Ah Dr. Jensen, what is perverse - Alas, Lord have mercy - and often inexplicably near if not synonymous with being malign - is the continued trash talk preachments which bear false witness in targeting of all the groups more or less consistently on the GAFCON and other conservative Anglican realignment dudgeon lists. Worse, and often more clearly malign is the outright mistreatment of queer folks and their closely allied target group (uppity women who need Dr. Jensen telling them what to do with their daily lives just about as much as a fish needs a bicycle?) in countries all around the planet, including Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda, Tanzania. In USA and Canada the more recent changing tides of law and opinion to prohibit such outright citizen mistreatment owes little if anything at all to leading home grown realignment figures like Packer or Minns or Duncan. While these realignment figures loudly claim to be nothing but prisoners of conscience, they are completely tone deaf when it comes to anybody else with any sort of conscience that does not conform with their flat earth ideas. Creationisms, misogyny, antigay, and a whole host of other self-serving features mark the whole group to date, though as they always remind us, probably excepting themselves in these domains in their own pictures of themselves: Anybody can repent and change for the better.

If indeed GAFCON is the future of all Anglican believers globally, then count me out because false witness and mistreatment of others (based on what Canterbury has loosely referred to as 'unintelligent readings of the scriptures'?)so basically violate gospel that God surely fails to inform or bless either fondly held habit of the conservative Anglican realignment to date.

These mean folks enter and remain in the Anglican big tents, only to tear, rend, and destroy those very same big tents in what looks to be their bottomless lust for sheer brute power over other believers who may not conform to their oddly self-serving thinking.

Archbishop Jensen is very passionate about evangelism..and one cannot doubt his sincerity.

However he condemns the ordination of women priests and then upholds Duncan and Orombi who endorse it. He sees order as not being as important..yet our Lord commanded his followers to obey all his commandments.

He refers to the the sexual malaise in the West and quoting Jim Packer the " sanctification of sin ". and refers to Robinson as divorced...the fact is the Diocese of Sydney re-marries divorced persons and there were divorced and re-married bishops at the GAFCOn jamboree in Jerusalem.

He makes no mention that the Church of England in South Africa, a Gafcon participant brought in from the cold has lay presidency and the most liberal re-marriage policy, under its presiding bishop, Frank Retief..

He refers to the "great Anglican" , Bishop Harvey who is ministering to the breakaway congregations in Canada. Bishop Harvey is a devotee of our Lady of Walsingham. Incidently Our Lady of Walsingham is condemned by name in the Book of homilies promoted by the thirty nine articles. Even the articles which all good Gafconians have endorsed condemn unequivocally the intercession of Saints.

Yet he has to plug Cranmer and the articles in the speech and talk of the Reformation roots of Anglicanism!

Does any one see the inconsistency and contradiction..... the fudge?

Yes fudge..but obviously not pink fudge.

"The aim of GAFCON is to renew and invigorate the Communion and to help bring order and peace out of the mayhem created by the American division…"

The "mayhem"--and isn't that a bit over-the-top?--was created by those who insist that all of the Communion must think alike and act alike on what are, at best, second-order concerns and more likely third-order ones.

If Abp. Jensen and his diocese can seriously consider and act upon lay presidency without creating "mayhem," then surely the consecration of one gay bishop in a small diocese in the US should not either.

BTW, the American Heritage Dictionary defines "mayhem" thusly:

1. Law The offense of willfully maiming or crippling a person.
2. Infliction of violent injury on a person or thing; wanton destruction: children committing mayhem in the flower beds.
3. A state of violent disorder or riotous confusion; havoc.

Comment by Archbishop Jensen, at the 2008 Sydney Diocesan Synod:-
"Persistent attempts to portray GAFCON as a breakaway movement to split the Anglican Communion are perverse, almost mailgn".

What sort of double-talk is that, Dr. Jensen? How on earth can you expect the rest of the Anglican Communion to accept your version of the problems of schismatic activity stemming from the urging of the Gafcon Primates to disassociate members of your Group from their parent Churches - in order to toe the line with your requirements of LAW versus GRACE as the way forward for our Communion?

Such incitement of the dissenters: to remove themselves (and in some cases their parishes and dioceses) from TEC and the Canadian Anglican Churches, is nothing short of rampant SCHISM. Whatever has occurred elsewhere in the Communion that you say has caused this movement to separate from traditional Churches is certainly not sufficient reason for arrogant GAFCON Primates to counsel apostacy.

We all know that your Sydney Archdiocese was founded on the Evangelical principles of the 'Sola Scriptura' Biblical School, but how does this allow you to encourage insurrection in the wider Church? Your arrogance in this matter is nothing less that a rankl departure from your ordination vows, which required you to become a Shepherd of Christ's Flock. How do you see your actions here as in any way remaining true to this basic concept of loving episcopal oversight?

Thank God most Australian Anglicans, including the Primate and most of his clergy and bishops, are aware of your hubris, and will not permit you to over-ride the polity of the Australian Anglican Church.

What I find interesting is Duncan and his ilk stated at the Pittsburgh Convention that homosexuality was not the reason they were leaving. The left because people in TEC have denied the Trinity, the physical resurrection of Jesus and a few other reasons I can't recall. The hate the gays talk wasn't really making them popular with some of their supporters. Why are Jensen and Akinola still on the gay issue? Even in places like Fort Worth it's less about gays than it's about the fact that they don't recognize women in holy orders.

Ian: You did a really good job of pointing out the inconsistencies. I've often asked Duncan's women (those ordained women who favor realignment) how they can keep their collars even when tradition and scripture are clearly against . It's alright for them to be ordained, even become a bishop but Gene Robinson is an abomination. I call it picking and choosing. It's alright if they say it's so!

Didn't Jensen want to give lay men the right to celebrate holy communion? How can that be kosher?
Sounds like he and Duncan have written their own bibles.
God must be speaking to them. The last one I remember God speaking to was Oral Roberts. He was going to be called home if he didn't get 8 million. hmmmm. It's all bizarre.

Bob

This is just an incidental point, but why, oh why, do people keep referring to the diocese of Sydney as an ARCH-diocese?

Such things do not exist in the Anglican Church in Australia. An archbishop does not an archdiocese make. The term is used by the Roman and Eastern rite churches -- which would be hilariously ironic if the misnomer is being promoted by Sydney Anglicans.

The Sydney Synod just resolutely rejected a motion that would have recognised that there was a minority within the diocese who believed women as priests and bishops are Scriptural.

This is not a second order issue for Sydney...as it is portaryed in the Gafcon Declaration,..as one speaker at the Synod said, "If we allow this , it will change us forever."

The real aim of the real GAFCON leadership is to eventually uindermine womens headship in the participating Gafcon "provinces" and to stop it happening in Nigeria.

[Speaking as one of the "perverse, almost malign"]

When you point your finger at me, Peter, three fingers point back at you! ;-/

Lord have mercy...

Bob suggested "The left because people in TEC have denied the Trinity, the physical resurrection of Jesus and a few other reasons I can't recall. "

Poppy cock. Jensen is the author of propositional revelation in which Jesus is the complete and perfect fulfillment of God. In this model there is no discrete Holy Spirit nor Father who might disagree with Jesus' decisions nor have their own feelings and sensibilities. Jensen reduced the cloud of the divine presence to a manifestation without discrete consciousness or sensibility.

Nor does the cloud of the divine presence deny Jesus. After all she baptised him, transfigured him and resurrected him. How can she deny that which she affirmed and allowed the rest of Creation to cooperate with?

Refute the Shekina and these fools refute themselves and the ancestral roots from which they claim to rise.

"Archbishop Jensen is very passionate about evangelism..and one cannot doubt his sincerity."
- Robert Ian Williams -

Robert. I doubt whether most readers on this site would agree with you on your assertion here - that Abp. Jensen's sincerity cannot be doubted.
In the same posting you have declared that he is double-minded in his anti-catholic theology, versus his acceptance of Duncan and Iker's high-churchmanship. What does that say about his sincerity? Or does that word mean something else where you are?

Jensen's duplicity must be obvious even to his most devoted disciples, and when he acts in conclave with the likes of Duncan and Iker, he would be seen as betraying his own protestant theology - so dearly defended by his brother, the Dean of Sydney.

Sydney has always meant something 'different' for most other Anglicans in Australia. It is well- know that, in that diocese, a priest may not wear a chasuble to celebrate the Eucharist. However, some of the Catholic parishes (yes, there are some in Sydney) have to make do with wearing a cope for their more catholic celebrations of the Sacraments of the Church.

Clergy and Bishops within the Sydney Diocese are apparently subject to rigid rules about their adherence to protestant doctrine, evangelical piety and biblical literalism before being accepted for ministry there. This is what has set much of the Sydney Diocese apart from mainline Anglicanism - its doctrine and polity. This may explain Dr.Jensen's alliance with some of the African Primates and the Primate of the Southern Cone. The Word in the Bible has not yet become flesh for them.

“He refers to the the sexual malaise in the West and quoting Jim Packer the " sanctification of sin ". and refers to Robinson as divorced...the fact is the Diocese of Sydney re-marries divorced persons and there were divorced and re-married bishops at the GAFCOn jamboree in Jerusalem.”--Robert Ian Williams

Since when is the hypocrisy of the evangelicals news? However, I am still continually amazed that such a modern, gay-friendly city as Sydney hosts such a backward, theologically retarded bunch of Calvinists posturing as “Anglicans”! The “flogging parsons” of convict yore have left a lasting legacy in Olde Sydney Towne.

"Thus, following GAFCON a Primates’ Council has emerged, consisting of seven of the most significant leaders of the Anglican Communion. I am not a member of this, but I have been asked to act as the honorary secretary. They have waited patiently for over five years for help to arrive for Bob Duncan, David Short, Jim Packer and the rest. Nothing effective has been done and they have now concluded that nothing effective will be done" - Abp.Peter Jensen. Sydney Diocesan Synod.

Not so, dear Archbishop! Something effective has been done. The friends you mention here have been
duly, and canonically, relieved of their membership of the Anglican Communion - as we now know it - precisely because of their schismatic tendency to promote division within the Body of Christ on what have amounted to peripheral issues - compared to the grave sin of division.

If this action had not been taken, there would have been much greater trouble for the Communion than that in which we now find ourselves. But this, sadly, has not prevented the further moves towards schism which have been taken by other trouble-makers within the Communion - among them certain bishops who have consistently advocated alienation of fellow dissenters from their parent parochial and diocesan families, promising them a substitute ecclesial 'covering' under their own episcopal leadership. This has no place in the heritage of Anglicanism as we know it.

The 'seven significant leaders' you speak of here (among whom, we notice, you carefully do not number yourself - because you have no provincial responsibility), have advocated no less than a transgression against traditional Anglican polity and ecclesial structure They must explain, and take the responsibility for their actions, at the next meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council - to whom they are still accountable, as current members of the Anglican Communion.

Another interesting paragraph in Mr. Thomas' speech to the 'Reform' meeting has this to say:

"Taking alternative oversight first: the reason we’re interested in Episcopal oversight at all is that we believe in being part of an Episcopal church for good theological and pragmatic reasons. We are not Congregationalists in that we believe it biblical to be connexional. It is right therefore that it should not simply be the local congregation that validates its own senior ministry"

Obviously, what Mr. Thomas and his fellow would-be Reformers have not taken seriously into account is that their proposal - to seek alternative oversight (disdaining the lawful oversight of their own bishop) is not part and parcel of being an 'Anglican' - which is what they are claiming to be heir to.

'Flying Bishops' is a concept foreign to any tradition of catholic order - which the Anglican Church, prior to it's defection from this basic polity - to accommodate dissenters on the matter of women priests - had always adhered to.

This matter of the interruption of authentic episcopal order was, in fact, apparent in the Roman Catholic Church during the period of the two alternative Popes - in Avignon and Rome - but the prospect of alternative oversight is yet to be proved, in the Anglican Church, as the only way to deal with dissension on non-essential matters of contextual theology.

What has happened with previous schismatic sects in the USA, is the proliferation of various alternative 'anglican' (with a small 'a') church bodies; which have no formal relationship with the world-wide Anglican Communion connected to the founding See of Canterbury - nor indeed, as it happens, to one another.

Dear Ron.. i still think Doctor Jensen is sincere, but self-deceived on the orthodoxy issue..as he places womens ordination on a lower level than the SS issue.

Sydney Diocese is the Protestant conscience of Anglicanism...and even in your own CHCH diocese Anglo-catholics were once persecuted.

Just read that FIF and Reform have both praised GAFCON at their annual conferences.

Anglo-Catholics should be aware that just a few weeks ago in Uganda the underlining Protestant theology of GAFCON was worked out in Uganda...again Sydney are taking the lead.

The suggestion "Sydney Diocese is the Protestant conscience of Anglicanism..."

How can it be? They are the arch proponents of solo scriptural interpretations and insist they are the only true medium of papal authority, and that only their males are capable of spiritual teaching.

Their conduct and theology is more consistent with that which Jesus renounced than with that which Jesus affirmed.

And what is malign? Deciding that the South African church that ended apartheid is reprehensible and requires a new chuch planting (back in 1987). Who is malign. Who has consistently fought for tyranny and censorship and imposition, and who has fought for liberty diversity and responsibility.

Who has sought to insult God and use God as a cudgel to recruit and intimidate, and who has acknowledged God's love and sought to bring souls into partnership with God.

These souls do not have the protestant spirit, they put roadblocks between souls and God, insult God as being capricious and vengeful and idolotrously claim they have the only true path to redemption though an icon that has no relationship nor respect with other members of the Trinity.

"self-deceived on the orthodoxy issue"

Does it come as any surprise that a radical Evangelical reassessor would be "self-deceived"? I mean, he has convinced himself that Evangelicalism is somehow traditional Christianity, that what the Church has taught from the beginning is actually NOT the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. He is reported to be on side with those attempting to bring subordinationism into our definition of the Trinity, so great is his desire to keep a collar off a woman's neck. Sorry, but while I suppose "self-deception" is something we all fall into, it seems pretty prominent in the more extreme Evangelical camp. 2000 years of Christians would be surprised to learn that the faith once and for all delivered to the saints actually has the kind of sacramental theology he promotes, as but one example of his very unorthodox "orthodoxy".

"It represents one of the chief ways in which Christians all around the world receive fellowship, missional help, and attention when they are persecuted or in other trouble."

I just saw this. Is he seriously suggesting that when gay Anglicans in Nigeria are in danger of being thrown in prison, or in Sudan are in danger of being killed, then they can turn to the Church for help? I have to wonder what kind of help they would receive in that instance. I'd suggest that in the case of the hypothetical Nigerian Anglican gay person, that help would take the form of denial of his existence, statements that he should be grateful for a mere prison sentence, and, if Davis MacIyalla is anything to go by, international attempt to smear and slander him. Yeah, great help there, Pete. That Bp. Jensen doesn't realize that the Church is the LAST place most gay people, Anglican or otherwise, would turn for help, shows how little he understands the issues. Why am I not surprised?

Always enjoy reading you, Ford. I don't myself regard Jensen as altogether malevolent on the gay issue. Although he believes homosexual sexual activity to be wrong, he was clearly publicly embarrassed by the crass homophobia of Akinola et al. at whichever GAFCON conference it was and did try to rein them in.

Like you, John, I enjoyed Ford's postings on this thread.

The difficulty with the Sydney bishops is that while they might not be personally malevolent, they aid and abet souls who are malevolent.

Nor can one say that Sydney Anglicans do not listen to suggestions. The whole Connect 09 is an admission that they had failed to connect with the masses and to allow them a voice.

The problem is that while their words sound good, their hearts are cruel. They will give the public form of love and inclusion, but covertly they groom parishioners to shun and exclude.

They improve their techniques of evangelism, but their hearts are hard and selfish.

Malachi 1:2-5 God loved Jacob but hated Esau. These Gafconites might boast of what they are going to build, but they will be called a wicked priesthood, always under the wrath of the lord, because great is the Lord, even beyond the borders of Israel.

These Gafconites are like Esau: vain, self-absorbed, duplicitious, power-hungry, selfish, inconsiderate, abusive and plunderers. Jacob was not perfect, but Jacob accepted that which God imposed upon him. He might not have liked Leah, but knew she was the predestined mate for Esau and that since he had both Esau's inheritance and blessings, he was obliged to service her. Esau never even contemplated that which he had forsaken.

Likewise with these Gafconites, they think they can pick and choose which of God's manifestations they will acknowledge and assist. When the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt in Nehemiah, both men and women were part of the reconstruction. When it was time to build the first temple for the first ark, there was no manual of who should do what, and it was the women who contrived a way to build the temple, even on the Sabbath, without breaking the ordinances.

This planet needs saving from extinction. These Gafconites have decided they have a right to exclude some souls from assisting. If women, GLBTs and non-Christians want to rebuild and restore and make this planet worthy of the divine presence, then who are these selfish and manipulative priests to hinder or attack them? Go and read Obadiah. Such souls are Edomites.

"I don't myself regard Jensen as altogether malevolent on the gay issue."

I don't either. I see him a deeply misguided and arrogantly ignorant of the Gospel. From what I have seen of Sydney Anglicans, his brand of Christianity has produced some very rotten fruit indeed, and "by their fruits shall you know them." Not all Sydney Anglicans, of course.

"Not all Sydney Anglicans, of course"
Thank you Ford :-) There are some of us trying to worship in Sydney despite those in charge doing everything possible to prevent us. Today's Sydney Morning Herald shows they were happy to see the removal of a program on National radio which often criticised them. I am sure they had some influence there. Besides outlawing chasubles, our parish was banned from allowing congregational devotion at the Cross on Good Friday after making the mistake of inviting a Sydney Bishop to attend. Normally we invite bishops from other dioceses to preach.

"Besides outlawing chasubles, our parish was banned from allowing congregational devotion at the Cross on Good Friday after making the mistake of inviting a Sydney Bishop to attend."

Am I able to guess which parish this is? I heard a likely apocryphal story of an AC parish in Sydney right next to the Cathedral parish, that every year takes its Corpus Christi procewssion as far as it can and gives Benediction in the direction of the Cathedral! Even if it isn't true, it's a great story. But, yeah, stories I have read of the treatment of the few ACs in Sydney makes me giggle at the hypocrisy of 'them' accusing others of oppressing and trying to silence them. "You'll understand how oppressed we are after we take our boot off your face."

The Plot Thickens - in Sydney, Australia.

At the recent Sydney Diocesan Synod, the meeting has "overwhelingly" endorsed the GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration as "exemplifiying the tenets of orthodoxy which underpins our Anglican identity".

This report in the English Church Times also reports that a separate motion congratulated the Archbishop and Bishops of Sydney for attending GAFCON and for their moves to "continue our development as a truly Bible-based Anglican Church"

A further report says that the Sydney Diocese has stated that "We don't want to specialise the presbyters in adminstering the Lord' Supper.. but we want them to specialise in their incumbency" - followed by another clause which states that "(This Synod) Affirms that the Lord's Supper in this diocese may be adminstered by persons other than presbyters..".

These latter statements on their own might not cause undue concern, in that Lay Ministers of the Eucharist are already licnsed in Anglican Churches around the world to ADMINISTER, but not to PRESIDE at, the Eucharist, which is what the Synod has proposed the ordained Diaconate may now undertake. So far in the anglican Communion around the world, no-one but a duly-ordained priest is allowed to preside at the Eucharist.

This movement in the Sydney Diocese will set that Diocese apart from the rest of the Anglican Church in Australia, and in other places. This is a matter of ORDER in the Church, which will be at odds with the other GAFCONites who value the traditional Catholic Order of the Priesthood.

“These latter statements on their own might not cause undue concern, in that Lay Ministers of the Eucharist are already licnsed in Anglican Churches around the world to ADMINISTER, but not to PRESIDE at, the Eucharist, which is what the Synod has proposed the ordained Diaconate may now undertake. So far in the anglican Communion around the world, no-one but a duly-ordained priest is allowed to preside at the Eucharist.”--Fr. Ron Smith

I just don’t get this “Sydney Anglican” passion for lay celebration. If they want to be Presbyterians, why don’t they leave the Anglican Church just as the old Puritans did in the 17th century? If it’s a question of needing more clergy, why don’t they ordain more priests? I just don’t understand these Calvinists!

"If they want to be Presbyterians,"

Because it isn't enough for them to believe sincerely and honestly that they are right. They have to force everybody else to either acknowledge that they are right or get out of the Church. Weakness of faith is the issue. They have to have the Law plainly and clearly spelled out in order to have any trust at all that they are, as the Consevo phrase goes, "right with God". Because we all know that redemption is about being "right with God". There's also the added bonus of getting to feel so much better than those who do not follow the Law as strictly as they do themselves, thus not being "right with God". They also have to force others to do as they do, because, if not, then people are being permitted to DO WHAT IS WRONG!!! And if people can DO WHAT IS WRONG without consequences, then we might just be led to ask, "why do have to do things the way the conservatives say we should?", then we might actually NOT do what the conservatives say we should, and they might be led to doubt their own rightness, not being mindful of the Psalm that speaks of the prosperity of the wicked, nor of the one that calls us to us to just chill out and "know that I am God".