Thinking Anglicans

Peter Jensen's opinion on New Orleans etc.

The Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, has written The Next Twenty Years for Anglican Christians.

…Uncertainty is now over. The decisive moments have passed. Irreversible actions have occurred. The time has come for sustained thought about a different future. The Anglican Communion will never be the same again. The Windsor process has failed, largely because it refused to grapple with the key issue of the truth. A new and more biblical vision is required to help biblically faithful Anglican churches survive and grow in the contemporary world.

Some have still set their hopes on the Lambeth Conference. But that is to misunderstand the significance of our time. It can no longer either unify Anglicanism or speak with authority. The invitations have gone to virtually all, and it is likely that some of those not invited will still attend as guests. There are faithful Anglican bishops who are not invited, and there are others who cannot be present in good conscience. The solemn words of the 1998 Conference were ignored by the American Church in 2003, and any authority which we may have ascribed to the deliberations of the Bishops has been lost permanently. Not surprisingly, Lambeth 2008 is not going to attempt a similar exercise in conciliar pronouncements. Why would it? There is no vision here….

… That leads to this fundamental conclusion. Those who believe that the American development is wrong must also plan for the next decades, not the next few months. There is every reason to think that the Western view of sexuality will eventually permeate other parts of the world. After all, it has done so spectacularly in the West, and the modern communication revolution has opened the way for everyone to be aware of what happens in New York, London, San Francisco and Brighton.

Thus the question before the biblically orthodox in the Communion is this: what new vision of the Anglican Communion should we embrace? Where should it be in the next twenty years? How can we ensure that the word of God rules our lives? How are we going to guard ourselves effectively against the sexual agenda of the West and begin to turn back the tide of Western liberalism? What theological education must we have? How can we now best network with each other? Who is going to care for Episcopalians in other western provinces who are going to be objecting to the official acceptance of non-biblical practices? The need for high level discussion of these issues is urgent.

As an initial step I look to the Global South leadership to call for another ‘Blast of the Trumpet.’ The ensuing consultation must start with the reality of where we are now, and look steadfastly to a future in which the bonds of Communion have been permanently loosened. It has to strengthen the fellowship by which churches will help each other to guard their theological good health while engaging together with the task of preaching the gospel to an unbelieving world…

Read it all.

100 comments

  • Mike Homfray says:

    Hilarious – Western liberalism is something I want to spread, not ‘turn back the tide of’

    No wonder so few people in Sydney, a great liberal, gay-friendly city, go to church.

    This is a clear sign of a split: here, the Fuhrer has certainly spoken. ‘Permanently loosened’ is an interesting way of saying ‘split’

  • Tim says:

    `others cannot be present in good conscience’

    Who are those, then? It surely doesn’t refer to the Global South, because after all, scriptural injunction is that if you perceive sin happening, you first go and tackle the potential offenders; the alternative, used rarely, is to dissociate altogether, and yet they’re still claiming to be in the Communion.

  • Francisjon says:

    I note the Archbishop of Sydney’s statement: “modern communication revolution has opened the way for everyone to be aware of what happens in New York, London, San Francisco and Brighton.”

    He clearly doesn’t know what’s going on in his own backyard…

  • NP says:

    Not surprising….but for those will attack his views now, please remember that Jensen, Reform etc are all people who could have left decades ago but did not because they love the Anglican church and want it to use its reason to stay faithful to its own scriptures and tradition.

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    “There is every reason to think that the Western view of sexuality will eventually permeate other parts of the world. After all, it has done so spectacularly in the West, and the modern communication revolution has opened the way for everyone to be aware of what happens in New York, London, San Francisco and Brighton.”

    And it never occurs to +Jensen that this might be the work of the Spirit, does it? Because the Spirit couldn’t possibly disagree with his view of things, could it?

  • Pluralist says:

    Looks like the one we’ve been waiting for. Mr Schism has spoken. Not only that, but the inclusive view of sexuality will get everywhere – and his Church, along with the Global South blasting the trumpet (is that really the noise I can hear?) is going to put up the shutters and raise the gate, once separately organised.

    Bye bye!

  • NP says:

    Pat – no, it does not occur to many people that the sins of western societies is the work of the Holy Spirit…..especially since He had a lot to do with giving us God’s word and what you want to justify is, therefore, clearly not in step with the Spirit

    (Dr Jensen is not African……he does hold a pHD and is a very intelligent, warm, humble human being – just fyi, in case it helps some to put their prejudices away and read what he has actually said about what has happened in the AC in the last 4 years and where we are today)

  • Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Pat O’Neill

    The Spirit might do whatever the Spirit liked. But: (a) why should the Spirit say contradictory things in different ages? and (b) why does the Spirit in your view just so happen to be following contemporary secular culture? That is not what the Spirit is generally known for doing, is it?

  • L Roberts says:

    No Pluralist — I think you’ll find it’s a dog whistle.

    But we are not, in fact, dogs.

  • M.R.G. says:

    “…people who could have left decades ago but did not because they love the Anglican church and want it to use its reason to stay faithful to its own scriptures and tradition.”

    Ah, yes. The old two-legged stool, NP. Perhaps that’s why Jensen sounds increasingly unbalanced.

  • Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Mike Homfray-

    I’m so glad you want to ‘spread’ Western liberalism. This is also something close to my own heart.

    For too long there have been too few divorces, and not nearly enough abortions. Family life is dangerously strong, and as a result crime rates are pitifully low. Steps must be taken to reverse this.

    Will you unite with me to form an Evil, Be Thou My Good society? That should do the trick.

  • Mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) says:

    Jensen’s got traditions, NP, but they’re hardly Anglican. As for Reform…..

  • I feel like a divorce lawyer who half way through a heavily contested case suddenly discovers his client’s husband has written an article entitled “Why I enjoy beating my wife”.

  • John Robison says:

    Why do we care?
    The man is, lets face it, not even a Congragationalist in his ecclesiology since even they think that the Sarcements should be administered by someone who is Ordained.
    If there is anyone “invnting a new religion” and not taking “scripture seriously” it is Jenkens and the rest of the fudamentalist heritics who do not. To abandon the dynamic Three Fold form of the Word and replace it with the dead stone of literalism and superstition is probably the worst crime committed by the Jensenites. The violation of the ancient principals of Church found in the ordering of her ministers pales in comparison to the broken and dark idolitry of Literalism.

  • Bob in SW PA says:

    Seems Jensen likes trumpets. To bad no one in Sydney is listening. Maybe it requires more than a lot of hot air?

  • Merseymike says:

    Good point, Francisjon – its estimated that Sydney is the city with the highest % gay population, worldwide!

    And, NP, the reason they didn’t leave is simply because of power and prestige. There’s not an ounce of credibility in any of them. Now, go, and shut the door behind you – we don’t like the smell of naked ambition.

  • RudigerVT says:

    “A new and more biblical vision…”

    New *and* more biblical?

    That’s a neat turn of phrase from one who appears to want to sell some old-time religion.

    LPR

  • John Omani says:

    NP says:
    ‘ Jensen, Reform etc are all people who could have left decades ago but did not because they love the Anglican church and want it to use its reason to stay faithful to its own scriptures and tradition.’

    Nonsense. They are not in the least faithful to the tradition of mainstream Anglicanism which is latitudinarian and broad in its theology, but stand in the tradition of the sectaries of the English Civil War. They should have left decades ago, but because they love the wealth, trappings, and power of the Anglican church they want to wrestle as much of it for themselves as they can.

    Like vultures they circle, ready to feed off what they think will be the remains of the Church, but the Day of Judgement cannot come too soon for them.

  • JPM says:

    Christopher, I don’t think you want to go there regarding divorce, since, at least here in the states, quite a few leaders of the so-called “orthodox” are enthusiastic practitioners of serial polygamy.

    One of them, a man so pure he pulled his parish out of TEC rather than risk being contaminated, likes to tell his congregation that his most recent marriage represents God giving him “a second chance.”

    Interestingly, this is the guy the Network put in charge of their campaign to “preserve the sanctity of marriage.”

  • NP says:

    Merseymike – what prestige and power – in the CofE?? And you do know that for all your whining about society’s values, the powerful and prestigious churches in the CofE are evangelical – that is those which attract lots of people from the wider society every week and do not depend on things like the proceeds of selling burial grounds etc for funds to employ the sort of vicar you like to hear say he/she really does not know what the bible means……

  • drdanfee says:

    Hmm these claims of a conservative appeal to reason seem strange and odd. Are we suddenly going to discuss and argue these hot button matters, rationally? With full reference to hypothesis testing and sound descriptive empirical data? What a hoot.

    But I think in the long run we shall only find that this narrative sounds like it is appealing to rational scholarship and hermeneutics, while it persists in its other presuppositions about reason – that is, something rationalistic on the plain surfaces while importing antigay prejudices and – above all – the right to put up barriers between citizen queer folks and any resources or opportunities that might happen to be laying about. Laying about in Sydney, at least, it would seem.

    Thanks archbishop, for your own loud, clear trumpet blast. One clearly hears that puritanical views about human nature, and sexuality in particular, are the rule of the day for the foreseeable next few decades. Along with keeping and feeding that invisible elephant in so many puritanical rooms – the awkward confusion of sex with Potty Training drum beats, Sex=Messy.

    Hat tip to NP and CShell. Thanks for repeating the ready false witness about abortions and the like being essential to the prog-lib agenda, unbiblical. But you see, the last century or so of careful and diligent biblical scholarship on all sorts of levels has gotten us to the present point of reconsiderations, plus the facts that keep flooding out from empirical studies. If those who care enough to research things are exemplars of what unbiblical means, I think a few Anglican believers might take some issue with certain remarks. I think being rational might mean that one investigates all of one’s starting presuppositions, via a range of best practice critical frameworks; not the other way round, that one takes one’s presuppositions completely for granted and never gives them a second, critical thought.

    As if the real prog-lib agenda were not ethical responsibility, even outside of formalized marriage, including contraception, adoption, equality and mutuality in all male/female relationships in all settings, and real care in parenting. The sheer brute unhappiness that sighs in heaviness behind so many traditional closed marital doors is what has served to do marriage in, for those who have gotten discouraged about that honorable estate; not much else.

    How very clever, ignoring that heavy creature while pointing the fingers at prog-lib views. Very clever indeed.

  • Prior Aelred says:

    Martin Reynolds on Monday, 8 October 2007 at 1:42pm BST

    How very droll — Martin, you’ve outdone yourself!

  • sueg says:

    “How can we ensure that the word of God rules our lives? “
    And which words would that be? Hope I get to choose them!

  • Tobias Haller says:

    The so-called “western” view on sexuality may or may not have anything to do with the Holy Spirit. I hope that the erroneous statements in Scripture concerning sexuality do not stem from the Holy Spirit, but human fallibility. I can assure you that contrary to Hebrews 7:9-10, Levi was not “in his father’s loins” when he met Melchizedek. There is no more reason to rely on Genesis for guidance on human sexuality than we do for cosmology. The locus of morality is not the genitalia, but the heart. That is not a “western” view — in fact, it represents the Gospel view. Of course, I could be wrong.

  • Robert Ian Williams says:

    liberalism is in the eye of the beholder.
    Archbishop Jensen permits women to be ordained deacon and to preach. A no no for some conservatives.He rebuked his more radical brother, the Dean of Sydney, when the Latter spoke out about women preaching.

    Sydney diocese is very liberal on re-marriage and divorce.

    Also Sydney does not condemn contraception as the Anglican Communion did until 1930.

    Furthermore Sydney will be moving on lay celebration after Lambeth 2008.
    No doubt Sydney could be in as much hot water as TEC. However they feel it wiser to wait until 2009.

    However Archbishop Jensen has spoken out on the Howard Giovernment’s racist refugee policy.

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    NP and Christopher Shell:

    You both operate on the assumption (I might almost say “presumption”) that the authors of those ancient scriptures properly understood what the Spirit was telling them and recorded it without error.

    I am not so presumptuous. I assume that the Spirit would not want us to take moral positions that so clearly contradict the scientific reality of the world.

  • Andrew says:

    Do I understand that Sydney is the same diocese that advocates lay presidency? What kind of Anglicanism is that?

  • Malcolm+ says:

    My Lord of Sydney: “What will happen if British Anglicans follow this route?”

    Anyone else notice the explicit threat to attempt a comparable coup d’eglise against the Church of England?

  • Thanks Rudiger for picking up on that passage. I wanted to give it special mention too “A new and more biblical vision is required…”

    What happened to the solo scriptural authoritative interpretation that has been valid for over 2000 years? What, there really is a trinity with three discrete entities that actually talk and collaborate with each other and are not all one subsumed personality?

    Or does Jesus have schizophrenia??? The man who died and resurrected himself – so there was no grace of God the Father, so his sacrifice was for nothing? That explains why we are all still fallen sinners and women can still be vilified. Apparently Jesus crucifixion and resurrection were a failure. Apparently God is like men, who say they love and forgive you and will honor you and not commit adultery and give you justice and mercy. But once their Jesus is satiated he disappears into the sunset leaving us with tyranny, vilification, greed and corruption.

    Apparently when God says “I love you” God does not mean I love you. When God offers “free” salvation, it actually comes with conditions and a price, including the loss of free will and perpetual slavery, famine, plagues and war.

    Their theology refutes God and thus implodes upon itself because their theology denies God’s capacity to love and honor and they have thus completely discredited their theology. They have built their castle on shifting sand that was swept away with the first high tide.

    Christopher that is the most disgusting post you have ever made. You are fighting the demons of your imagination not liberal Christians.

    We acknowledge the merits of marriage and want it available for all God’s children, we desire that every child that is conceived is loved and wanted by both parents, we want crime to come down – across all society. We want an end to the criminal statistics we have now which allow the rich to move with impunity and burden the poor who might steal just a loaf of bread to feed their family. We want justice for all humanity, not just for selfish corrupt elite and their collusive sycophantic priests.

  • Merseymike says:

    NP; in this country, the CofE retains a modicum of prestige and respectability – quite unlike the many fringe fundie/charismatic churches which are regarded by most ordinary people as fringe cults.

    The only reason that the cons-evos haven’t joined them is the kudos of establishment.

  • Andrew says:

    Do I understand that Sydney is the same diocese that advocates lay presidency? What kind of Anglicanism is that?

  • MG says:

    Where do all the various comments on the lack of church attenders in Sydney come from?

    I would be interested to know given the Sydney diocese is the only one growing in Australia; the only one with new parishes opening; and the only one with a influx of young enthusiastic new trainees for the priesthood.

    Perhaps you have mistaken it for Queensland — where churches are closing faster than you can blink; or Melbourne — where the average church is so small it can’t afford to have a full time vicar. But of course, those are the “prophetic” part of the Australian church lives — and the Spirit has revealed his support through their decline, as indeed he is showing his support for TEC with its steady move to extinction.

  • Look, charity, decency and honesty would dictate that we regard Bp Jensen as being in good faith. He has, after all, the letter of Scripture and 2000 years of tradition on his side.

  • NP says:

    Pat says “You both operate on the assumption (I might almost say “presumption”) that the authors of those ancient scriptures properly understood what the Spirit was telling them and recorded it without error.I am not so presumptuous.”

    Course you are not……why might that be, Pat?
    Trying to justify any sin in particular??

  • Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Pat O’Neill-

    Is there anything you disagree with teh Spirit about? Or does the Spirit agree with you about everything? Are there any respects in which the Spirit is not a 21st century western liberal?

    I am reminded of the Dictionary of Christian Biography around 100 years ago which had an entry for the Holy Spirit. Who is, after all, a very distinguished (Victorian/Edwardian) gentleman.

    Also of the lady who asked me the other day for a little box to contain the Holy Ghost. I think (hope) she meant the Host.

  • Merseymike says:

    No, NP, no one here is trying to justify any sin. We have told you that many, many times, but you don’t appear to be hearing the answer.

    Which just might suggest that you are a troll.

  • Merseymike says:

    MG: why, then, does Sydney remain a thriving, liberal , gay-friendly city with the estimated highest gay population in the world %-wise?

    Forming little ghettoes of the disaffected is relatively easy. But they operate almost without making any impact at all on the society in which they exist – characteristic of postmodern society, which is ever more fragmented

    if your vision is to simply mop up those who prefer the way things used to be in a conservative holy huddle, then Sydney is doing its job. But in terms of reaching the wider population in Sydney – forget it. Think too, of the harm the homophobic outpourings of Jensen and his mates cause in terms of encouraging those people to think of the church as anything other than an enemy.

  • NP says:

    Merseymike….you are dreaming if you think the hundreds of pathetic, declining CofE churches have any prestige in England….. my colleagus laugh at the Vicar of Dibley and think churches just contain small groups of misfits and (worst of all) that the CofE has nothinng much to say on moral issues. (note, Rowan Williams did not do much vs the Iraq war, did he?)

    My non-church friends and colleagues are surprised when they come to my church and find hundreds of young people (many of whom are really quite normal Londoners!)

    Omani – so you argue that the vicars who have been faithful to the bible and built large Anglican congregations out of nothing have been in it for the prestige?? There was no prestige in what they started with i.e. nothing much….they built their congregations through faithful preaching of the bible through the years (and now have to subsidise those next door who only know they cannot say what the bible means and who, funnily enough, have shrinking congregations) You noticed how irrelevant the CofE is today in England? It ain’t pretigious – it is just a place for weirdos according to most people in the pubs asnd football grounds….. and I can see why they think that. Thank God, we have seen thousands converted in the last decade, despite so many people being put off the gospel by the pathetic image of the CofE in modern England

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    NP and Chris:

    I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s comment when a Union general told him that assuredly God was on their side. Lincoln responded, “Sir, I think we should pray, rather, that we are on God’s side.”

  • Merseymike says:

    NP; its the institution of the Established Church which does still have some clout, as far as the State is concerned. Certainly far more than, say, independent charismatic churches.

    The people who are regarded with derision, NP, are the evangelicals – and if you don’t recognise that, it shows how out of touch you are.

  • Christopher Shell says:

    Hi JPM-

    That confirmes my worst fears about TEC. If you wanted to find someone who could perceive the full horror of divorce, you would not go to a divorcee – because they would be in danger of being jaded or seared – just as doctors are the very ones who can get most blase about abortion. You would probably go to a child.

    No wonder TEC are blind to the sin they are welcoming through their front door. Their antennae are broken.

  • L Roberts says:

    I do not think CS can validly impute the abortion statistics to us lesbian & gay folk. — I know we tend to take the fall for many things—we shall have to leave this one,squarely in the court of the heterosexual majority, who afterall, make the laws and regulations; and who by & large ‘produce’ unwanted pregnancies, in spades.

  • Stephen Roberts says:

    NP – “my colleagus (sic) laugh at the Vicar of Dibley” – disturbing NP, very very disturbing 😉

  • Robert Ian Williams says:

    If Archbishop Jensen was the bad man so many want to make him out to be…he would have not have delayed allowing lay presidency until after Lambeth 2008.

    Furthermore I forgot to mention he has spoken up for the Aboringine population and has done mucgh to build up relationships in the multi-ethnic communituies of Sydney. He diasagrees profoundly with the Catholic Church, but maintains friendly relations with Cardinal Pell and attended his episcopal installation, withdrawing when the Mass began.

    I repeat, Archbishop Jensen is not a bigot, but a man who has sought to serve his Saviour all his life, since his conversion at a Billy Graham rally.

  • Stephen Roberts says:

    NP – It beggars belief that you’d take up arms with the Archbishop of Sydney in all his Lollardy just to further your one item agenda.

    “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” **never** works – as proven in Iran (against Iraq), Afghanistan (against the USSR) and as will prove to be true with Duncan et al.

    Unlike many on this forum, I don’t relish a split, when any side leaves the table the defeat (and blame) are shared equally.

  • Ford Elms says:

    “Sydney diocese is very liberal on re-marriage and divorce.”

    Which therefor gives them oh so much room to claim that others are trying to bless sin. Tell me, why is it that heterosexual sin doesn’t count? Why is it OK to come up with elaborate justification for divorce and remarriage, but completely unacceptable to do the same for gay marriage? Why are we only allowed to fudge away heterosexual sin?

    NP,
    “the powerful and prestigious churches in the CofE are evangelical”

    Now, what do I remember some ancient Jew saying about lording one’s power and prestige over others? Something about “whited sepulchres”, I believe. Couldn’t have been important, I guess.

    “pathetic, declining CofE churches”

    My, your Fishtianity is showing! Tell me, if this is the way the Gospel you preach tells you to behave, what possible reason could I have for believing it? Your God tells you to scorn others? Must be nice.

    “it is just a place for weirdos according to most people in the pubs asnd football grounds….. and I can see why they think that.”

    Of course, you actually have no idea why they think that, as you have quite clearly proven here in the past year. You are like a child with cake all over his face trying to blame his brother for eating it.

  • NP says:

    Nice to have you back, Ford.

    Firstly, Sydney is not actually very liberal on divorce and remarriage so you can bin that one. They are very consistent in applying the same biblical teaching to heteros (ie only in marriage)
    Pls read this book by Philip Jensen: http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/pure-sex-sex_137/

    Secondly, do see the context of my comments above – I was replying to a ridiculous post from the secularist Merseymike which said evos stayed in the CofE for “prestige” and power etc….this is why I was addressing those points. And, sorry, when I see a non-gospel emptying churches decade after decade I will say it is pathetic

  • NP says:

    VGR’s comments today show that ++Jensen is right on the TEC HOB statement not being as positive as the JSC has tried (and failed) to pretend

  • NP says:

    merseymike – I do listen to you asserting that your sin is not a sin…but I cannot agree with your contradicting the bible. Got it?

    Also, I have told you many times that I do not buy your assertion that evangelicals turn people off…because thousands have become Christians in my church and you, no doubt, have not seen such blessing from God – not many from UK society flocking to sit next to you and believe nothing inconvenient on a Sunday, are there?

  • Erika Baker says:

    “If you wanted to find someone who could perceive the full horror of divorce, you would not go to a divorcee”

    This is the most bizarre statement I’ve ever heard.
    I had no concept of the full horror of divorce until I went through it myself.

    But it does fit the kind of mind who believes that everything victims say is emotionally tainted and that the only statements worth hearing are purely “logical” ones, devoid of any actual emotional experience and impact.

    You can, of course, shut yourself off from what real people say about real divorces, abortions and other humans failure. But it doesn’t make your resulting prejudices particularly credible.

  • Ford Elms says:

    “a non-gospel”

    Keep it up, NP!

  • dave p says:

    Thank you, Erika, for that interruption of the “NP Pontificates Further” show…

  • Merseymike says:

    NP; yes, I got it many months ago. But I don’t agree with you. No-one here does, because this is a liberal blog.

    I’d suggest you go and talk to people outside your church, not those looking for what it has to offer. There will always be a market for simplistic fundamentalism. read Adorno.

  • Got to love them, all those churches just contain small groups of misfits. That’s what Jesus started his ministry with, a bunch of twelve ecclectic misfits.

    Yes Pat, we should not be crowing that God is on our side, but rather praying that we are on God’s side.

    To paraphrase Robert Kennedy.

    “Ask not what God can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for God”.

    How about repentance of aggression; restoring justice and dignity to all humanity; demonstrating reverence towards our environment and Gaia’s occupants; treating our friends, family, neighbours and enemies with humility and compassion.

    The other good thing about Sydney is that it is a city where the secular often shows more fear of God and respect for divine principles of justice than its faith leaders.

  • Robert Ian Williams says:

    WHEN I SAID SYDNEY …I MEANT THE DIOCESE. When
    I asked Archbishop Jensen about divorce,he affirms that he did not believe that marriage was indissoluble,but that the diocese had been tpoo liberal on the issue. AB Jensen is a big supporter of Bishop Frank Retief of CESA.
    Retief authored a book on divorce which is very liberal, and virtually allows for no fault divorce.

    Evangelicals are split on this issue and carefully side-step the issue, in the Reform Covenant for instance.

    In so far as AB Jensen accepts divorce and re-marriage…he departs from the traditional Church of England position (1559-2001).

  • Jerry Hannon says:

    NP treated us to: “merseymike – I do listen to you asserting that your sin is not a sin…but I cannot agree with your contradicting the bible. Got it?”

    Sorry NP, although I may not be with Merseymike on a number of theological points, the proper phrase that you should have used would be “I cannot agree with your contradicting my (i.e., NP’s) interpretation of the bible.”

    You see, NP, most of us, and most of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion, are not fundamentalists. You seek an approach which denies reason, one of the three core elements of Anglicanism, and you instead seek a Puritanical Communion that conforms to your own beliefs, and your own interpretation of scripture.

    Now, if you would like to refine your dispute to one that asks for those who (A) stand on the side of committed and monogamous relationships (whether heterosexual or homosexual), versus (B) those who would stand for sexual roulette and one-night-stands and other examples of non-monogamous relationships (whether homosexual or heterosexual), then I will certainly join you in the (A) camp.

    But I am no more qualified to identify Merseymike’s “sin,” than you are. I would also suspect that both you, and I, have our own list of sins, but mine are between me and the Lord, just as are yours, and just as are Merseymike’s.

    Got it, NP?

  • John Omani says:

    NP: your statements demonstrate very much of what is wrong with conservative evangelicalism.

    ‘my colleagus laugh at the Vicar of Dibley and think churches just contain small groups of misfits… [the C of E] it is just a place for weirdos according to most people in the pubs asnd football grounds….. and I can see why they think that.’

    It is true that hardline Evangelicals have no place for ‘misfits’ and ‘wierdos’ in their churches – sadly many people share your attitude. Fortunately, the misfits and wierdos are precisely the people that Christ in the Gospels tells us we should be reaching out towards: these, NP, not your Pharisees, will be the people that inherit the Kingdom.

    ‘…despite so many people being put off the gospel by the pathetic image of the CofE in modern England’

    You concern yourself too much with image, as if this Christ was a product to be packaged and marketed. Remember Mt 25 – the best evangelism takes place feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, visiting the sick, comforting those that mourn; not through slick audio-visuals, toronto blessings, and condemning the ‘misfits’.

    ‘we now have to subsidise those next door who only know they cannot say what the bible means and who, funnily enough, have shrinking congregations. You noticed how irrelevant the CofE is today in England?’

    This is why neither you, nor Jensen, are truly Anglican: there is no comprehension of the Church as a catholic or corporate body. You have contempt for the CofE. Jensen even believes in lay presidency, which marks the death knell for ministerial priesthood. If your understanding of ecclesiology, liturgy, and the sacraments is not Anglican, what then is left? Why not go and join the Presbyterians or become an evangelical mega-church and leave the Anglicans to get on with it? Jensen has said that his chief reason for remaining an Anglican is the platform it provides him to condemn homosexuals, but this does not seem a Godly motive, since he could make the same condemnations anywhere. The glory and prestige of leading a great schism must be tempting. He will be able to go one better than his hero John Knox, in Blasting the Trumpet not just against the Monstrous Regiment of Women but also the Monstrous Regiment of Homosexuals.

  • NP says:

    Ford – pls see 1 Cor 5:12………….. it is not good behaviour to se a non-gospel and keep quiet out of respect or fear – we are explicitly called (in the OT and NT) to guard sound teaching and avoid false teaching.

    Merseymike – so, you do not agree with Lambeth 1.10…. so what? You notice even the liberal ABC has to defend it? You really need to understand that the church is concerned with the bible and will not drop it just because a few like you assert that your sins are not sins.

  • Erika Baker says:

    ” you do not agree with Lambeth 1.10…. so what? You notice even the liberal ABC has to defend it? You really need to understand that the church is concerned with the bible and will not drop it just because a few like you assert that your sins are not sins.”

    Somehow, this comment has appeared again on this site. I’m sure I’ve read it a few hundred times in the last few months. Is there an electronic problem somewhere?

  • NP says:

    Omani – I just read your post….what nonsense you speak re Jensen and his motives. Prove it – where and when did he say his motive is what you claim? (if your claim is true, I expect a nice link to a newspaper article)

    The actual reason people like him are Anglicans is that the foundations of the CofE are biblical – so, maybe ++Jensen et al are authentic Anglicans? You want to claim a lot of tradition is the heart of Anglicanism, but it ain’t….. do have a read of the 39 articles and the history of how the CofE came to be (not from the point of view of Henry but of the theologians who too the opportunity he gave to get away from Rome and found a more biblical church.)

    You met ++Jensen? I have and he is nothing like the caricature you would like him to be. He is a wonderful, warm human Christian man and a very bright man (former Principal of Moore College, Sydney). He would never have said what you claim he said above….. so prove your statement is true if you can or retract it as the lie it is.

  • Pluralist says:

    You’ve said it yourself, NP – a more biblical Church. In other words, more biblical but not supremely so. It is catholic as well as Reformed, and so the Church interprets the Bible. There is no straight reading literalism, and if that is wanted then the schism Church being planned will become ex-Anglican.

  • Ford Elms says:

    “I am no more qualified to identify Merseymike’s “sin,” than you are.”

    Jerry,
    If you follow the posts of the last twelve months or so, you will see that NP thinks himself quite qualified to judge other people’s sins. He can even mine the Bible to back this up. This is hilarious, given that in response to my most recent post on this site, he says:

    “it is not good behaviour to se a non-gospel and keep quiet out of respect or fear”.

    He seems completely oblivious that in his drive to purge the “non-Gospel” of “liberalism” he is following “another Gospel”, albeit one that gives him Divine permission to sit in judgement. Must be great to so easily invent your own God while accusing everyone else of doing just that, and have that God encourage you in that kind of behaviour. It’s really quite funny, once you let go of the annoyance.

    And, John Omani, this:

    “as if this Christ was a product to be packaged and marketed.”

    is bang on. For me, it is the prime sign of the bankruptcy and hypocrisy of the Evangelical claim to some sort of purity. They have made common cause with the marketing industry. Jesus, faith, redemption, are a product to be advertised, something to be bought. I cringe every time I se an Alpha sign on a busstop, not just because of my issues with their pseudofundamentalism.

    “If your understanding of ecclesiology, liturgy, and the sacraments is not Anglican, what then is left? “

    Self-righteousness? Desire for the final victory over the non-Evangelical heathens who really don’t believe anything? The final destruction of Anglicanism?

  • NP says:

    Ford – you protest too much and, I fear, all because you do not like people who remind you that your “clobber verses” still stand and still call some to repentance.

  • John Omani says:

    NP: Your knowledge of your wonderful warm Christian man seems limited. He says the condemnation of +New Hampshire, other homosexual clergy, and homosexuality is the ‘life and death’ matter for the Anglican Church today. Homosexuals are guilty of ‘gross public sins’ he exclaims and have to repent. This issue he explains is the ‘turning point’ for the Anglican church: the litmus test for being an Anglican. The chief reason he remains an Anglican is because speaking out about this is part of a ‘struggle for the soul of the church’, more serious than ‘any previous doctrinal dispute.’ Are you willing to contradict him and say that the condemnation of homosexual sin is not the chief motive for remaining in the Anglican church, more serious and crucial to the Church than any previous issue such as transubstantiation, the trinity, the incarnation, liturgy, priestly ministry?

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jensen-condemns-sin-of-homosexual-acts/2006/02/02/1138836371964.html

    http://www.inclusivechurch.net/news.html?id=31&PHPSESSID=1f856a71b45e8fa37fdcbbe490a3a9b4

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/13/1065917352278.html

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200606/CUL20060605a.html

    I will respond to your erroneous view of the Anglican church as a crypto-Calvinist evangelical organisation in another post.

  • Anthony W says:

    All sexual morality depends on the specific situation and I think promiscuity gets a bum rap on these blogs, even the liberal ones. It is not possible to draw a consistent system of ethics from the Bible. One can at most go through and cut and paste little snippets into an outline derived from some non-biblical philosophy.

    I was much impressed by Archbishop Jensen’s article. He made the most cogent statement I have seen yet about the New Orleans document. The religious founders of my country (USA), the Mayflower pilgrims, practiced (so I understand) lay presidency, and they were in the Anglican tradition of their time. (I’m not sure if they had the eucharist.) So ++Jensen is not wholly outside the tradition on this issue.

  • Kurt says:

    The Jensenites are really a hoot, aren’t they? It’s so strange; Sydney is such a modern, progressive, gay-friendly city, and yet it has one of the most socially backward and theologically retarded “Anglican” churches in the world!

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    “The religious founders of my country (USA), the Mayflower pilgrims, practiced (so I understand) lay presidency, and they were in the Anglican tradition of their time. (I’m not sure if they had the eucharist.)”

    No, they weren’t. That’s precisely why they left England…they refused to acknowledge the Anglican worship of the period as correct and wanted to go somewhere–originally the Netherlands–where they could worship as they pleased.

    And, please, there are no “religious founders” of the United States. We’re a secular nation. If the pilgrims or the Puritans are the “religious founders,” what does that make the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Catholics of Maryland, the Baptists of Rhode Island, the Dutch Reformed of New York (New Amsterdam)?

  • Kurt says:

    “The religious founders of my country (USA), the Mayflower pilgrims, practiced (so I understand) lay presidency, and they were in the Anglican tradition of their time. (I’m not sure if they had the eucharist.) So ++Jensen is not wholly outside the tradition on this issue.”—Anthony W

    Sorry, Anthony, but as an American I cannot accept your claims. Religious founders of our country? We Episcopalians (remember Roanoke and Jamestown?) were here before the Calvinists. And the Pilgrims were separatists—definitely NOT Aglicans/Episcopalians!

  • John Omani says:

    Anthony W:

    The Pilgrim fathers were certainly not Anglican, and did not term themselves so; they were separatists who loathed most Anglican traditions and formed their own independent sects. Many of Anglican origin, such as John Smyth, explicitly rejected their original Anglican baptism. In the Dutch provinces they found some affinity with the Calvinist Reformed Church, approving the Belgic confession. Others were anabaptists or sabbatarians. Ecclesiologically speaking, the structures they formed in British America were an early form of congregationalism.

    As it happens, I’m not sure that Archbishop Jensen would go as far as the Pilgrims, but if he does, he would be better advised to follow their example, than to impose his beliefs on us using the false claim that this is mainstream Anglicanism.

  • Anthony W says:

    Pat O’Neill said – “If the pilgrims or the Puritans are the “religious founders,” what does that make the Quakers of Pennsylvania, the Catholics of Maryland, the Baptists of Rhode Island, the Dutch Reformed of New York (New Amsterdam)?”

    I would say they are all religious founders. I’m not sure about the settlers of Jamestown and Roanoke, though, for those settlements did not survive to establish churches. I would also say they were all well within the English tradition, except for the Dutch Reformed, who were similar to today’s so-called Anglican Orthodox. I find it hard to understand how Calvinism can be considered Orthodox, but there you have it. Times change, and we can but follow along with gratitude.

  • Mark AL says:

    The words of the response from the House of Windsor to the recent decisions made by TEC clearly define the reason for the problem with the Anglican Communion (and every other offshoot of The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church). The report says “the Anglican Communion is made up of 44 autonomous churches”. Look up the definition of “autonomous” and the problem is right there, in black and white, admitted in the official response… they recognize NO authority but their own!

  • NP says:

    Thanks for the retraction Omani – you have proved your first statement, putting your words in the mouth of ++Jensen, was FALSE.

    First you told a lie above:
    “Jensen has said that his chief reason for remaining an Anglican is the platform it provides him to condemn homosexuals,”

    Now you do not show any evidence for that lie, you change your accusation to
    “The chief reason he remains an Anglican is because speaking out about this is part of a ‘struggle for the soul of the church'”

    You can spot the difference in your two statements, I hope?
    clue – one is a quote from ++Jensen and one you made up i.e. it is a lie and you have shown with your links that ++Jensen is not on record as saying what you claim he said for the simple reason that he would never say such a thing given it is untrue….you should learn from that example and be careful to quote people accurately)

  • NP says:

    Mark – yes, autonomous provinces which are free to do whatever they like….. but in the AC we have a problem with one or two provinces which want to both go against the wisdom of everybody else (see The Windsor Report) and at the same time want to stay in the AC.

    Any province is free to follow its conscience and, if necessary, leave the AC but wanting to be both seriously at odds with most of the AC and still stay in is rather strange…. but then, liberals have never had the courage to go it alone, preferring to be part of a larger church (and be susidised by the larger churches given so few are self-sustaining)

  • John Omani says:

    Calm down NP: My first statement wasn’t a quote (what do you think quotation marks are for?). Read his words.

    There is no contradiction: Jensen believes that the right to continue to condemn homosexuals like +New Hampshire and homosexual practice IS the struggle for the soul of the Anglican church – the defining make-or-break issue on which membership rests. What did he say:

    ”it is no exaggeration to suggest that parts of Western Christianity are at an acute phase of the struggle to survive as Christians in our sort of culture, and that this issue is the turning point.”

    “we have before us a struggle for the soul of the Anglican Church,”

    “As such, it is a make-or-break issue, and more serious than previous doctrinal disputes within the denomination”

    Don’t you see the absurdity?
    Frankly the Archbishop’s position is nonsense – how can the right to condemn homosexuals, rather than matters of liturgy, sacramental theology, transubstantiation, the incarnation, Christology etc. be the most important doctrinal issue the Anglican church has ever faced? It makes a mockery of Anglican history. It can’t possibly be the make-or-break issue on which Anglicanism rests.

  • L Roberts says:

    ‘…The bishops effectively said clergy could enter into same-sex relationships as long as they were not sexually active, while lay members of the church could enter such unions without being celibate…’

    And not a word about love and relationships. No wonder most of the population gave up on the church long ago.
    CNS News

  • NP says:

    I am confused that TA reports ++Sydney’s views on TEC HOB statements but not those of VGR – after all, he was there and certainly not insignificant in recent Anglican Communion matters.

    As I have said before, one thing VGR must be commended for is that he is more open and honest in what he says when compared to so many other TEC bishops who try and fool people with ambiguous words. I think VGR’s honest words on what he did, said and what TEC HOB statement means and does not mean (even countering JSC spin!!) are worth reading….. ironically, he is closer to ++Jensen than the JSC fudge in his assessment of the NO (I like the irony here) statement from TEC HOB.

    Here is a link VGR’s assessment of TEC HOB’s NO statement.
    http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/6744/

  • NP says:

    Sorry J Omani – you are still misrepresenting ++Jensen – so hard to admit that he did not say what you claimed he said?? Anyway, never mind – but certainly, there is a struggle for the soul of the CofE and AC but that is all about the interpretation of scripture. Sure, certain issues come up more but that is because certain people (eg TEC HOB) seek to challenge the AC on certain issues and then the rest of us have to say, sorry, what you want to justify is “incompatible with scripture”. WE cannot deviate from scripture to suit a few people – we trust the Writer of scripture first.

    L Roberts – I agree, the fudge on the issue you mention is tragic and undignified for all.

  • Lapinbizarre says:

    John Omani’s statement that “the Pilgrim fathers ……. were separatists who loathed most Anglican traditions” argues with the benefit of hindsight. It also makes assertions that can only adequately be refuted with a treatise, if not with a book. What we now regard as the “Anglican Tradition” won out with the restoration of Charles II in 1662. The trump card of winning group among the vying traditions that struggled and fought for predominance in the national church before that date, was the more-or-less unwavering support of the monarch through four reigns. Before the Restoration Settlement, NO church was legally tolerated outside the national church – the so-called “Pilgrims” considered themselves part of a national church corrupted by, among other things, episcopacy and a Romish liturgy. But they intended to cleanse the church from within – and for a time, under the Commonwealth and the Protectorate, they succeeded and they were indeed the Church of England.

    Re “certainly not Anglican, and did not term themselves so”, OED’s earliest, very general use of the word “Anglican” dates from 1635; the first-cited use of the word describing a member of the Church of England dates, amazingly, from as late as 1797. So on this one you’re right, John – the Pilgrims did not term themselves “Anglican”.

  • Ford Elms says:

    “all because you do not like people who remind you that your “clobber verses” still stand and still call some to repentance.”

    No, NP, I’ve told you numerous times why I feel the way I do. You have no credibility. I have spent a year trying to point out how you can change this, but you are copmpletely blind. So be it. I can only enjoy the show. You’re making yourself an object of ridicule. The fact that you can turn this into some persecution of the True Believer by the heathen hordes strengthens your resolve, of course, but that just makes the show better.

  • Ford Elms says:

    “WE cannot deviate from scripture to suit a few people”

    We don’t however, mind at all deviating from Scripture if that will benefit the business community, or will allow us to peacefully coexist with the State, or will give us power and prestige in society, or will keep the money flowing, or will bring about peace with militant members of other religious communities, or whatever it is we want to be able to do at this time. Tell me, when does a group get big enough for you to be willing to deviate from Scripture? Don’t deny doing it, that is simply untrue. The question is not whether or not you are willing to deviate from Scripture, you patently are willing to do so. The question is how big a group has to be before you are willing to abandon the Gospel in their interest.

  • NP says:

    Ford – I think you are setting up straw men, knocking them down and then failing to deal with the presenting issues.

    2 wrongs do not make a right…. so whatever the sins of others (even the horrid NP!), we cannot deliberately ignore any other sin.

    I try to be constructive by giving you links to well thought out, balanced writings (not the stupid, irritating NP comments that you love so much!)…… I hope you read the articles. My aim in doing this is for stupid, irritating NP to get out of the picture and for you to deal with serious arguments from serious people ….. because I am sure you are a serious man yourself. I am treating you with real respect.

    Here are lots of good articles on various issues and the bible from “open” evangelicals (who normally attack my sort of conservative – so, pls do not tarnish them with any NP association!)

    http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/articles.cfm?menuopt=3

  • Malcolm+ says:

    Mark refers to: “the response from the House of Windsor to the recent decisions made by TEC . . .”

    I was not aware that Mrs. Battenberg nor any of her family had commented on the issue.

  • Robert Ian Williams says:

    Don’t any of you get my point…..by the standards of Anglicanism , pre 1930 AB Jensen is a liberal as he accepts divorce/ re-marriage and contraception. Bishop Gore said when Lambeth reversed its condemnation of contraception in 1930 , this would open the door to homosexuality.

    Sydney diocese also admits women to ordination as deacons who can preach. Condemned by Lambeth 1948.

  • Pluralist says:

    What does it prove to go back in time and state that someone now is liberal then? How many people, by the standards of the later nineteenth century, with liturgies and language and explanation, would compare themselves unfavourably with Free Christian Unitarianism…

  • ford Elms says:

    “2 wrongs do not make a right”

    By repeatedly stating this, you are demonstrating that you do not understand my point. You have been doing it for so long, I can’t help but think it’s deliberate. Why is it that an argument that justifies, say, usury, is good and biblically based, when an identically constructed argument for homosexuality is fudge? Do you not realize that when you look favourably on an argument that justifies something you like then refuse to accept an identical argument for something you don’t like, you lose all credibility? That’s the point, not that past errors justify present day ones, but that your acceptance or rejection of arguments has nothing to do with the arguments themselves and everything to do with whether or not you approve of what the argument is trying to justify. You thus have no credibility. How do you have the nerve to demand others follow the Law when you do not? That’s the point, NP, rather than take a close look at your own behaviour so as to actually give some credibility to your arguments, you just mine the Bible to justify your own judgementalism. Read Romans 14 and 15, please.

  • JPM says:

    Trolls go away when people ignore them.

  • NP says:

    Dear Ford – I have in the past said to you that I do not think the church was right in trying to justify usury…..I have never defended usury.
    Now, even if the church made that error and others, should it therefore drop Lambeth 1.10 and condone behaviour “incompatible with scriptre”?

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    “I have in the past said to you that I do not think the church was right in trying to justify usury…..I have never defended usury.
    Now, even if the church made that error and others, should it therefore drop Lambeth 1.10 and condone behaviour “incompatible with scriptre”?”

    And yet, you undoubtedly engage in usury as the Bible defines it, don’t you, NP? You have a bank account that earns interest? You invest in stocks and bonds? You have a mortgage or other loans?

    If you can accept the church’s previous “justification” of usury to the point that you engage in it yourself, what prevents you from accepting a justification of any other “sin”…especially one that you are not likely to engage in?

  • NP says:

    Pat – no, I do not engage in usury – I lend thousands of pounds to friends and family and do not charge them interest…..do I pass your usury test?

    Anyway, even if the church is wrong on usury, it is right on Lambeth 1.10 and does not have to condone behaviour “incompatible with scripture” just because it has made and makes so many other mistakes.

  • Chirstopher Shell says:

    Hi Pat-
    I am not necessarily in favour of usury, but you must admit that whereas the New Testament witness is universally anti-homosexual practice, this is not the case with interest (parable of talents).

  • Ford Elms says:

    “even if the church is wrong on usury, it is right on Lambeth 1.10 and does not have to condone behaviour “incompatible with scripture” just because it

    But if the Church has been wrong on usury, if She “has made and makes so many other mistakes”, She does not now have the moral authority to issue a blanket condemnation of other things “contrary to Scripture”. If She has made other mistakes, what’s to say She isn’t making a mistake now? Because “it’s in the Bible”? But you just said She has made other mistakes about what’s in the Bible, so how can we know this is not a mistake? How can we trust you to be our interpreter, since you have been so often wrong, but vehement in denying that you have been wrong?

  • Ford Elms says:

    “parable of talents”

    The Parable of the Talents is NOT about lending money! It is teaching us something else entirely. For you to use it as a justification for usury makes me wonder what else you don’t understand!

  • Erika Baker says:

    NP

    “Pat – no, I do not engage in usury – I lend thousands of pounds to friends and family and do not charge them interest…..do I pass your usury test?”

    I expect a lot of us do that – it’s just plain good manners not to profit from your family and friends.

    The question was do you participate in/benefit from any worldly activities that involve “usury”, i.e. do you have a mortgage, an interest bearing bank account, a pension plan…..

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    NP:

    You hold no bank accounts? You earn no interest on anything? You are a most unusual person in the 21st Century then. (If you think this means I don’t believe you, then you are right.)

    And if you truly have loaned “thousands of pounds” then that makes you even more unusual…in that you have thousands of pounds available to you to loan.

    BTW, what is Jesus said about rich men and the kingdom of heaven?

  • NP says:

    Erika – usury is lending money at interest….having a mortgage is being a victim of it (and yes, I am paying interest…)
    Before you try and equate “usury” with Lambeth 1.10, there is a difference here in that the CofE does not say it is “incompatible with scripture” to have a mortgage or even interest-earning savings – does it?

    Ford – yes, the church has made and makes errors. So, it has not authority to take positions on what the bible says and anything goes as long as people are sincere and do not hurth anyone else? I don’t think that follows

  • NP says:

    Pat – the average income in the UK is around £25,000 p.a. Lots of people, millions of people here are not rich but do have thousands of pounds. Anyway – why should anybody listen to you when you challenge on the grounds of what the bible says on greed when on certain other issues you somehow do not want to stick to what the bible says?

    I say greed and materialism is wrong because of what the bible teaches us. I take the same attitude (taking my lead from God’s word) when it comes to other sins…..

    Here is a good discussion of the presenting issues:
    http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2007/20070131g2gandrew.cfm?doc=187

  • Pat O'Neill says:

    “Before you try and equate “usury” with Lambeth 1.10, there is a difference here in that the CofE does not say it is “incompatible with scripture” to have a mortgage or even interest-earning savings – does it?”

    It did, once upon a time. It changed its views. You seem to have no objection to that change. Why is that change in view different from the one TEC is making?

    Oh–and I ask again, do you have an interest-bearing bank account? If you do, you are loaning money to the bank at interest.

  • Ford Elms says:

    “rich men and the kingdom of heaven?”

    Oh no, Pat, not rich men, I believe the rich man has morphed into a “rich young ruler”. Most Evos, you see, are not rulers, so the passage doesn’t apply to them.

    NP, I am just citing the arguments against the Church that I deal with every day. I wonder how it can be that you live in London yet you seem to think young people are craving the kind of unjustified authoritarianism you think Christianity is. London must be a very different place from anywhere I have ever been. Have you really never been asked why the Church thinks She has the right to comment on sexual matters with Her horrible record in that area? Has no one ever asked you how you can have the nerve to accuse others of disobeying Scripture when you so clearly do not obey it yourself? There are child abusers in the Church, and gay people hiding in closets, lying to their wives and the world, how can they have the nerve to sit in judgement on my sex life? What gives them the right to judge and condemn me when they are guilty of just as bad or worse? When you claim to be a Christian, have you never had anyone, outside of here, respond “Oh, so you’re a hypocrite”? I suspect you have, and have taken it as a sign of how much the World hates the Truth of Christ and consoled yourself with “It hateth me because it also hated Him”. But that’s not the reason. It hates us because we obviously do not follow the Gospel while demanding everyone else obey. It sees the ridiculousness of twisting Scripture to justify your own breaking of one of the basic commandments of Jesus, denying that you are doing it, and condemning others for that very thing.

  • Ditto Ford.

    Remember too that the world and the secular both responded to John the Baptist and Jesus more easily that the teachers of the law who refused to recognise either and contrived Jesus’ murder.

    For example, Luke 7:29-30 “All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.”

  • Alcibiades says:

    “Sydney diocese is very liberal on re-marriage and divorce.”

    I know this thread is old, but I’ve just stumbled across it, and the bare-faced breath-taking dishonesty of this claim is impossible to ignore.

    Why then were my wife and I forced to marry in another diocese, as a result of our Priest being refused his Bishop’s permission to conduct the service on the grounds that I was a divorcee? Why is this a common occurrence? Why are divorced clergy refuses a license to officiate, and why if they have tenure (and can’t be immediately dismissed) is permission to transfer denied – effectively forcing them out? Why is ordination refused for any man who has in the past been divorced or whose wife has been previously married – irrespective of their current circumstances. (But, in a true spirit of pharisaism, it’s not an impediment if the wife only lived with another man, including if that relationship produced children)

    “Also Sydney does not condemn contraception as the Anglican Communion did until 1930.”

    Really? Obviously you’ve done very little research into past diocesan positions on such matters. Nor have you ever spoken with older clergy now abandandoned in nursing homes, having outlived their use in a system fixated on “strategic mission-focused ministry=” (the old guys didin’t qualify for the luxurious pension schemes introduced in the 1980s, and now greatly enhanced under +Jensen).

    Defend the Sydney machine if you must, but don’t try doing it with such blatant lies. The people that it hurt aren’t prepared to stay silent any longer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *