Yes Michael he does.

98% of the report was nothing new - nearly everything in the piece regular readers of this website would know already.

The two biggest problems I think were

1. The framing of the entire article implied that Sydney was about split from the rest of the Anglican Church. You would have had to read every word to see Archbishop PFJ’s actual position - constitutionally we can’t and PFJ will respect/keep that law.

2. I thought the biggest slur was that PFJ forced his assistant bishops out of going to Lambeth. That entire section was based on unsourced rumour. It’s certainly not my understanding of the position of any of the ass bishops. The reality is line with the comments Marr has quoted from Russell Powell that there was some ‘disappointment’ about the inevitable.

However, it was a very well written piece stylistically. Well crafted. I thought the introduction in which Marr imagines the purple clad African bishops heading up the Mount of Olives with a humbly dressed Australian… was brilliant stuff.

There were many little niggles - like those mentioned above - one that grated with me was calling the PR officer of the Dio of Washington an ‘analyst’ as if he was objective because he expressed views that Marr concurred. (that evangelicals are driven by ‘visceral fear of homosexuals’)

I’ve now read the article as well.

I think David Marr, remembering who he is, axes to grind, etc, did an excellent job, especially in extensive quoting of Jensen. I would think Marr demonstrated considerable respect for Jensen, which I found quite telling and many others, including non church people will as well.

I was interested in reading that a couple of the Sydney Bishops were not keen on missing out on Lambeth and afternoon tea with the Queen. If true, I wonder who they were?

Maybe we could conduct a poll.......................

OK, OK, forget that.

What I particularly liked was orthodoxy getting a good airing and observing the demonstration that commitment to the Bible actually does affect what we do and say. It cheers up fellow Bible believing Christians elsewhere no end - the article was in The Age as well and I presume all the other Faifax newspapers.

David Ball - 07 June 2008 08:10 PM

Michael - yes, he does repeat that, and Paul Dale is the first counter-example that came to my mind as well.  Not many others do, though....

Umm, Chappo?

I think that many congregations think they need a married man. Our minister’s wife is a great support to him, and a wonderful member of our church.

But it would be a pity if we would disqualify John Stott, John Chapman, the apostle Paul and our Lord Jesus himself because they were not married. We would be the poorer, wouldn’t we!

yes - but all i am saying is that excluding single men isn’t a policy. Only one example is needed.

Jason Hobba - 07 June 2008 08:45 PM

David Ball - 07 June 2008 08:10 PM

Michael - yes, he does repeat that, and Paul Dale is the first counter-example that came to my mind as well.  Not many others do, though....

Umm, Chappo?

I went to Joe Wilshire’s ‘ministry commencement ceremony’ (there’s a proper term) as curate in charge of Pyrmont Anglican Church18 months ago and he was single at the time.

I was also a little startled at the comment about single men not being able to expect to be given a parish, since clearly there is at least one single man (already mentioned) currently serving as the senior minister at a parish in Sydney.

Furthermore, when I thought more about it I just couldn’t think of any more single men in ministry who are at the age, or have been out of college long enough, to be in a situation to take a senior minister position in an Anglican parish in Sydney. I might be wrong of course! But nobody really springs to my mind as being in that position. There are normally a handful of single guys who graduate from Moore each year - but most of them (though not all) seem to get married within a few years. Perhaps in another 5 years or so there might be a few single guys ‘expecting to be given a parish’… but frankly I don’t see how Marr’s comment is at all relevant to the contemporary context (ie. of our current archbishop) beyond it’s obviously inflammatory intention.

I was also disappointed in the way Marr caricatured John Woodhouse. The way he introduced him was as

… a hard man with a good mind

In other words- he’s smart, but doesn’t care about people (especially when read in light of his later comment that happiness doesn’t enter John’s calculus).

In my 4 years under John’s principalship I have found him to be anything but ‘hard’, and I suspect most of my fellow students would agree entirely.

I can’t help but feel that whilst Marr ‘appeared’ to be trying to give Peter Jensen a fair go (whilst simultaneously undermining this endeavour with the use of certain adjectives and descriptions, some already mentioned above), he was setting John Woodhouse up as a bit of a fall guy.

Peter comes across as decent, humane, and principled.

The article is nowhere near as bigoted as it could have been, and is largely old news.

Small mercies. A good opportunity for friendly discussion with colleagues, friends and family.

I reckon I might ask friends who read it what they think the church should stand for, and listen carefully to their answers.

Other single rectors: John Gaunt: Blackheath; and until a month ago - Peter Robinson: Bomaderry and Mark Eaton, Oatley

So: where does the rumour come from?

I assume David Marr will check out this forum at some stage: what is the source of this, David?

With respect, I think you are all getting too fussed over David Marr’s biases, etc and how many single Rectors there are and whether John Woodhouse was maligned.

The piece was well done, and the Diocese and its Archbishop came out of it well. Evangelical religion counts for something! That’s a good message.

Sure there are things to quibble and be annoyed about, but it could have been A WHOLE LOT WORSE.

Oh, sure: I am nitpicking - and not a complaint about Marr’s article.  It is just I keep hearing this piece of misinformation.

Michael Jensen - 09 June 2008 12:32 AM

Oh, sure: I am nitpicking - and not a complaint about Marr’s article.  It is just I keep hearing this piece of misinformation.

Wow - two threads came together in a quite remarkable way. Why not head on over to the “women bishops” thread and read Leigh Hardwick’s comment.

I don’t think anyone is getting ‘fussed’ about the article. These forums are, after all, designed to facilitate discussion about all sorts of issues related to Sydney Anglicanism- and the article is certainly one of those.

I agree it could have been a lot worse- in fact I was expecting it to be a LOT worse and was pleasantly surprised. But the fact that it wasn’t dreadful surely doesn’t preclude us from raising questions or concerns about some of them things that were written in it.

Jenny George - 09 June 2008 03:21 PM

Michael Jensen - 09 June 2008 12:32 AM

Oh, sure: I am nitpicking - and not a complaint about Marr’s article.  It is just I keep hearing this piece of misinformation.

Wow - two threads came together in a quite remarkable way. Why not head on over to the “women bishops” thread and read Leigh Hardwick’s comment.

I feel I should be trying to find the flame suit right now… I’m only trying to argue from a position of logic as devil’s advocate, to work out all angles, and hopefully see the truth once the impurities are cut away. Occasionally the heresy bell gets rung doing so!

Mmm, the sweet sweet sound of the heresy bell!

I’ve found it somewhat enlightening that rather than engage with Marr’s central thesis about evangelicals’ ‘visceral fear of homosexuals’ (or my original question seeking resources to address the questions that arise from this allegation) we have spent 3/4 of this thread talking about a completely minor tangent. (single ministers)

hmmm does this mean you guys and girls have no answer to Marr’s thesis :)

Let’s be in no doubt that Anglican ministers who disagree with Sydney Diocese’s official position that ‘gay sex is a sin’ are quite willing to provide a high profile and public response along the lines that the Diocese’s biblical theology is redundant.

So I ask again, are there any helpful resources on this topic out there?

(Thanks David P for your input from the PCA)

I thought the biggest slur was that PFJ forced his assistant bishops out of going to Lambeth. That entire section was based on unsourced rumour.

Thanks for posting that Jeremy. The concern in the article is that Marr is quoting an unnamed source: “They wer told to like it or lump it” which, in the minds of some, gives this rumour credibility (not in my mind!). 

It is simply NOT TRUE that this article is not going to be taken seriously by many people in our churches; I have had people approach me very concerned by the suggestion of disunity on Lambeth among the bishops, and others have had their prejudices against Moore College reinforced by calling John Woodhouse ‘a hard man’ . 

I would encourage the bishops of the regions to write to the Sen Ministers of their respective regions with a statement of personal support for the decision not to go to Lambeth we can give to concerned parishioners in the wake of the article.

Well, I confess I haven’t read the article in question - any links to an online copy?

Jeremy Halcrow - 10 June 2008 11:27 AM

I’ve found it somewhat enlightening that rather than engage with Marr’s central thesis about evangelicals’ ‘visceral fear of homosexuals’ (or my original question seeking resources to address the questions that arise from this allegation) we have spent 3/4 of this thread talking about a completely minor tangent. (single ministers)

Though if there was a policy against single ministers it may be interpreted as evidence of a ‘visceral fear of homosexuals’.

Which strikes me that the real question is whether David Marr produced any evidence of a ‘gut wrenching’ fear in the diocese. That is fairly extreme language.

Have there been a rash of recorded events where congregations (or clergy) have run screaming from the church upon the entry of a man humming Barbara Streisand tunes??

It’s easy to explain away opposition to your position by attributing it to some irrational emotion, because then you don’t have to engage with their position rationally. Syd Ang’s are against women’s ordination because they want to hold onto power, Syd Ang’s are against homosexuals because of homophobia, Syd Angs are against the worship of pagan gods because of xenophobia, Syd Angs are against sin because of a fear of having fun.

Perhaps David Marr has a visceral fear of the scriptures being God’s word?

[edited to correct my stuff up!]

G’day,

My fearless pastor Mark said:

Perhaps Doug Marr has a visceral fear of the scriptures being God’s word?

Doug Marr from Moore College would be horrified by such a question. David Marr from the SMH is probably the person you’re thinking of.

Yours in Christ,
Mark