I note the Herald is promoting a significant feature on GAFCON, Lambeth and schism in the Anglican Communion which will be published in tomorrow’s Good Weekend.
Obviously I don’t know what it will say, however, as the piece is written by David Marr it will be written from a pro-gay perspective.
1. I expect it will raise questions in the minds of some laity in our churches.
2. It will also raise apologetic questions in our discussions with non-Christians over the next week or so.
As a result I thought it would be healthy to start a proactive thread (rather than reacting to David’s piece) talking about what resources are out there to help in contexts 1 and 2 above.
Whilst not directly related to Gafcon, I recommend SIE Briefing Note #75 “Living together: conservative Christians and same sex relationships”. Its not yet posted but presumably will be next week - it iwill be an excellent resource.
The 4 page article ( plus a flattering full page portrait of the Abp ) is titled :
THE ARCHBISHOP SAYS NO and is prefaced :
“The Anglican Church faces a modern Great Schism, with gay-tolerant Christians on one side and radical “Bible-believers” on the other. And at the forefront of the hardliners is Australia’s outspoken evangelist Peter Jensen.”
To be labelled as “radical “Bible-believers” is no insult at all for evangelicals. The article is full of interesting observations and has more than a handful of sparkling quotes which I’ll leave for you to explore. I haven’t yet been able to find a link to the article, so you will probably need to go out and grab a copy at your newsagent. ( Worth it just for the photo portrait in front of the cathedral door ! )
There is no online version of the Good Weekend… so, it would be great for overseas and interstate readers if you could describe what is in the article…
Whilst not directly related to Gafcon, I recommend SIE Briefing Note #75 “Living together: conservative Christians and same sex relationships”. Its not yet posted but presumably will be next week - it iwill be an excellent resource.
It’s my job to post such articles.
My understanding is that it is being revised in the light of feedback from Sydney Anglican clergy. It will be published publicly when that process has finished.
Whilst not directly related to Gafcon, I recommend SIE Briefing Note #75 “Living together: conservative Christians and same sex relationships”. Its not yet posted but presumably will be next week - it iwill be an excellent resource.
It’s my job to post such articles.
My understanding is that it is being revised in the light of feedback from Sydney Anglican clergy. It will be published publicly when that process has finished.
This is an interesting comment Jeremy. I received a copy not as some privileged person but because I am on the mailing list for SIE Briefing Notes along with many others, which I would therefore have thought made it a public document. Andrew Cameron provided a covering letter in which he says, “Clergy in the Diocese have already received a section of this paper, and as a result the section is being circulated more widely”.
Be that as it may, the paper is terrific and well worth hanging out for.
Victorian Presbyterians have given a good deal of consideration to these issues and our papers, with some contrary viewpoints may be found here.
My April 2007 Australian Presbyterianarticle caused a good deal of controversy in our denomination but adopts some positions similar to that to be found in SIE #75.
IMHE, Gagnon’s book, mentioned previously, remains the gold standard on tthinking through the issues of homosexuality but it does not touch on how Christians are to relate to homosexuals (on the basis that they wont fade away) which SIE#75 does so helpfully.
I’m guessing that by the time I finish this there will be half a dozen other summaries of the article in response to Michael’s request for an overview for overseas readers, but I may as well give it a go!
Full disclosure- I am a former student and colleague of Peter Jensen’s, having studied and taught [very briefly] at Moore, so I am not unbaised! But of course neither is David Marr! In fact this article in my view would be a good exercise for journalism students in how to slant a piece to attack people you don’t like without quite telling a fib. The classic example is what amounts to a dreadful attempt to belittle the Archbishop on p 27, 3rd full para. Let me quote it in full (for the purposes of criticism and review, in case any copyright lawyers are reading!)
After failing first-year law a couple of times- and working in an office with the young John Howard, whom he found decent, helpful, and “always political"- Jensen switched to theology at Moore College. This Anglican institution, which nestles beside, but is not a part of, Sydney University, proved his ladder to success. After studies in the UK, he lectured there, then ran the place for more than 15 years before becoming Archbishop of Sydney in 2001.
I’m afraid this passage made my blood boil! Yes, the AB tried law and didn’t like. How is that relevant to anything? Because, Marr implies, not being able to succeed at a “real” profession, he then went off to find “success” in a dodgy “institution” which, he emphasises, is not really academically respectable since it is not a “part” of Sydney Uni (though, “nestling” beside it, it is kind of pretending to be!) Marr then neatly covers himself by the weasel phrase “after further studies"… the fact that these studies involved the AB getting a PhD from Oxford is not mentioned! “Further studies” sounds like a hairdressing college at Finchley!
The most offensive phrase, of course, is “his ladder to success”. Peter has in the time I have known him never sought success in worldly terms, but faithfulness in service of the gospel where the Lord has put him. He has certainly not had a secret plan to destroy the Anglican Communion to bignote himself, which is almost the tone of the rest of the article.
To calm down a moment- the article is riddled with this sort of thing, from the marvellous tagline Kevin quoted before, contrasting nice “tolerant” Christians with those “radical”, “Bible-believers” (in quotes so we know it is meant to be an insult!)
Overall the article says that this terrible group is intent on splitting up this marvellous institution which was founded by Queen Elizabeth 1. But it is interesting that Marr has enough integrity to actually include quotes from the AB and also from John Woodhouse, so that by the end of the article (if you can filter out the emotive rhetorical devices) you get a reasonable account of the different views. The fact that the dispute is actually about the authority of the Bible rather than being an attack on homosexuals is asserted a couple of times (even in a big blue box on p 26) though in one passage on p 27 middle col the view is refuted by others, and you can tell by the quote he concludes with, from someone who says it is all about “visceral fear” of homosexuals, which view Marr supports.
Marr reveals some interesting conjunctions. He asserts that the AB is one of the most important figures “on the ecclesiastical world stage” from Australia, for his leadership in GAFCON. But then he goes on to say:
In this cause, he has spent his energy, intelligence, prestige and an unknown amount of Sydney’s money.
Hello??? That last phrase has more than an overtone of illegitimate use of finances. But the “Sydney” we are talking about is not the political entity in which the SMH reader resides (as they may be led to think)- it is the Anglican diocese which has been evangelical since it began, and the members of which have willingly given their money to support the evangelical cause! And presumably the amount is only “unknown” to Marr because the accounts of the diocese for the financial year have not yet been finalised, rather than because someone is hiding the figures!
Marr then undermines his own implication that the AB is doing something underhand or unexpected here by his later comment (p 27 left col) that “Jensen took office in 2001 in an election where his own emphatic views on homosexuality had proved an asset”. Leave aside the implication that this was what “got him elected” (I suspect all the serious candidates had the same views)- but what you can’t claim is that the members of Sydney Synod had any doubt that this was the stance he would take!
Well, this is too long already. There are other “cheap shots” made either directly or impliedly- for example, the reference to Archishop Akinola’s stance on this issue coupled with comments about Sharia law requiring homosexuals to be stoned. I also very much doubt, in his report of his interview with John Woodhouse, that John supported the unqualified view with which he finishes a long sentence: “unless they refrain from sex with one another for their entire lives, destined for Judgement”. (There is earlier mention in the paragraph of forgiveness, but this last clause would probably overshadow that to the casual reader.)
But I think one of the most telling things for me was Marr’s acknowledgement that “persuading an Anglican bishop to stay away from Lambeth is like begging an athlete to boycott the Olympics”. He stresses the grandeur of the meeting, garden party with the Queen, etc. Yet the fact is that a number of bishops are not going for reasons of principle! That alone should perhaps make his readers think something important is at stake.
While acknowledging some of the dodgy comments mentioned above, I thought that the piece overall was no where near as scathing as it could have been…
That’s the problem, though, Jeff. It makes the article sound as if it’s intelligent and well-balanced. But there is no attempt whatsoever to try to understand Achbp Jensen’s position. It’s simply a nicely crafted caricature.
The things that annoyed me most are:
Visitors from Melbourne worshipping in a Sydney parish might think they’ve wandered into a protestant chapel
- yes, because all visitors from Melbourne would think the same way of course! It shows David Marr’s ignorance of the situation of Australian Anglicanism outside Sydney.
And this:
“The trouble,” observes one highly placed analyst of Jensen’s career, “is that the great warriors of the past are old beasts now and no new generation of warriors has been blooded.”
Marr’s happy to name others in the article, why is this “one highly placed analyst” unnamed? I
take it that “the great warriors of the past” refers to those who are outspoken anti-evangelicals, and so how apt to call them “old beasts now” (in the biblical sense of “beasts").
I read chunks of the article, its interesting to read about a secular view of a nonsecular topic.
It is extremely difficult to get through that many changes in society such as feminism (gender), civil rights (racial), market forces (economics) and even Protestantism, were not always the case, they are only the way things are now, and that such changes are not utterly positive. The gay rights movement is painfully difficult to reconcile with a biblical framework in mind. I respect your desire for men may be heartfelt and genuine, and I respect your need to have that recognised - but it must be demonstrated to me, in a POWERFUL way, that my current interpretation of Scripture is lacking.
When we dilute God’s word regarding any subject, we create ripples, and this is largely what the article misses. Focussing on Jensen isn’t helping to sort out those ripples, because he is simply doing what any godly leader should - serving his flock, and helping to lead them into fields of righteousness. His responsibility is to Sydney, and he is now assuming more responsibility beyond our area. What is complicated, conniving, or devious about that?
While acknowledging some of the dodgy comments mentioned above, I thought that the piece overall was no where near as scathing as it could have been…
I think the balanced vibe came from Abp Jensen’s comments—it’s a great credit to him that on such a controversial issue (from both inside and outside the church) he can speak his mind in a careful, considered way and leave Marr having to try and whip up all the drama around it.
Very hostile piece, though good to see some interesting design on the first page :)
Also, complete tangent, but what’s up with 9 (!) pages straight of ads from one company from the inside cover on in GW? I mean, after skipping passed page 5 or 6 I got the point, but 9? Wow.
From what I have heard, Marr repeats the oft-stated assertion that single men may not become rectors/get ordained in Sydney.
Can we lay this to rest once and for all? It is one of those untruths that has gained a life of its own, but you hear it repeated all around the place. I have even heard it over here in the UK.
Unless Rev Paul Dale is hiding his wife somewhere, I believe he is unmarried, to cite but one example…
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
