of Satan." I suppose that a case could be made for it, but this kind of proclamation from a cathedral dean, to whom I assume it is given to represent Christianity to the greater community, sounds very much like an aspiration to be part of a group that becomes smaller and smaller as it is more determined to keep people out, rather than invite them in to see what the church might have to offer in their lives.

Sorry if I seem to be shooting from the hip here, it might be that those of us truly from Oz are more entitled to comment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:

quote:

---

Only Mogadona the MTV Dragqueen - we had an interesting session with "her" 2 weeks ago at a shipmeet in Paddington...

---

Nunc, that was my oh so subtle way of letting you know i'm online. Mid's mate Chris. Hi there.

---

*stupid Nunc*

Hi Chris, glad you signed up at last man!
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't think he cares where you go to church as long as you have faith in Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Luke, kindly remember that the Jensen Bros do not have a mortgage on Christianity.

m

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Once a month the Choir is to be replaced by the St Mathias' Singers, who will lead the worship with guitars and tambourines and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Yesterday was just awful at the Cathedral. It was easily the most bland service I have ever attended there.

---

Come back to Salford. I'm doing Evensong and Benediction at S Thomas in Lent!

Apparently the "many, lovely, wonderful Hindus, Moslems, Jews and atheists" in the city are all subject to "the monstrous lies and deceits of satan". Nice.

Well at least he left lesbians and gays out of that list.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
For the time being... *sigh*

quote:

---

Questions for Australian shipmates:

1. roughly what percentage of a) clergy and b) Anglicans in this diocese are conservative evangelicals?

2. has the above changed as a result of the Jensens, and if so how?

3. are more or less people attending the cathedral as a result of the service changes referred to?

---

1. There are about 215 parishes in SYdney. 15 of these are NOT Evangelical. A further 15 might be middle of the road. But this number is slowly decreasing. The rest are all quite rampantly Jensenite.

I would say there are more clergy than laypeople who are Jensenite. Afterall, you've got to play politics in the church.

2. Yes, it is changing on a year by year basis. Slowly parishes are being taken over by men with Jensenite beliefs: the elderly incumbant retires and a new chap is put in place. And because of the policy the Diocese now has of closed borders, whereby they will only appoint Moore College trained MEN to parishes, there really isn't much variety or choice, nor is there much consideration for the tradition of the parish. It is an out and out determination to weed out anything other than Conservative Evangelicalism. And is essentially un-Anglican in its approach.

3. This remains to be seen. I suspect he will import his cronies from St Mathias. So far he has blatantly and uncaringly walked all over the existing congregation. Proving the addage about Sydney Evangelicals not having a pastoral link in their theological system. So yes, eventually the congregation *might* grow. But at the expense of precious souls who are already there? Didn't Jesus specifically command Peter to "feed my sheep"? He didn't say, "force them to swallow the leftovers and bones from your mutton-feasts"...
 

---

Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

1. There are about 215 parishes in SYdney. 15 of these are NOT Evangelical. A further 15 might be middle of the road. But this number is slowly decreasing. The rest are all quite rampantly Jensenite.

I would say there are more clergy than laypeople who are Jensenite. Afterall, you've got to play politics in the church.

2. Yes, it is changing on a year by year basis. Slowly parishes are being taken over by men with Jensenite beliefs: the elderly incumbant retires and a new chap is put in place. And because of the policy the Diocese now has of closed borders, whereby they will only appoint Moore College trained MEN to parishes, there really isn't much variety or choice, nor is there much consideration for the tradition of the parish. It is an out and out determination to weed out anything other than Conservative Evangelicalism. And is essentially un-Anglican in its approach.

3. This remains to be seen. I suspect he will import his cronies from St Mathias. So far he has blatantly and uncaringly walked all over the existing congregation. Proving the addage about Sydney Evangelicals not having a pastoral link in their theological system. So yes, eventually the congregation *might* grow. But at the expense of precious souls who are already there? Didn't Jesus specifically command Peter to "feed my sheep"? He didn't say, "force them to swallow the leftovers and bones from your mutton-feasts"...

---

quote:

---

These statistics are amazing - what is happening to church attendance in these parishes? Liberals and Anglo-catholics are presumably leaving, Is this matched by growth via conversion/transfer from non-Anglican conservative churches? Is church attendance overall rising or falling?

---

quote:

---

What's happening in the rest of Australia - is Sydney the only diocese where this kind of thing is happening?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luke:
Operation World by Patrick Johnstone and Jason Mandryk, while providing no exact figures write on page 84 that "Evangelicals are strong in the Sydney Anglican diocese and a growing minority in the Melbourne diocese (30%)."

---

A friend who lived in Melbourne and studied at Ridley (evangelical woman priest! ) told me that the Church in Melbourne has always had 2 wings. Catholic and Evangelical. And as we all know, it takes 2 wings to fly. The Evangelical tradition has always been strong in Melbourne. I expect this 'growing minority' of 30% are the 'only true' Anglican Evangelicals, ie. the Moore College variety who have been infiltrating dioceses in Australia with their nasty church plants.

Anyone know what has become of Ridley? It used to be supportive of women's ordination to the priesthood and was the sensible Anglican Evangelical Theological College of choice.
 

---

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
Jensen's sermon does indeed contain some things that need saying (though perhaps not in the way he says them!), but as with a lot of things people like him say, you get the feeling he is not coming clean. For example, the preachers he wants us to pray for are always to be men and when he talks of the death of Christ as the basis of salvation, it's a safe bet that he means "so long as you interpret that death exactly the way I do".
Here in England, Reform behave in exactly this way....
 

---

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
So I'm still trying to figure out what the dean is wearing here I see a blue shirt, a tie and some sort of academic hood? Geneva gown?

If he's that dead against wearing vestments why is he wearing the wrong vestments. Why not wear a suit and tie and leave it at that?

Raspberry Rabbit
Postmaster
Ulan Bator, Mongolia
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
I believe he is wearing an academic gown. Which is not even appropriate, as he does have a Doctorate.
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 

quote:

---

Anyone know what has become of Ridley? It used to be supportive of women's ordination to the priesthood and was the sensible Anglican Evangelical Theological College of choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Phew, it makes me even more glad to have middle-of-the-road Anglican Bishops in England!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
1. There are about 215 parishes in SYdney. 15 of these are NOT Evangelical. A further 15 might be middle of the road. But this number is slowly decreasing. The rest are all quite rampantly Jensenite.

---

quote:

---

2. Yes, it is changing on a year by year basis. Slowly parishes are being taken over by men with Jensenite beliefs: the elderly incumbant retires and a new chap is put in place.

---

quote:

---

And because of the policy the Diocese now has of closed borders, whereby they will only appoint Moore College trained MEN to parishes, there really isn't much variety or choice, nor is there much consideration for the tradition of the parish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
IN THE INTERESTS OF ENCOURAGING THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION...

Anybody have any comments re:the following thought:

The Reformation brought with it a counter-Reformation, which was extreme, passionate, politically well organised and, at times, suggested it had a monopoly on truth. As the church globally is in a phase of New Reformation (according to many) does the Anglican Diocese of Sydney represent the vanguard of the New Counter-Reformation? If so, what role do Liberals and Anglo Catholics have to play in both these phenomena? And are we doing a good job? Are we encouraging Christian unrest or merely a retreating ghetto mentality?

Hmmmmm[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fungus:
There is actually about 270 parishes in Sydney. I don't have any hard numbers on non-evangelical parishes but 15 sounds about right. I would have thought that there were more than 15 middle of the road parishes, however.
The rest, of course, are evangelical, not Jensenite.

---

quote:

---

Not ever having been involved in the process of finding a new Rector, I'm not aware of the policy you describe but there has certainly been men from outside the diocese appointed to parishes over the last few years.

---

Our current incumbent came from Goulburn/Canberra [I think! ], so it does happen.

Admiral.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

Not ever having been involved in the process of finding a new Rector, I'm not aware of the policy you describe but there has certainly been men from outside the diocese appointed to parishes over the last few years.

---

quote:

---

There is actually about 270 parishes in Sydney. I don't have any hard numbers on non-evangelical parishes but 15 sounds about right. I would have thought that there were more than 15 middle of the road parishes, however.

The rest, of course, are evangelical, not Jensenite.

---

quote:

---

"Evangelical" to me implies someone who has evangelical views, but is happy with the Anglican church as it is, and has tolerant views of other Anglicans of differing churchmanships. This on the whole does not fit the Sydney Diocese.

---

... in the sense that it is Evangelical - without any further qualification. Yes the Sydney Diocese is Evangelicals, but it's type of Evangelicalism does not fit that held in other dioceses around Australia or the world.

I hope that didn't cause any confusion, and I am sorry if it did. I should ahve been clearer.
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
Nunc,

I am going to quote an educational icon:

Arnold Schwarzenegger in Kindergarten Cop.

"Stop Whining"

Bear in mind that I said that "in love".

My question is, how do we stop whining and start solving? What is it going to take for the minorities, the radicals, the free thinkers, the progressives, the traditionalists, the catholics, the liberationists, the liberals,the experimentals, the intellectuals, the marginalised, the silent masses and the discontented to move forward? Not just in Sydney, but around the world. Alternately, of course, we could just let the reformation die, and let the church die with it. Lets face it, ultra-fundamentalist dogma is not the way forward, and church historians of the future will laugh at the Jensens and their ilk, viewing them as bizarre historical blip.

OR...they will BE the Jensens and their ilk.

To quote another educational icon (Captain Planet)

"The Power is Yours!"

(Ok, a little excited, but you get my drift.)

Oh, and by the way, would the rectory at St Mary's be comfortable for, say, a young, single, somewhat chubby recently ordained person?
 

---

Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
To Nunc and her fellow Sydneysiders:

AAAUUUGGHHH!!

You've been added to my Lenten prayers.

If my diocese were highjacked by the Jensens, I would find my way to Rome. Where else can a Catholic Christian turn?
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
You could always go Orthodox.....

cheers,

m (shameless Roman)
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
Oh, and by the way, would the rectory at St Mary's be comfortable for, say, a young, single, somewhat chubby recently ordained person?

---

Sydney would never let a single person in, heaven forbid.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I might be naive, but here in the UK many Anglican (and other) evangelicals are becoming more open to sacramental influences. Ok, so some of it is pop faux-Celtic stuff but nevertheless ...

Are there no elements of this tendency in Sydney or Oz as a whole?

Gamaliel
 

---

Posted by Admiral Holder (# 944) on :
 
Originally posted by jugular:

quote:

---

My question is, how do we stop whining and start solving? What is it going to take for the minorities, the radicals, the free thinkers, the progressives, the traditionalists, the catholics, the liberationists, the liberals,the experimentals, the intellectuals, the marginalised, the silent masses and the discontented to move forward? Not just in Sydney, but around the world. Alternately, of course, we could just let the reformation die, and let the church die with it. Lets face it, ultra-fundamentalist dogma is not the way forward, and church historians of the future will laugh at the Jensens and their ilk, viewing them as bizarre historical blip.

OR...they will BE the Jensens and their ilk.

---

quote:

---

Are there no elements of this tendency in Sydney or Oz as a whole?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I might be naive, but here in the UK many Anglican (and other) evangelicals are becoming more open to sacramental influences. Ok, so some of it is pop faux-Celtic stuff but nevertheless ...

Are there no elements of this tendency in Sydney or Oz as a whole?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
And he has let it be known that he "wants to bring [my parish] to heel."

---

quote:

---

"Evangelical" to me implies someone who has evangelical views, but is happy with the Anglican church as it is, and has tolerant views of other Anglicans of differing churchmanships. This on the whole does not fit the Sydney Diocese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fungus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
And he has let it be known that he "wants to bring [my parish] to heel."

---

Not knowing the full conversation, it's hard to know exactly what was meant by the phrase, but from what I know of Peter Jensen I don't think that he would use it to mean that he's going to make the parish Evangelical by force.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps he's using it to remind the parish of some regulations it might have forgotten, such as the fact that the use of a chasuble has been banned in the diocese for the best part of a century.

---

I know little of Nunc's parish but I do know that they do not use the naughty, naughty chasuble or even the wicked, wicked alb. The closest you will find is a cope, I'm afraid, which seems to not be covered by the dastardly Announcements of Divine Service and Clerical Vestures Ordinance 1949. Not even that scandalous hole of popery, Christ Church St Laurence, dares to allow its ministers to don those Romish garments.

Oh well, good try. You'll have to get 'em on another point!
 

---

Posted by Fungus (# 4243) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:

My question is, how do we stop whining and start solving? What is it going to take for the minorities, the radicals, the free thinkers, the progressives, the traditionalists, the catholics, the liberationists, the liberals,the experimentals, the intellectuals, the marginalised, the silent masses and the discontented to move forward?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

quote:

---

Perhaps he's using it to remind the parish of some regulations it might have forgotten, such as the fact that the use of a chasuble has been banned in the diocese for the best part of a century.

---

I know little of Nunc's parish but I do know that they do not use the naughty, naughty chasuble or even the wicked, wicked alb. The closest you will find is a cope, I'm afraid, which seems to not be covered by the dastardly Announcements of Divine Service and Clerical Vestures Ordinance 1949. Not even that scandalous hole of popery, Christ Church St Laurence, dares to allow its ministers to don those Romish garments.

Oh well, good try. You'll have to get 'em on another point! [/QB]

---

quote:

---

In Sydney I know that there is Anglicans Together that tries to act as a counter to the ACL, but I think that it is small in number. If such an organisation can't act as a rallying point in Sydney then perhaps, for all the words of encouragement, the only thing the people listed above have in common is that they're all in the same building on Sunday.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps he's using it to remind the parish of some regulations it might have forgotten, such as the fact that the use of a chasuble has been banned in the diocese for the best part of a century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Maybe I should raise rather the issue of disrespect implied by an assistant minister getting up in thongs, shorts and an hawaiian shorts to lead a service?

---

Err, Nunc - having just left the thread about sex shops, I was somewhat taken aback by this comment, until I remembered that "thongs" are what you poor benighted Aussies call flip-flops.

In the UK - thongs are a form of underwear, not that dissimilar to a G-string. The image of these worthy Evangelical Jensenites standing up to lead worship in such attire will remain with me all today!
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
"...and an hawaiian shirt..."

(Preview Post is my friend, preview post is my friend )

quote:

---

Perhaps there is also something to be learnt from the way Evangelicals operate? For example, Australian readers should grab a book on Australian church history and ask themselves why Sydney has remained Evangelical while other once Evangelical dioceses, such as Melbourne, are no longer.

---

Do you think Evangelicals in Sydney would be utterly thrilled if a Forward in Faith parish in Melbourne sent a church plant to Sydney? Do you really think that the Diocese would welcome anglo-catholic missions/outreaches/etc?

In his trip overseas, Archbishop Jensen stated that he personally "had serious misgivings" about the ability of catholicism to "present the gospel" with clarity. If he really thinks like that, then there is no hope for us, no hope of real dialogue, and little hope that he would understand where we are coming from. [Some catholic parishes have decided to work with the Archbishop's 10% Mission goal thing; I think that to follow the prescriptions the Archbishop set down compromises those parishes' spirituality... Having said that, I also think that we should be working with the Archbishop to "win souls" or however else you want to put it, but that we should be using means that are consonant with our theology and spirituality.]

Melbourne has always been more moderate than Sydney. Partly because it was gentrified, while Sydney has always had a convict chip on its shoulder. And why should everyone be Evangelical?

At the time the colonies were being founded, the Oxford Movement was spreading great influence "back home". This caused problems in Sydney; Melbourne had far fewer problems IIRC. William Broughton, the first (and only) Bishop of Sydney (it was soon made into an Archdiocese), was a high churchman, who constantly had trouble and grief from the predominantly staunchly Evangelicals who made up the large proportion of public officials. This was the only chance anglo-catholicism got - and its adherents blew it by converting to Rome. This caused a huge scandal. And the very anglo-catholic theological college at St James' King St was closed. [If it had remained open, one wonders if Sydney might have ended up like Melbourne, with a more catholic seminary and a more evangelical seminary.]

The fledgling synod ensured its next Archbishop was Evangelical... And so Evangelicalism was here to stay.

The development of things in the Diocese of Melbourne was quite different, because of the class of people who settled there, and also because there doesn't seem to have been the same hatred of catholicism in Melbourne as there is in Sydney. There are a greater number of Anglo-Catholic places in Melbourne, and a greater number of moderate Evangelicals who are happy to use the chasuble and have candles on the altar. (Which is being standard middle of the road for the Anglican Communion these days.)
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Sir Ian Turbot (related by his marriage to my father's late 1st cousin) and the last Colonial governor of Grenada is the only Sidneysider I know of (and he no longer works for HM government, but is an 'efficiency expert' with a worldwide consultancy). Wonder what he thinks of the Jensen brothers? As Zeke said, it seems their actions make for a smaller, meaner, less welcoming Church! I am glad they are not in the US because I have relatives who are C of E!
 

---

Posted by Hieronimus of Kensington (# 3273) on :
 
I was interested in Nunc's comment about St Jude's at Randwick. There is obviously something going/gone on here that I know nothing about (but that doesn't surprise me).

I find all this single brush stroke stuff very confusing. The church I attend would (IMHO) call itself low church evangelical but it does not follow the "Jensen line" uncritically. We recently had a sermon on baptism in which the Rector referred to 'effective signs'. Most of my Anglican friends wouldn't know where that phrase came from. I think he refers to himself as a dinosaur (because he's a sacramentalist). There seem to be so few left in the Anglican church. Which political party should I join?

I have good friends who attend the 'naughty' churches - on both sides! And we share warm fellowship together. I shudder at the 'mainline' view of colourful liturgical form but I also rejoice at the idea of my beloved Anglican church seeking to look outward into my community with the wonderful news of Jesus.

Enough rambling - I don't fit in I know. I'll talk to anyone who is prepared to call Jesus "Lord" even if they can't draw "2 ways to live" or hand me their baptism certificate, or speak in tongues...

I love this website and I love the range of views expressed. I love my church and I'm enjoying the struggle to work out what 10% means.

I still don't know which party to join - I am spectacularly unaligned.
 

---

Posted by Hieronimus of Kensington (# 3273) on :
 
Did Nunc mean Randwick or could it have been Pagewood? Just wondering...
 

---

Posted by Icarus Coot (# 220) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Not even that scandalous hole of popery, Christ Church St Laurence, dares to allow its ministers to don those Romish garments.

Oh well, good try. You'll have to get 'em on another point!

---

MW style tangent:

I have a priest friend who was a parishioner at the abovementioned shameful den of Papism in the 50s and he tells me that while the Romish rags were never worn to celebrate, each year the statue of Jesus in the Easter Garden was decked out in a sumptious Gothic Chasuble. (He also was part of the processions down to the Parish boundaries with double thurifers to sanctify the Cathedral).

Plates below from the Book: John Hope of Christ Church, St Lawrence by L.C. Rodd, Alpha Books: Sydney, 1972.

Faith of our Fathers, living yet
The enemy advances up George St
 

---

Posted by Icarus Coot (# 220) on :
 
If I may quickly add: they did sing 'Faith of Our Fathers' when they arrived. There were some interesting characters at the Cathedral, for, after they turned it around there was one gentleman who refused to enter through the East doors ('the laity shouldn't be in the sanctuary') and would turn his chair around and face East for the whole service.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
Hieronimous, you must know more than me... Church gossip is not always reliable... Not that I would listen to it. *puts hands over ears* ...

Basically I understood that there were some issues where the more Jensen-happy in the parish wanted to push something through which was at odds with the prevailing attitude of the parish.

I take my hat off to St Judes, both because of its support of women's ministry (at one time didn't you have a female assistant? - no I am not thinking of St James' King St - this was before Susanne Pain ever set foot in the diocese), and because of its moderation...

How are the bells going?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Nunc, if

quote:

---

In his trip overseas, Archbishop Jensen stated that he personally "had serious misgivings" about the ability of catholicism to "present the gospel" with clarity.

---

quote:

---

It makes me very sad that he thinks there's only one "valid" or "clear" way of "preaching" the gospel...

---

AMEN to that, sista!

I think this comes to the very heart of the matter: prescriptive belief systems which are exclusive must consistently defend their prescription and enforce their exclusivity.

There is one further problem, though. And this, too, is key.

Anglo-Catholics and liberals in the Anglican church are concerned about diversity in unity, concerned about tolerance, concerned about respecting divergent points of view, concerned about progressive new ways of christian expression. Morally, they are simply on a different playing field to the Jensenites, whose concern is to enforce their version of truth, no matter what the casualties.

Frankly, it is a kind of spiritual terrorism. At risk of sounding contentious or melodramatic, the Jensenite model is one which would quite cheerfully fly metepahorical planes into the twin towers of free, progressive faith, and have their extremist faction praise them, while the rest of the world is repulsed. They thrive under a perceived persecution from the world, the media, liberals or whoever, and whip their followers into a frenzy of hatred. Every criticism causes them to grow stronger, their following, though small, becomes more fervent. Any increase in number or influence is exaggerated, and anyone who disagrees is made a pariah, and thus new enemies emerge.

Of course, the worst thing for the rest of us to do would be to declare a "War on Terror", because it would simply make them more fervent, more insulated, more rabid.

I suggest the greatest good can be achieved by doing our thing well! A revitalising of education, evangelism, social justice involvement, liturgy and pastoral care in the non-Jensenite parishes. An loud, effective lobbying faction. Frankly, we may have to do things which might be offensive to traditional Anglican thinking - like church plants, sponsoring alternative university ministry, encouraging the presence of the best scholars, preachers and enablers in the diocese, using the media to spread the idea that not all Anglicans are Jensenite, and so on.

OK, I've had my rant. Any more and I'll be sent to hell.
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
btw, ....Kensington, I could hand you my baptism certifcate (I needed it three years ago when I became Catholic - my sister had to be baptized in to the RC faith because she was not CHRISTIAN).
I do wish The Holy Father would change his mind in one area: married priests. A very large pool of priests today is widowers with adult children. This is a sad state of affairs because most well-adjusted young Catholic men who like girls get married instead of seeking vocations. Another source is Anglican converts (at least in the US). However I agree with everything else the Vicar of Christ has stated publicly.
 

---

Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 
Sounds like Jensen is a very conservative evangelical (i.e. reformed, anti-women priests etc). What are his relationships like with charismatic evangelicals - or do they all go to Hillsongs and similar churches?
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 

quote:

---

What are his relationships like with charismatic evangelicals - or do they all go to Hillsongs and similar churches?

---

to the best of my knowledge, there has been a concerted effort in Sydney to clamp down on anything that might vaguely be called charismatic. Certainly, charismatics do not receive favoured heirarchical positions and are definitely treated as outsiders. ALPHA, for example, is not smiled upon in the diocese, instead an almost identical program called "Lifeworks" is run. It is essentially ALPHA without the charimatic bits. In fact, at the flagship church of St Matthias Centennial Park, there is a very strong thrust against such unforgivable sins as prophecy, speaking in tongues, baptism in the holy spirit etc. "Cursillo", the Anglican/Catholic charismatic movement is strong in the surrounding liberal/anglo-catholic dioceses, but is effectively banned in Sydney. Another example of "My way, or the highway!"

There are a fair number of evangelical Anglicans who have decamped to ACC (Australian Christian Churches, a pentecostal conglomerate, a larger denomination than Anglicanism in actual attendance) because they feel threatened by the prevailing attitude towards charismatic Christians. What's more, most chrismatics have a healthy understanding of women's ministry, and are thus not sufficiently "bible-believing" to be "True Christians".

Relations between Hillsong-like churches and the Sydney diocese are more or less non-existent at a decision-making level and their events and courses are not advertised or encouraged. This is partly because of the "prosperity theology" divide, but even moderate charismatics are in the same boat.

Thankyou for raising the issue of charismatics. It is a factor that can sometimes be ignored/forgotten by non-caros like myself.

 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Better yet, is the Rev Philip's description of the RCC as a "sub-christian" sect in a slim volume he co-authored back in 1991. St Mathias is a block away from St Frank's and on the few occasions he and his flock were invited over (along with the ministers and parishioners of the local UCA and Lutheran churches)the Rectory door was slammed in the face of the inviters. I have suggested he be invited over to preach on or about March 21, but I suspect that Cranmer himself would be a crypto-catholic to the Jensen boys and their ilk.

I have noted some slightly smug references in the local Press as well as on these boards to the fast growth of the ACA in Sydney, as well as to the (relative) youth of the adherents. Certainly the Jensenites are a presence on the University campuses, although they appear to be taken more seriously at the University of New South Wales (close to St Mathias which is the uni's de facto chaplaincy)than at my alma mater, Sydney U. I would not mind betting that there are more disaffected Jensenites of 25 plus than the boasters care to admit.

Perhaps if the good brethren wish to have a lifelong hold on their converts they could take a few lesson's from Escriva's mob.

just a thought,

m
 

---

Posted by Lucy H (# 3570) on :
 
meanwhile here in enlightened Perth[ W.A.] our dean is so busy telling us what not to believe that hardly anything remains. Now there's no such thing as sin apparently.Certainly my experience of worship that the cathedral was that the congregation was actually superflous. I am tempted by 'a plague on both their houses'but being christian and it being lent would content myself by knocking their heads together.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Jeez, Lucy, it sure beats being told ad nauseam what IS a sin. At least your dean is working on the not unreasonable premise that his flock can think....
 

---

Posted by CJS (# 3503) on :
 
How do you spell de ja vu?

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
I have noted some slightly smug references in the local Press as well as on these boards to the fast growth of the ACA in Sydney, as well as to the (relative) youth of the adherents. Certainly the Jensenites are a presence on the University campuses, although they appear to be taken more seriously at the University of New South Wales (close to St Mathias which is the uni's de facto chaplaincy)than at my alma mater, Sydney U. I would not mind betting that there are more disaffected Jensenites of 25 plus than the boasters care to admit.

Perhaps if the good brethren wish to have a lifelong hold on their converts they could take a few lesson's from Escriva's mob.

just a thought,

m

---

There was a time that evangelicals in Sydney started getting good at kids ministry and people said 'they'll grow out of it when they get to high school.' Except then their endevours led to growing numbers of teenagers becoming Christians. So people said 'they'll grow out of it when they go to uni' Except then Philip Jensen started at UNSW and growing numbers of uni students started becoming Christians (BTW I walked past the Syndey Uni EU activities at O Week the other day and they were easily the biggest community group on campus). So now we hear "I would not mind betting that there are more disaffected Jensenites of 25 plus than the boasters care to admit." Except that now Moore College is bursting at the seams with '30 somethings' who have given up jobs/careers for theological training. I will take multipara's bet. (At the same time I do not doubt that there are people who would describe themselves disaffected Jesenites, just as I would describe myself as a disaffected Liberal)

CJS
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
My wife's parish has a woman vicar and we love her! She's a competent administratrix and homilizer as well as a very spirtual and intelligent priest who has worked all over the world! Exactly when in te 19th century wer the Jensens born?
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
ps is administrix a word? I mean it to be like 'aviatrix' a female aviator or in this case a woman admin! its not copyrighted..use it if you dare!
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

There was a time that evangelicals in Sydney started getting good at kids ministry and people said 'they'll grow out of it when they get to high school.' Except then their endevours led to growing numbers of teenagers becoming Christians. So people said 'they'll grow out of it when they go to uni' Except then Philip Jensen started at UNSW and growing numbers of uni students started becoming Christians (BTW I walked past the Syndey Uni EU activities at O Week the other day and they were easily the biggest community group on campus). So now we hear "I would not mind betting that there are more disaffected Jensenites of 25 plus than the boasters care to admit." Except that now Moore College is bursting at the seams with '30 somethings' who have given up jobs/careers for theological training. I will take multipara's bet. (At the same time I do not doubt that there are people who would describe themselves disaffected Jesenites, just as I would describe myself as a disaffected Liberal)

---

*claps*

How wonderful! Aren't we all happy!

It would appear from what you say, CJS, that Jensenism is a success story! I mean, it makes and keeps people for life! Or so it seems you are implying. How wonderful indeed that the Jensens between them have managed to create a uniform single eyed pattern of belief in the diocese.

Actually I think there is a large back door. At all stages of life. People come and go. It's part of life (other patterns in life follow the same line).

Yes EU is the largest Christian group on campus. But I can tell you from experience how shallow it is theologically, how it doesn't touch on life at all, how it... Well never mind. At least it can't be as bad as NSW uni, which had direct Jensen control. We only had Philip out once or twice as far as I can remember from undergrad days, and on both occasions, in spite of being willing to be sympathetic, I felt I could have better used my lunch hour enjoying the sunshine and blue sky...

Jugular, you are right about the lack of recognition of charismatic churches. There are charismatic Anglican churches around, but they are in a minority. I think the only thing some Jensen places are happy to share with charismatics is the Hillsongs Music and Graham Kendrick... (Having said that and rolled my eyes, some hillsongs stuff is quite good...)
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Yes, CJS, no doubt Moore College is chockers with thirtysomethings....mere babes to this old boiler! After all, where else is there for the literalist/ male headship brigade to go?

Thirtysomething is hardly "late vocation" time these days-but does the place attract 45-plus students-or are they just the professors?
 

---

Posted by Hieronimus of Kensington (# 3273) on :
 
Having reread my previous ramble I can see why Nunc assumed I was at the worthy church of St Jude. I'm not (I go further west) and the 'church gossip' may be accurate. My only knowledge of the place comes from having friends who have friends and family in attendence and the bells sound great.

The comments about charimatic purging (that may be too strong) interest me. There a number of charo Anglican churches around Sydney (true they seem to be marginalised) but there seems to be a growing 'tolerance'. One 'charo' Rector is an area dean!!! Don't know how that got throught the net... having dangerous loonies influencing the lives of impressionable young clergy.

I still think that if the charos get their theology sorted out and mainstream evangelicals don't get their worship together then there is a good chance of the charismatics exploding even more than they have.

As I understand the gospel, following Christ calls for moral reform of life and church. The scriptures do not tell me that I must sing this song at this speed using these instruments and wearing these shoes.

I really love the bredth of expression that Anglicanism provides and I continue to pray that there will be more dialogue and less distrust among the brethren (& sistren for the pedants). There is always the danger of going to extremes in our practice. I'm not heavily into ritual - my idea of heaven would be 1662 Holy Communion with a mixture of 17-18 century hymns and some contempory Australian stuff. I'll have to start my own church soon... unless someone's already doing that.

I've had brilliant experience at ornately liturgical A/C churches (and a couple of shockers) but of course the same can be said at my own church and any number of others I've attended.

Jensenism (it hurts me to use the term because I think it gives them too much credit) has its strengths (did anyone read the SMH editorial on Fri?) but unless you're an adherent it seems very threatening and very, very abrasive. I must continue to cultivate my friendships with the people I know who are from Matthias and who are ex-Matthias. There are an aweful lot of them around the south and east of Sydney - and I find them lovely, godly people (maybe some of them are a bit intense - glad I'm not!!!). The danger I see is an inability to think outside the square. "This worked at UNSW so it must work at Blacktown TAFE / Christ Church St L / slums of Nairobi ...." you get the picture.

I am convinced that just because something has worked once it does not mean that it will work again (doesn't mean it won't). We need to be looking at all sorts of possibilities. IMHO engaging respectfully with people from all walks of life in our community - not just dumping the latest 'church growth' or 'Matthias Press'or whatever methodology upon them.

I'm raving again sorry.
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
It is also worth noting that, off the top of my head, I can think of at least a dozen vocations from various non-evangelical Sydney churches in the last few years who have had to go out of the diocese to receive non-Jensenist theological training, not to mention the women who don't agree with the headship issues! Evangelicals are not the only ones giving up their lives to serve the church. The Charles Sturt University School of Theology has over 350 students, lay and heading towards ordination, so Moore is not the only one! That's not counting all the other non-evangelical colleges as well!

There is a backdoor out of most mega-churches and uni-churches, in fact, it is intentional. For an exclusive church, the aim is survival of the fittest. Any one who doesn't last the distance is clearly not strong enough to be one of the elect. I often wonder what happens to all those people after Youth Alive and Billy Graham rallies. If you believe the stats, nearly everyone is saved. Where are they? And just how many victims are there out there? And how many people have been tunred off by the message of the hardliners? In an effort to convert their 10%, the other 90% can rot in hell.
 

---

Posted by Fungus (# 4243) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hieronimus of Kensington:

The danger I see is an inability to think outside the square. "This worked at UNSW so it must work at Blacktown TAFE / Christ Church St L / slums of Nairobi ...." you get the picture.

---

quote:

---

... but unless you're an adherent it [Jensenism] seems very threatening and very, very abrasive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fungus:
An excellent summary of the feelings in this thread! Thank you.

---

• Rebuking those outside the authority of the Church is beyond our remit
• To use the organs of the secular media and government to achieve christian ends is to consort with principalities that belong to Satan.
• After the example esp. of Paul: we are not to challenge authority or to seek to modify society. But rather, as Jesus says, to be salt and light to the earth. (People will be as convicted by our preaching as by our example).
• There is no scriptural basis to say that the inclusiveness of the gospel is also its exclusiveness. The need to repent comes out of conviction by the Holy Spirit.
  .
  What is Dean Jensen suggesting?
  "But listen to the gospel message of Jesus, the one who died and rose again and who is coming to judge the living and the dead, and you will see the appropriate response is to repent. It is to change. It is to turn back from your lifestyle and your self. It is to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Jesus."
  Is he not doing the same as the people "who wish to come to God their own way"? He has provided a mechanistic formula that excludes the Holy Spirit. Doesn't his view contradict the 'irresistible grace' of Calvinism? Regardless, who is he to judge on whom the Holy Spirit is working and to what repentance the Spirit has called that person?

quote:

---

Awake, above all, if you are an Evangelical formalist. "There is no devil," said the quaint old Puritans, "like a white devil." There is no formalism so dangerous as Evangelical formalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icarus Coot:
Perhaps you'd care to comment on the scriptural objections to the premises of Mr Dean's sermons that I raised in post 2 of this thread?

---

quote:

---

• Rebuking those outside the authority of the Church is beyond our remit

---

quote:

---

• To use the organs of the secular media and government to achieve christian ends is to consort with principalities that belong to Satan.

---

quote:

---

The kingdom of this world and the mechanisms of secular society belong toSatan.

---

quote:

---

Under what authority then do church leaders call for peace in Iraq or decry the use of embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia?

---

Because they speak for a large number of Christians. It's not just Christian leaders that speak out about ethical and public issues; it's just that historically, Western Society has been Christian, and therefore in a sense I suppose the church is expected to have a view (or views) to be expressed.

This still doesn't mean that the Church can rebuke those who are not in its fold; it might warn or express a strong view against a course of action (like the war in Iraq), but it can't rebuke. It CAN rebuke its members - if rebuke is part of its approach. And I dare say that rebuke these days really doesn't exist in an institutional form, outside of the Catholic Church. With the exception perhaps of sexual misconduct of clergy and other behaviour related issues.

However, the Anglican Church certainly wouldn't have much to say to me if I did support the war in good conscience; I think the Church recognises that with temporal matters there is always more than one viewpoint, and more than one viewpoint that might be valid.

If the whole of my parish voted Labor, and I voted Liberal on Saturday, my parish priest is hardly going to rebuke me...

On a pastoral level, rebuke should turn to support; if I fell pregnant (apart from the fact it would be an immaculate conception ) I would hope that rather than telling me off for being a slut, my parish priest and fellow parishioners would support me, regardless of the circumstances of the conception. Especially as I think I would know if those circumstances were dubious or "sinful".

But now I am rambling.
 

---

Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 
I don't agree with everything going on in Sydney, but I like the focus on church growth.

Admittedly this approach does alienate some people and evangelical churches have a back door as well as a front (but often people just switch to other evangelical churches as well as drop out altogether) but it does seem to be producing better results than most other dioceses.

Nunc, could you expand on your comments about Jensenites taking over non-evangelical churches. Are these by any chance attended by tiny numbers of elderly people? And are there evangelical churches down the road bursting at the seams? In which case what's the problem?
 

---

Posted by Royal Peculiar (# 3159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian S:
Are these by any chance attended by tiny numbers of elderly people? And are there evangelical churches down the road bursting at the seams? In which case what's the problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ian S:
I don't agree with everything going on in Sydney, but I like the focus on church growth.

Admittedly this approach does alienate some people and evangelical churches have a back door as well as a front (but often people just switch to other evangelical churches as well as drop out altogether) but it does seem to be producing better results than most other dioceses.

Nunc, could you expand on your comments about Jensenites taking over non-evangelical churches. Are these by any chance attended by tiny numbers of elderly people? And are there evangelical churches down the road bursting at the seams? In which case what's the problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
I am not saying traditionalism for its own sake ought to be maintained. I am saying that as a pastoral issue the needs of older people need to be considered too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Yes, CJS, no doubt Moore College is chockers with thirtysomethings....mere babes to this old boiler! After all, where else is there for the literalist/ male headship brigade to go?

Thirtysomething is hardly "late vocation" time these days-but does the place attract 45-plus students-or are they just the professors?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

quote:

---

There was a time that evangelicals in Sydney started getting good at kids ministry and people said 'they'll grow out of it when they get to high school.' Except then their endevours led to growing numbers of teenagers becoming Christians. So people said 'they'll grow out of it when they go to uni' Except then Philip Jensen started at UNSW and growing numbers of uni students started becoming Christians (BTW I walked past the Syndey Uni EU activities at O Week the other day and they were easily the biggest community group on campus). So now we hear "I would not mind betting that there are more disaffected Jensenites of 25 plus than the boasters care to admit." Except that now Moore College is bursting at the seams with '30 somethings' who have given up jobs/careers for theological training. I will take multipara's bet. (At the same time I do not doubt that there are people who would describe themselves disaffected Jesenites, just as I would describe myself as a disaffected Liberal)

---

*claps*

How wonderful! Aren't we all happy!

It would appear from what you say, CJS, that Jensenism is a success story! I mean, it makes and keeps people for life! Or so it seems you are implying. How wonderful indeed that the Jensens between them have managed to create a uniform single eyed pattern of belief in the diocese.

Actually I think there is a large back door. At all stages of life. People come and go. It's part of life (other patterns in life follow the same line).
...)

---

quote:

---

Do you think that it can prevail without seceding from the rest of the Anglican communion?

---

No.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
I don't know.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
What Royal Peculiar and Nunc said

IME people who clamour for change are often very fickle. The Presbyterian church quoted above obviously discovered that the hard way.

Isn't it far better for a church to keep the established services, which have a guaranteed congregation, in the usual format and at the usual time. Then the experimental services can be started at an alternative time, so it can be monitored how they go. If it doesn't work, there is no great loss and maybe a different approach can be tried. Wholesale alteration for the sake of it causes so much distress and is of negligible benefit.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
*sigh*

I heard tonight of yet another parish which has been overrun without regard to its tradition.

In this case, the appointment fell to the Archbishop (which is what happens when a parish doesn't manage to pay its way) and he installed the chap who had been the right hand man at St Mathias' as rector.

This was an historically middle of the road parish. Or has been, until now. The former St Mathias' chap who's been installed there wants to be known as a "Pastor" not as Rector.

He has put forth motions to the Parish Council for the stained glass windows to be removed "because images are idolatrous" (offending those who were the donors, or whose parents/grandparents were donors). This motion was rejected. So he put forth the motion to have the windows boarded up.

He has also put forth a motion to board up the chancel - the 8:30am Traditional service, with which he refuses to have anything to do, can use the space that is sealed off, while the 10am service will no longer "be offended" by the chancel and altar.

He also imported a large number of people from St Mathias.

The churchwardens counting monies after the 8:30am service have been ejected from the Vestry by 10am people "who need to use the space for prayer." They are now obliged to count the monies at home. (Which of course isn't acceptable, and they are very concerned about it.)

This chap is apparently "nice to talk to" and has recently been appointed as area dean, though God alone knows why he would accept a position like that seeing as he is so against the Anglican structure, and against its history. He also seems to have a stunning lack of pastoral understanding...
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I recognise this attitude as one that is alive and kicking locally - but the situation sounds 100 times worse in your area (especially as it is given sanction by such a senior figure in the church)
 

---

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :
 
Where are the churches getting their money from? it is all very well putting in clergy who are in favour of drastic change, but who is paying their salaries?
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
The former St Mathias' chap who's been installed there wants to be known as a "Pastor" not as Rector.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
Why is it that clergy who see their main role as a bible teacher insist on being called "pastor", clergy who are pastoral are "priests", clergy who don't want to be in a party are "ministers", and single unmarried men are called "Father".

---

That's the church for you - in all its nutty glory!
 

---

Posted by Fungus (# 4243) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

I heard tonight of yet another parish which has been overrun without regard to its tradition.

---

My sources put the story a bit differently.

The additional congregation that came with the rector (which is exceptional, even for Sydney) means that for the first time in a long while the parish can pay its way. It also means that the existing congregation can stay where they are and have a much bigger say in their affairs than they would under the alternatives (forced merger with another parish or outright closure).

The new congregation contains a lot of people who have moved from Orthodox traditions to Low Church Anglicanism and it is they who have the problems with the stained glass windows. This is because they now view the use of icons in Orthodox churches as being extremely misguided and stained glass windows have just too much in common with icons for them to be comfortable.

Now I'll admit that this is not a view that will get much support in this forum but it should be respected. The suggested way forward has been to put a large roll-up overhead projector screen across the chancel so that the sensibilities of both congregations can be accommodated.

The business about the vestry is apparently because the 10am congregation want to use it as a creche. It's been suggested to the wardens that another room in the church can be used instead.

The existing congregation has been extensively consulted on the changes so it is hard to say that they have been walked over, unless you consider no change at all as being the only option. I also understand that, as a result of people in the area seeing all the extra activity that the new congregation has brought, that the 8:30am service has seen a small growth in numbers as well. Sounds like a win-win situation to me!

All in all, I think that the difficulties have been caused by a clash of cultures (ethnic ones, not simply theological) and both sides will have learn to adjust. My parish has a large Chinese congregation and we have cross-cultural difficulties as well.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
Fungus, there are obviously very different opinions in the parish about what's going on.

My information source was one of the wardens of the parish, who obviously feels threatened.
 

---

Posted by CJS (# 3503) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
CJS: In a further reply (in part to your riposte to Nunc):
Do you think that it can prevail without seceding from the rest of the Anglican communion?

Just wondering,

m

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
My information source was one of the wardens of the parish, who obviously feels threatened.

---

Wardens always do.

Of the 8 people who have been wardens in our church in the last 13 years, ont the two current wardens and one of the previous ones still worships there. The other 5 all stopped coming more or less as soon as they stopped being wardens... all amicably as far as I know, but then I don't really know and being Anglicans our arguments rarely surface face to face (what are websites and church newspapers for?)
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
CJS:

In the context of my question I define prevail as " continue in its present un-anglican form (i.e. neither catholic nor apostolic, although laying claim to holiness, and treating the vast majority of the world-wide anglican communion with contempt."

The Jensens (and their followers), in my humble view are a long way from being the spiritual heirs of the great reformers. They seem to have the enthusiasm iconoclasm of a Cromwell without the intellectual rigour of a Cranmer.

Happy with that?

m
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
Just thought I'd send this to the top of the page by asking;

Did anyone in Sydney (or elsewhere) see Good Weekend?????

A very thorough article by Kelly Burke entitled "Gimme that Ol' time Religion"

I especially loved the bit where Phillip Jensen refused to appear on ABC's compass special on great Australian Preachers because they might put a buddhist on after him, thus compromising the gospel.

Just how many great buddhist preachers are doing the rounds in this great south land of ours...?
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Never knew that the Gospel was such a delicate little thing.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
jugular

Can you give us a link to this?

Moo
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Yes, I read it. Well done and very even-handed. It certainly did not change any of my impressions. I'll try to get the link to you all....

cheers,

m
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
It's times like these I wish to high heaven that I had bought a paper yesterday.

Must go and filch and see if a local newsagency has one left over...

I don't think articles from the Good Weekend are available online.
 

---

Posted by frater-frag (# 2184) on :
 
Okey, I know that this is Purgatory... But when i read about the Jensen Gang, this pops up in my head all the time! [link deleted]

[Indeed, the link was too Hellish for Purgatory, frater-frag.]

[ 31. March 2003, 00:38: Message edited by: jlg ]
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
Did anyone in Sydney (or elsewhere) see Good Weekend?????

A very thorough article by Kelly Burke entitled "Gimme that Ol' time Religion"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
Did anyone in Sydney (or elsewhere) see Good Weekend?????

A very thorough article by Kelly Burke entitled "Gimme that Ol' time Religion"

---

Yes, I saw that one. I don't think it said anything we didn't already know, however.

If you want the article I can post it to you (snail mail), Nunc.

---

quote:

---

The Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth, said that while delegates from the Catholic and Uniting Church attended the weekend's interfaith conference, an absence of any Anglican delegates did not mean that the diocese did not support freedom of religion and respect for other people's beliefs.

"[Interfaith conferences] are just not something we feel strongly about," he said.

---

I can't decide between or for the man's blindness.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
You might as well laugh, O seraphic one.

Yesterday I was at High Mass at Christ Church St Laurence (a den of sodomites with unpleasant accents as far as the Jensenites are concerned). The preacher was Bishop Ken Mason who asked us to pray for our families, friends, the people of Iraq and the armies, all non-Christians, as well as other Christians-including, as he said, "our friends up the other end of George St (St Andrew's Cathedral)" adding, with a twinkle, that he did not expect that the latter would return the compliment.

I did not dare betray my Romishness by shrieking with laughter-the rest of the congregation just giggled.

cheers,

m
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
, multipara... Ken Mason's a good guy, good value.

Duo, it would be so lovely of you to send that article to me! :yippee: I'll PM you my address if you don't have it already.
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
, multipara... Ken Mason's a good guy, good value.

Duo, it would be so lovely of you to send that article to me! :yippee: I'll PM you my address if you don't have it already.

---

[modesty biretta on]
Ahem, aahhh, Duo was quoting me there, Nunc. PM me your snail address instead.
[/modesty biretta]
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
*stupid Nunc*

Ok. Snail mail addy in your PM box...
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
, multipara... Ken Mason's a good guy, good value.

Duo, it would be so lovely of you to send that article to me! :yippee: I'll PM you my address if you don't have it already.

---

[modesty biretta on]
Ahem, aahhh, Duo was quoting me there, Nunc. PM me your snail address instead.
[/modesty biretta]

---

Well, in that case you know my opinion of your comment! Very restrained of you, MM - I like. But seriously - why aren't Anglicans interested in interfaith dialogue? There is a difference between proselytising (sensitive or otherwise) and trying to understand where the other Christian, Muslim, Jew or Hindu is coming from.
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, in that case you know my opinion of your comment! Very restrained of you, MM - I like. But seriously - why aren't Anglicans interested in interfaith dialogue? There is a difference between proselytising (sensitive or otherwise) and trying to understand where the other Christian, Muslim, Jew or Hindu is coming from.

---

I have no idea why the Diocese of Jensen isn't interested in interfaith dialogue - I'm in Canberra-Goulburn, where an attitude of mutual tolerance and respect seems to be more the flavour. Frankly many people here are appalled at what's happening in Sydney.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
Because, multipara, the universe is painted in black and white. It's divided between "US" and "THEM". Seeing as, because of their beliefs, they have rejected Christ, THEY are hell-bound, so there's no use getting to know them or creating grounds of understanding. We need only to preach the gospel to them and tell them they are hell-bound and must turn from their wicked religions which exalt man over God.

Don't you see this?

I don't actually understand it, to be honest. One would have thought that the most effective missionary outreach is achieved by getting to understand other people from the inside. Not from damning their religious beliefs outright.

But then, if all you are interested in is bums-on-pews and 10% of the population in churches by 2010, then I suppose afew people getting up in arms about your methods don't count; for every 1 of them there are ten more possible convertees at least.

Having said that, I am sure you know there are plenty of Anglicans in Sydney who would like to promote dialogue with other faiths, and who respect other people's beliefs... This is one of them.
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Because, multipara, the universe is painted in black and white. It's divided between "US" and "THEM". Seeing as, because of their beliefs, they have rejected Christ, THEY are hell-bound, so there's no use getting to know them or creating grounds of understanding. We need only to preach the gospel to them and tell them they are hell-bound and must turn from their wicked religions which exalt man over God.

Don't you see this?

---

Ah, now Nunc, as a paid-up Catholic member of a sub-Christian denomination, I certainly do understand about "US" and "THEM". It's just that we have a wider view of salvation than appears to prevail among the Jensenists. We think that they have their role in salvation too, that their followers are not damned and that the Holy Spirit is at work among them.

Why can't they return the compliment?
 

---

Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 3251) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Because, multipara, the universe is painted in black and white.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
, multipara... Ken Mason's a good guy, good value.

Duo, it would be so lovely of you to send that article to me! :yippee: I'll PM you my address if you don't have it already.

---

[modesty biretta on]
Ahem, aahhh, Duo was quoting me there, Nunc. PM me your snail address instead.
[/modesty biretta]

---

Well, in that case you know my opinion of your comment! Very restrained of you, MM - I like. But seriously - why aren't Anglicans interested in interfaith dialogue? There is a difference between proselytising (sensitive or otherwise) and trying to understand where the other Christian, Muslim, Jew or Hindu is coming from.

---

Unless we are talking about multipara's quote - in which case you are a card and a Rogue.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
Call me both. Or call me stupid.

One day I will sort out my attributions properly...

Sorry for the confusion!
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Ah, now Nunc, as a paid-up Catholic member of a sub-Christian denomination, I certainly do understand about "US" and "THEM". It's just that we have a wider view of salvation than appears to prevail among the Jensenists. We think that they have their role in salvation too, that their followers are not damned and that the Holy Spirit is at work among them.

Why can't they return the compliment?

---

I am totally with you.

Maybe they are too threatened at the thought that their security systems are meaningless? I mean, the whole point of being able to say "We are in, you are out" is so you have a sense of security - I think. To say "well, really, all people who profess to be Christian have a role in salvation, and the Holy Spirit moves in the hearts of ALL people," is a bit threatening, because you are no longer "special"...

Maybe I just have a very jaded view of Jensenites/fundamentalist evangelical Anglicans in Sydney.

But then, they would say that "The Bible says there's no salvation outside of XYZ; therefore all these people ARE hell-destined." It all comes back yet again to the issue of Biblical interpretion and where you get your authority from - the Bible, or the church that put it together...

Coming from such radically different angles, there really is no such thing as common ground. And therefore those who believe in Sola Scriptura are forever going to be unable to reconcile with those who hold to other authority structures (the classic Anglican triad, the Uniting Church/United Reformed and Methodist churches' quadrivium, the authority of the pope). *sigh* It's a pity, because sola scripturists seem unable to see how important Scripture is in other traditions, and how much more wholistic it is to view it in context of tradition, reason, experience, the authority of the church etc.

Which means I am back to my beginning.

I don't understand either, Duo, why the Jensens and those of their persuasion cannot leave the issue of who's in and who's out to God...

[double checks to see she's got her attributions right... ]
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
Message to God, just to clarify:

The following bible believing Christians are IN;

- Anyone with the surname Jensen
- George W. Bush
- Fred Nile
- That areshole down the road (He's a BIBLE-BELIEVING arsehole!)

The following non bible-believing people are OUT:

- Mother Theresa
- Anyone else who worships the pope.
- The pope
- People who believe in the ordination of women
- Women who do not submit to their husbands
- Muslims
- Jews (unless they are Jews for Jesus)
- Buddhists
- Hindus
- Liberals
- Did I mention Catholics?
- You. Unless you're a bible-believing Christian.

Note to God:
I recommend selling off some real estate seeing as its at a premium right now.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
Thanks jugular.

I am sure God will appreciate that memo.
Jog his memory and all, you know...
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
Gods needs all the help she can get! Clearly she is so impotent she needs humans to arbitrate entry to heaven!

 

---

Posted by Archimandrite (# 3997) on :
 
Thus spake the Jensen:

"But their different religions cannot all be right. Some, or all of them, are wrong. And if wrong, [they] are the monstrous lies and deceits of Satan - devised to destroy the life of the believers."
"All I'm saying is that both [Christianity and Islam] cannot be right. That's not attacking Islam, that's just saying the truth."

I'm young. I'm naif. But. Is it the truth? And if it isn't, then what's the point of it all?
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
Good point Archi,

I think it is fair to say that, while we recognise that Christianity is truth, truth is not Christianity, truth is larger than that. Further, it is not our duty as Christians to denigrate the belief systems of others with a kind of pompous self-righteousness, but to engage with other faiths in a mutual search for truth. If our faith is true, it will become evident very quickly.

It's like people who say "I don't care what other people think", when clearly they do, or they wouldn't be trying to project a "who cares" image of themselves. We don't need to go around bragging about how Christianity is true, we simply need to act and live in such a way that shows it is true. By attacking others, we actually demonstrate to them that we consider Christianity so weak it needs to be protected, and we also fail in our primary responsibility - love. Some would argue that it is loving to point out the error of another person's belief, but I dispute that. A person's belief is intrinsically linked to their identity, not external to it. An assualt on their beliefs is an assault on them. This is not love. Dialogue, tolerance and respect are more loving.

Your question about the "point of it all" is a common one, and very important. I think that such questions are actually very religious (and Christianity at its best is NOT religious). What I mean is, it stems from a desire to please God and be favoured by God, as if this is achieved by subscribing to a set of beliefs. I don't think the grace of God is conditional on ticking the right boxes on some metaphorical sheet of paper. the point of it all is that we know and love God and vice versa. The aim is not to be right, but to know truth. There's a difference.
 

---

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
So let me ask a stupid question (like, I should know this already having followed the thread for a while): How is the church in Australia organized? Is there a primate? Some non-Jensen who has the privilege of sitting down with his (hers? Probably 'his') bishops and mediating some good sense among them?

Being here in North America we feel a little cut off from all the goings on in Australia....

Enquiring minds want to know.....

Raspberry Rabbit
Montreal QC
(just back from a retreat wherein were two - count 'em - two other shipmates)
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
Raspberry Rabbit, I suspect the Australian church functions a bit differently to that of Canada - correct me if I am wrong.

At the top you have the Primate, ++Peter Carnley, who is also Archbishop of Perth. This is not something hereditary in any See, rather the role of Primate is an elected one between the Archbishops of Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth. The last Primate, Keith Rayner, was Archbishop of Melbourne.

The role of Primate is pretty much a figurehead role; I suspect he opens alot of church halls, and attends many interfaith conferences on behalf of the Anglican Church of Australia.

He's also the chairman of General Synod which meets every so often (I forget the frequency, possibly every year, possibly every 2 or 4 years). General Synod is responsible for discussing doctrinal issues and issues of church order. For example, an ordinance might be passed about the Anglican CHurch of Australia's official stance on sexual misconduct by clergy. Every diocese sends representatives - I don't know how many, but they include high-powered laity as well as clergy. I believe several of Sydney's delegates are lawyers/barristers/solicitors/legal people, who have expertise in discussing the issues they do at General Synod.

Church-wide decisions are made at General Synod, but those decisions are not binding on individual dioceses. Whatever resolutions are made at General Synod, each individual diocese has to vote it it in that diocese in order for it to be a proper ordinance.

For example, the ordination of Women to the priesthood was approved at General Synod, but it was up to individual dioceses to accept it. SYdney and a couple of others didn't.

Another example is lay presidency. The General Synod panel who investigated it, found nothing wrong with the concept in theory. But they recommended it not be adopted in any diocese until further testing had been done. (Or something like that. In any case, a gleeful Sydney couldn't go ahead with it. Though the might, arguing the precendent of the Bishop of Canberra-Goulburn who ordained some women before General Synod approved it. )

Individual synods I imagine function in much the same way as synods over there - every parish has 2 reps plus the rector, who technically should show up to at least some of synodal proceedings. Most of the agenda of synod is thrilling stuff - whether X parish shoudl be made a provisional parish, or vice versa; whether the church should sell some land; resolutions to be passed on what the Standing Committee has done in the past year etc etc etc.

Standing Committee - I don't know how it is constituted, but it is a body which meets I don't know how often, during the course of the year in which synod is not in session. It does all the hackwork to be able to present it to Synod.

The Archbishops are all Metropolitans of their states. For example, the Archbishop of Melbourne is the Metropolitan of Victoria. This means brother bishops are answerable to him. Kind of. He's the state representative, if you like, of the Anglican church.

There was an example a couple of years ago, where the Bishop of Canberra Goulburn was accused of sexual misconduct while a parish priest, 20 years earlier. Being reasonably catholic he went and made a formal confession to the Bishop of Newcastle. Being the Metropolitan of NSW, Archbishop Harry Goodhew had to start official proceedings against the Bishop of Canberra-Goulburn. He copped alot of flack for this, even though he did it very reluctantly. I remember vividly the pastoral letter he put out explaining the situation.

When the Bishop of Canberra-Goulburn ordained those women, I think there were some Sydney people who wanted to take him to court. But the case was thrown out, the secular courts deciding they had no business arbitrating in an ecclesiastical dispute.

Because of the autonomy of the various dioceses, the Primate has a pretty much purely advisory role. Which means he can't discipline other bishops for being out of line.

And within the state, seeing as ++Jensen is the Metropolitan, there's no one higher than him who can bring the cane down...

I hope this is clear enough. It is possible I don't have the full details on it, and am open to correction.
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
Yes nunc, that's a pretty good summary. Except that: did you know Sydney delegates make up fully one third of the General Synod? It's because of some quirk in the constitution. They are a combination of elected and appointed figures, who, far more than any other diocese, are elected/appointed because they tow the line.

How, then, did +Peter get to be Primate, seeing as there is a clear majority of conservatives on General Synod, and he is an outspoken liberal? Sydney tried to play a political game to bring it down to a choice between a catholic conservative (Hollingworth) and an evangelical conservative (Goodhew). Unfortunately, the suckers didn't think that other dioceses might vote according to conscience and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so they counted wrong and ended up with a choice between a tired old pastor (Hollingworth) and a dynamic visionary theologian(Carnley)! There was some mirth, and not a little cynicism when Carnley got the top job, which is certainly ceremonial, but is also the public face of the church to the media, government et al. The Primate can also shape the church's agenda to a certain degree, and give some profile to their particular brand of Anglicanism.

The other point to note is that the synod of the diocese of Sydney is controlled more or less completely by the Anglican Church League, a fundamentalist faction. For example, because ACL wields influence over a clear majority of synod reps, decisions about appointments are made at ACL meetings and synod votes are merely a formality. Debate is largely cursory, because the decisions have already been made.

Who said politics and Christianity don't mix?
 

---

Posted by Fungus (# 4243) on :
 
I also agree that Nunc has given a very good summary, but I have a few minor points to add.

The strange arrangement Nunc describes is a result of Australia's history. Originally all of our states were independent colonies and the Anglican church in each colony ran its own affairs. After Federation, the churches remained independent and it wasn't until 1961 (60 years after Federation!) that the Anglican Church of Australia was born.

By this stage most dioceses had a quite clear theological styles and none were particularly keen on having it changed simply by a vote in the national synod. This is why we've ended up with the system where significant decisions made by General Synod have to be ratified by the diocesan synod before it comes into force in that diocese. That's why, for example, some diocese in Australia have women priests and others don't.

Sydney has a large representation on General Synod (I thought that it was only a quarter, but I could be wrong) because Sydney has always been a large diocese and I think that the ratio is close to what it originally was in 1961.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

After Federation, the churches remained independent and it wasn't until 1961 (60 years after Federation!) that the Anglican Church of Australia was born.

---

Well, maybe not so independent. They were all part of the Church of England in Australia - so presumably we were still under CofE "control" to some extent.

Didn't the bishops meet up together regularly from the time the dioceses were separated?

I seem to remember photographs in Sydney Anglicans of Bishops' and Archbishops' conferences...

I don't think that any amount of known history can *really* explain why Sydney has ended up so uniform; most other dioceses have a mix of different traditions...
 

---

Posted by LA Dave (# 1397) on :
 
I note that the website for St. Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney now features "Meetings," instead of "Services." Is this part of the Jensenite agenda? "Holy Communion" has been reduced to "the Lord's Supper" and on Easter Day, the main 11 a.m. "meeting" features Morning Prayer.

Who are these people?
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
LA Dave, in answer to Q1 , the Sunday "Meeting" is a Jensenite neologism. The newly appointed Dean (Jensen Minor aka Rev Philip) was until recently the Rector of St matthias'Church , a block up from the RC parish of St Frank ( the stamping ground of Duo Seraphim, my good self and an assortment of other sub-Christians). Some years back the notice-board outside St Matthias was altered (rather clumsily-one can still see the inexpert paint-job) and "Holy Communion " was replaced by "Meeting". I am reliably informed by the seraphic one (who MW'd a meeting there back in Advent) that the altar has been removed and in its place stands a drum-kit.

As for Q2, follow the thread....

Small tangent-

When is the MW report on St Mathias going to appear????!!!

(end of tangent)

cheers,

m
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
LA Dave's post sounds as if there's a kind of non-conformist Anglicanism going on in some parts of Sydney. Some of it modelled on what would still be recognizably Anglican in other less 'parish communion' orientated parts of the Communion - eg, many Church of Ireland churches will feature a principle service of Morning Prayer on Easter Day ( ).

But isn't 'meetings' what the Methodists used to have to do before they decided/were compelled to become their own Church or denomination, because the Anglicans didn't want to give authority to their brand of worship? Someone sounds very confused about their ecclesiastical identity
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
LA Dave, in answer to Q1 , the Sunday "Meeting" is a Jensenite neologism. The newly appointed Dean (Jensen Minor aka Rev Philip) was until recently the Rector of St matthias'Church , a block up from the RC parish of St Frank ( the stamping ground of Duo Seraphim, my good self and an assortment of other sub-Christians). Some years back the notice-board outside St Matthias was altered (rather clumsily-one can still see the inexpert paint-job) and "Holy Communion " was replaced by "Meeting". I am reliably informed by the seraphic one (who MW'd a meeting there back in Advent) that the altar has been removed and in its place stands a drum-kit.

As for Q2- Jensen Major (Peter) is the recently -appointed (2001) Archbishop of Sydney and quondam Principal of Moore Theological College (Oz's answer to Bob Jones University). He has recently appointed Jensen minor as the Dean of St Andrew's Cathedral and the curren agenda is to expunge all things sacramental (read popish , or "sub-Christian" as Jensen minor has so picturesquely described Popery).

I understand that neither has been the same since they were converted after a Billy Graham rally back in the barren 1950s.

Like most demagogues, they have a large and enthusiastic following among disaffected neo-Protestant youth; the slogan appears to be "Do it our way and you are saved; no guarantees otherwise".

cheers,

m
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archimandrite:
I'm young. I'm naif. But. Is it the truth? And if it isn't, then what's the point of it all?

---

There's a tendency for religion to take a more postmodern stance on other faiths these days, as is described by the word catholic with a small c in its best sense - this is my faith, let me understand yours.

True, we believe what we believe to be true, but 'truth' for us isn't necessarily 'truth' for someone else, and IMHO it isn't really for any one person to decide which 'truth' is the right one. This view is distinct from those of people like Philip Jensen, who take more of a 'grand narrative' approach - 'we believe we're right but you can't be right as well'. The problem with this is that it can descend into bigotry very easily.

Having said that, I've just thought about all the contradictions in my own argument. Perhaps Jensen is right after all. I have no evidence that he is wrong, except the feeling that it is not right for me.


 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
OK everybody, here's the link you've been waiting for!

http://www.anglicanmedia.com.au/news/archives/000993.php#more

I especially love the request to discuss and write letters to the newspaper!
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
The bit that caught my eye in the article was this:

quote:

---

But Jensen insists that only through a far-reaching "flying bishops" network, where like-minded Anglicans can pledge allegiance to the theological party leader of their choice, can a semblance of unity be maintained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
OK everybody, here's the link you've been waiting for!

http://www.anglicanmedia.com.au/n ews/archives/000993.php#more

I especially love the request to discuss and write letters to the newspaper!

---

quote:

---

But in Forsyth's eyes, Jensen-the-younger is nothing short of a modern-day prophet: "He's St Francis of Assisi - unbalanced and brilliant ...

---

quote:

---

In 1993, Phillip entered the election race for archbishop against the advice of one of his closest supporters. Prophet he may be, says Forsyth, "but I don't think St Francis of Assisi should be the Pope".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
OK, so what do we make of this?

http://www.anglicanmedi a.com.au/index.php/article/articleview/704/1/82/

---

Proof texting.

It's unfair to juged someone I've not heard in the flesh gauge by the written contecnts of one speech, but as you asked.....it reads as if he has no respect at all for the Bible. The heart of the speech is not biblical but a sociological analysis, with assorted Bible quotes being used to put his argument above contradiction.

He talks about passing the homeless in the street - despite his use of the word 'I' his critique is of others not himself. I get no sense of engagement with either the Bible or people, just an intoxiaction with his own ideas.

He has presided over the huge growth of his previous church, so I suppose he must have something about him?
 

---

Posted by Eloise (# 4292) on :
 
As someone who attended an Anglican Church in the west of Sydney for the past 3 years (but would not define herself as an anglican), I have 3 main reactions to this thread:

1. I share many of the concerns expressed about specific actions and/or speeches by the Jensens.

2. However, in my experience of sydney anglicans (bearing in mind that this is a long way from the centre of the action), I really don't think there is a need to panic to this extent. Most of the rank and file (me included) are just trying to get on with the whole love-the-lord-your-god-and-love-your-neighbour thing without being terribly worried about or interested in the politics of the upper echelons. And are, in my experience, quite happy to work with people of different denominations/theological persuasions. All this could be explained, however, if my parish were one of the 15 or so middle of the road ones identified above, or non-Jensenist evangelical or something (which leads me to ask . . . which are what?).

3. [rant] At least you've got a church within an hour's drive of where you live! And an English-speaking one at that! It's not that bad! Besides which, how does making snide comments in a sarcastic tone about the Jensens help anyone? Why can't we just disagree with them peacefully, like we would with anyone else? (And don't say they started it!) Why can't we set a good example (to them) of being tolerant of people whom we disagree with rather than criticising them for intolerance and then turning around and doing exactly the same thing towards them? Whatever happened to love your enemy? [/rant]
 

---

Posted by Royal Peculiar (# 3159) on :
 
I actualy quite liked (somewhat to my surprise)the welcome dinner speech, until it go to the last bit when he started going on about how much he was going to be persecuted. I am a little cautious who argue abot those argue " lots of people hate me, tehrefore I must be right ". Thre are plenty of other explanations as to why someone might hate you.
 

---

Posted by Royal Peculiar (# 3159) on :
 
That should of course read " I am a litttle cautious about those who argue"
note to self - preview post is an essential not an option.
 

---

Posted by David (# 3) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
NEWSFLASH for Phillip Jensen: St Francis of Assisi the saint is dead, St Francis of Assisi the sub-Christian outpost of Rome is very much alive and well and you can't be Pope because you aren't a Catholic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
NEWSFLASH for Phillip Jensen: St Francis of Assisi the saint is dead, St Francis of Assisi the sub-Christian outpost of Rome is very much alive and well and you can't be Pope because you aren't a Catholic.

---

The pope's catholic?

---

quote:

---

3. [rant] At least you've got a church within an hour's drive of where you live! And an English-speaking one at that! It's not that bad! Besides which, how does making snide comments in a sarcastic tone about the Jensens help anyone? Why can't we just disagree with them peacefully, like we would with anyone else? (And don't say they started it!) Why can't we set a good example (to them) of being tolerant of people whom we disagree with rather than criticising them for intolerance and then turning around and doing exactly the same thing towards them? Whatever happened to love your enemy? [/rant]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Why does the distance one has to travel make a difference?

---

I think that this part of her rant relates to the fact that she's in Tianjin, China. I don't think that churches of any flavour are thick on the ground there.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Demagoguery, perhaps?

Maybe a balcony from which to spout ( such as Mussolini at the Piazza Venezia in Rome)?

Steve's sig says it all to this sub-Christian....

cheers ,

m
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Gawd; lots of cross-posts. The above refers to "What does Jensen have that he has such a horde of followers?"
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
Just thought I'd share the following gem with you all:

Dean Philip Jensen's mother's day sermon

Gotta love that man for his straight thinking, *biblical* view that women who aren't barefoot and pregnant are rejecting God...

Women who have careers are being selfish.

Aren't you so glad, ladies, that he knows our innermost souls so well as to declare us all in a state of rejection of God?


 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
It seemed to me reading it that there was a lot of good nuggets in there, but it was completely spoilt by his obsessive dislike of the Child-free website. If he posted on SoF, I'm sure Phillip would quickly be labelled a troll and be snapped up by Erin (now there's an idea..... who will volunteer to tell him about this website? )
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 
I know someone who heard this sermon at a baptism on Sunday morning at the cathedral. She wanted to thump him. This from a Christian woman with 3 kids.

It would be an ok sermon if he hadn't equated the child-free choice with a rejection of God. I think Jensen really is demonstrating what a confused and illogical individual he really is. Let him speak for himself.
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
Yes, someone who

quote:

---

is “an active members of the BMW Drivers Club of NSW and enjoys motorsport... recently became WIRES volunteers performing rescues of Australia's injured and sick wildlife.”

---

is rejecting God. Of course, God is not present in the fellowship of friends, or the sacrificial care of injured animals. God is only present when women get preggers and squeeze out children.

The thing that really got my hackles up, though, was this. Our beloved dean has repeatedly condemned the media for it's uninformed and presumptious reporting. Yet, he quite cheerfully lifts details from a website about people he's never met, and with whom he has presumably never engaged, and publicly condemns their motives and accuses them of rejecting God. If someone did the same to him, he would be going on about how poor done by he is.

What's more, Christianity has a long history of valuing celibate and single people, as well as mothers and fathers. What's more, if one doesn't want children, surely one ought not to have them? In one fell swoop, Jensen has condemned those who choose, or even feel called, not to have children. What exactly does this achieve? Is this really a good form of mission, to condemn those who are not part of the fold? It's all very well for a church to teach a policy of compulsory procreation - even if some find it repugnant - but its another thing altogether for a church to condemn those who are not part of it! What a wonderful way to show the understanding and compassion of God!

I don't want children. I like children, otherwise I wouldn't teach the little buggers. But I don't want any, not least because the balance of the universe might be upset by more jugulars running around! Therefore, I am rejecting God. Sad, really.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
Maybe jugular, but you are not a woman. And therein lies the difference. If you are a man you are allowed to have a career, because you are the breadwinner. It's those selfish women who are to blame, you see. Choosing to do what is not natural, rejecting God, rejecting the chance for salvation through childbirth (well it is in Paul, is it not, and we have to believe what the bible says).
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
At the Cathedral General Meeting (Sydney's St Andrew's Cathedral where Phil J is Dean) Fr Phil announced that we are about to have a 6-month "trial" of having Holy Communion with the elements served in the pews and the wine served in individual cups. No option for people who want the common cup.

Who will rid us of this turbulent presbyter?

Kyrie... Christe... Kyrie...
 

---

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
Doesn't the cathedral have a church council or something which has to agree to changes like this? An English parish would probably have to get PCC approval for this - what is the Australian cathedral equivalent?
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charles Read:
Doesn't the cathedral have a church council or something which has to agree to changes like this? An English parish would probably have to get PCC approval for this - what is the Australian cathedral equivalent?

---

Yes, we have a Cathedral chapter ... which just happens to be filled with the Usual Suspects from the Diocese - i.e. the fine upstanding unAnglican Anglican old-boy clergy. They all seem to be in full support of anything that a Jensen does, or proposes. Any vacancies on the Chapter will be filled by the choice of ... the Dean's brother, ++Peter Jensen.

As Nunc Dimittis says: *sigh*
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
6 month trials - ah yes, I have experience of this: 15 years later and you will still be doing it.........
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Bad process.

As to the practice, how in heaven's names are they going to get to all the pews? Standing at one end and tossing the loaf down?

Having said that, people might want to consider that at Christ Church, Oxford, in the days when Pusey was a canon, the custom was (and presuably hade been for many decades) for the clergy to bring round the bread and wine to serve the people. However, they did use a common cup.

John Holding
 

---

Posted by shareman (# 2871) on :
 
Just a thought. In England it is acceptable for parishes who disagree with their bishop's stand on something, like women's ordination, for instance, to request alternate Episcopal oversight. Just such a row is going on in the Canadian diocese of New Westminster where a number of parishes have requested it as a result of the blessing of same sex unions. Now, it's not the norm in Canada, and besides, they want someone who offered without consulting their bishop and who is not the one their bishop wants (he is ready to concede, after his fashion).

It seems to me that this is done largely by conservatives who disagree with the two issues I have already mentioned. How about turning the tables? Has any beleaguered parish in Sydney diocese requested AEO? On a mailing list to which I subscribe someone made the suggestion that, since Lambeth '98 is used as the argument for AEO by those parishes who feel their bishop is disobeying the Voice of the Church and, presumably, the Voice of God, there is a lot of room. Previous Lambeth conferences have charged us to seek non-violent means of problem resolution. Should those parishes who disagree with war, like that in Iraq, request AEO if their bishop supports such a conflict? Are there examples of situations where the Jensens are disobeying the Voice of the Church? Mightn't work, but it'd upset the apple cart
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Mother Teresa?
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
At the Cathedral General Meeting (Sydney's St Andrew's Cathedral where Phil J is Dean) Fr Phil announced that we are about to have a 6-month "trial" of having Holy Communion with the elements served in the pews and the wine served in individual cups. No option for people who want the common cup.

Who will rid us of this turbulent presbyter?

Kyrie... Christe... Kyrie...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
You know where to get the umbrellino....and a lot of spare white and gold drag.

I'm sure the sacristan at St Frank's would be happy to cooperate!

cheers,

m

PS Can't someone complain to the Primate?

---

quote:

---

Can't someone complain to the Primate?

---

Unfortunately the Primate has no canonical power to do anything.

Shot glass communion has been a part of Sydney Diocese for some time. There is no strict prohibition from our formularies. But, to force it on a congregation after a few months in the job is obscene and uncalled for! Especially seeing as the main "meeting" on Sunday is Morning Prayer, and "The Lord's Supper" is only celebrated at eight o'clock.

I am literally in shock over this abomination. Not because I think it makes the communion invalid, but because of the pastoral ineptitude and disregard for people that it demonstrates.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
Absolutely jugular.

I mean, it's a fricking Cathedral, not some parish church down the road.

quote:

---

Has any beleaguered parish in Sydney diocese requested AEO?

---

quote:

---

I am literally in shock over this abomination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CJS:

Surely the dean is acting in line with the medical advice the diocese has received (see Common Cup Report)

---

First, I'd have to ask if this infectious disease guy is a friend of Jensen, co-opted to give a pseudosciantific justification for doing away with what the Jensens probably see as some idolatry or other. Consider that the Anglican Church has had a common chalice for over five hundred years, and the Orthodox for 2000 years, give or take a few centuries, have been receiving bread and wind mixed from a spoon which is used to lift the Sacrament out of the chalice. Furthermore, priests in both Churches routinely consume the consecrated elements after the Mass, and should therefore get maximum exposure to any pathogens. I don't think there have been huge numbers of priestly deaths as a result, nor have the lay people been popping off like flies.

"That the bread be prepared by a person who has carefully washed their hands immediately beforehand." Is he actually saying that the rite of the Lavabo is acceptable? Or maybe he just didn't think about that.

"Fortified wine should be used and not grape juice. Where wine is diluted with water the quantity of water should be very small."
Grape juice? In an Anglican Church? And what a good way to get rid of that nasty Romish practice of mixing water with the wine

"plastic cups should be disposed of.....This should in no way lessen our sense of fellowship and of remembrance of Christ’s death for us."

Pretty much shows his Eucharistic theology.

Sounds a but contrived to me, especially when ID experts in other parts of the world have been giving the go-ahead to a common cup. One example:
http://www.concordtx.org/wrldnews/lsgerms.htm
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by shareman:
... the Orthodox for 2000 years, give or take a few centuries, have been receiving bread and wind mixed from a spoon which is used to lift the Sacrament out of the chalice.

---

 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
You know where to get the umbrellino....and a lot of spare white and gold drag.

I'm sure the sacristan at St Frank's would be happy to cooperate!

cheers,

m

PS Can't someone complain to the Primate?

---

No Corpus Christi procession would be complete without a monstrance and humeral veil. There is a fabulous Spanish example we can lay hands on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CJS:
Surely the dean is acting in line with the medical advice the diocese has received (see Common Cup Report)

---

And signing his name Peter F Jensen!!! Whatever happened to ++ Peter Sydney?
 

---

Posted by Luke (# 306) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Just thought I'd share the following gem with you all:
Dean Philip Jensen's mother's day sermon

Gotta love that man for his straight thinking, *biblical* view that women who aren't barefoot and pregnant are rejecting God...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
[QB]Perhaps you might like to think about just why more Jensen supporters do not post regularly on these boards; they generally don't like the "unchristian" ( not my definition) tone of the place.[qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:

quote:

---

Originally posted by shareman:
... the Orthodox for 2000 years, give or take a few centuries, have been receiving bread and wind mixed from a spoon which is used to lift the Sacrament out of the chalice.

---

---

Ooops! Preview post is NOT my friend! I reread this way too many times. You wouldn't buy, I suppose, that was making some obscure allusion to the Spirit? No, didn't think so!. Of course, what I meant to say was bread and WINE. Just God's way of telling me not to be so pompous, or perhaps it's a revealed truth!
 

---

Posted by Asdara (# 4533) on :
 
You know I hope one day for Paganism at large to have the community and the clergy and the whole thing going on for the younger people and such. We won't be "looking" for members ect (against the creed) but it would be nice to have a structure beyond our backyards... but now that I see this post it all seems so political and... I'm not sure it would be a good thing after all.
 

---

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
Couldn't someone just bring along a large cup to the cathedral (there must be lots of discarded chalices floating around Sydney)? You all pour your individual servings into it and proceed as normal. Real lay initiative must fit with the Jensen view of the church.
 

---

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

Gotta love that man for his straight thinking, *biblical* view that women who aren't barefoot and pregnant are rejecting God...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Perhaps you might like to think about just why more Jensen supporters do not post regularly on these boards; they generally don't like the "unchristian" ( not my definition) tone of the place.

---

Not necessarily. If you were a Jensen supporter would you feel comfortable admitting it here? You wouldn't exactly expect a warm reception would you? Maybe a lot of people just keep quiet about this to avoid pointless conflict, and concentrate on other topics instead.

This post may or may not reflect my personal standpoint - make of it what you will
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
You bet your sweet bippy I would, Gracious Rebel. I would even do so if I were an admirer of my own RC Archbishop of Sydney; it just happens I'm not.

After all, the audience is virtual.

But then, 20 years of neighbourhood with Jensen minor's quondam church (St Matthias, Centennial Park) and 33 years' acquaintance with the style of bigotry promulgated by him and his elder brother is hardly conducive to winning my "support".

There are far better Nonconformists than they.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beenster:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:

Gotta love that man for his straight thinking, *biblical* view that women who aren't barefoot and pregnant are rejecting God...

---

Now this is good. This is very good indeed. Cos the next step is that he is going to help women get over their rejection of God by ensuring that they are with child. I can't think of a better man for the job.

Good women of Sydney: Do it for Australia.

---

ROFLMAOPIP
 

---

Posted by junior fool (# 4438) on :
 
I happen to be an admirer of the Jensens, and have said so before on these boards, and I'm not embarassed to say so. But they aren't exactly my favourite topic of conversation, there are more exciting things to discuss, and I can't see the point in talking about something which will lead to unproductive (and boring) discussion. But we do exist and are willing to say so. Hope I haven't offended anyone.
 

---

Posted by shareman (# 2871) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by junior fool:
I happen to be an admirer of the Jensens, and have said so before on these boards, and I'm not embarassed to say so. But they aren't exactly my favourite topic of conversation, there are more exciting things to discuss, and I can't see the point in talking about something which will lead to unproductive (and boring) discussion. But we do exist and are willing to say so. Hope I haven't offended anyone.

---

quote:

---

That's a pretty funky use of both the word 'literally' and the word 'abomination'. I think you have just taken OTT to a whole new level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
I second shareman, Junior Fool.

I'm in a position where there are lots of thing I would really like to admire about the Jensens. Like, +Peter's academic rigour and passion for mission, Phil's gift(?) for preaching, the way Michael has set up a vibrant inner-city church, the way Moore College takes the bible and the scriptures so seriously and so on.

But I can't because of their assertions to hold a monopoly on truth. They claim that Roman Catholics are "sub-Christian", charismatics don't believe the bible, Anglo-catholics don't preach the gospel, churches that ordain women are unbiblical, churches that support gay and lesbian people are damned, and other religions are "monstrous lies and deceits of Satan". By proclaiming that "relativism" is the great sin of modernity, I feel that they are sacrificing the tolerant and diverse society we value, and which values their point of view.

It's not that they're evangelicals, or that their name is Jensen, or that they don't like Anglo-catholics. It's their claim to hold monopoly on truth that is at the heart of the matter, and that is causing the greatest pain.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by junior fool (# 4438) on :
 
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!!
 

---

Posted by shareman (# 2871) on :
 
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. 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.
 

---

Posted by boofhead (# 4478) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
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)
 

---

Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 
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).
 

---

Posted by greenhouse (# 4027) on :
 

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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).

---

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?

---

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?

---

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).

---

quote:

---

talking to some journalist

---

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!!!
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 
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.

---

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
 

---

Posted by Toby (# 3522) on :
 

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.

---

---

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

---

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.

---

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

---

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!!!

---

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'?

---

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.

---

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 ]
 

---

Posted by shareman (# 2871) on :
 
"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? 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!
 

---

Posted by boofhead (# 4478) on :
 
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?

---

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".

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by junior fool (# 4438) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
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)
 

---

Posted by Mr Cantata (# 3304) on :
 
Anyone got an update on the Corpus Christi School Excursion to Mother Borgia's Meeting Hall?
 

---

Posted by sakura (# 1449) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
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)
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
*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?
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

But everything is placed under the authority of God's word, the Bible.

---

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.

---

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]

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Christine (# 330) on :
 
Thanks, guys, I bow to your superior knowledge on the matter.
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 
Wow, Christine, that was one heck of a way to derail a thread! You stopped it in its tracks entirely!
 

---

Posted by junior fool (# 4438) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Christine (# 330) on :
 
I didn't realise I was a rival to Nanny Og - but now that I know .....
 

---

Posted by Christine (# 330) on :
 
Sorry, I appear to have got by Ogs/Oggs mixed up (and if that doesn't kill a thread, nothing will)
 

---

Posted by TheMightyTonewheel (# 4730) on :
 
I'm going to meet Archbishop Jensen in less than a week. I will tell you all what I think.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Over a glass of wine, one hopes....
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Over a glass of wine, one hopes....

---

It probably won't be a glass of Chardonnay over dinner?
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 
What about gin?
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
I'm going to meet Archbishop Jensen in less than a week. I will tell you all what I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
I'm going to meet Archbishop Jensen in less than a week. I will tell you all what I think.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0