There are at least half a dozen things that could be said about this:
Detractors suggest the visits might be used by the archbishop to micromanage parishes and subtly test the orthodoxy of diocesan rectors.
That’s right up there with Stephen Bates from the Gruadian saying ‘Rumours abound that...’
But a few thoughts occur:
1. Which detractors?
2. Are they guessing?
3. Are they lying?
4. By what authority do they make their suggestions?
5. If the archbishop was not meeting his clergy, what would they say?
6. Despite 5. Who cares?
7. Do our clergy lack the courage or the ability to manage their own parishes?
8. Are people suggesting that our clergy lack the courage or the ability to manage their own parishes?
And regarding journalism, why do journalists (occasionally, and somewhat inconsistently) feel the need to phone people who don’t appear to know anything about what is going on, except that they don’t like it, to offer comment?
Just a few random thoughts. I could go on, but I have to get something done by 3 because I promised. So I better stop for a bit.
Folks, this article is well up the dopey end of the spectrum and could do with a few sharp one liners in response.
I replied to this one but got ignored.. as usual.
It’s a pity that Linda Morris is unable to report without editorialising; to be factual without commentary.
Peter Jensen did not go to GAFCON to create a new power bloc. Such a comment is slanderous. First of all, Peter is not interested in power, particularly for himself; nor is he interested in splitting the Anglican communion, nor in forcing his opinions on others.
“GAFCON was not about opposing things; it was about keeping to both what is true and what is constitutionally the basic teachings of the church. By standing up for something one as evangelicals have will always mean one faces opposition, but this does mean that Peter and other evangelicals are simply negative.
I also notice the neat way Morris uses the word “liberal”, as if Peter and others were closed-minded conservatives. “Liberal” is really a euphemism for unbiblical, or for those who think that human reason is greater and better than the bible.
That’s what GAFCON was about, not simply about homosexual clergy. It is a debate about truth and about what is christian.
It’s about time that those SMH journalists who report on religious or church matters obtained some objectivity. It’s one place that the SMH fails in it’s usual quality.”
Did it occur to anyone that the decline in people reading the Bible might have something to do with it being a lousy read ("Confession: fewer know their Bible”, September 10)?
The Bible says lots of things, few of them clearly, all of them open to different interpretations, and many of them irrelevant to a post-industrial world. Add to this that it is a series of compounded translations many times removed from the original, and no doubt some translations have been corrupted through the ages by self-interested power-mongers.
Greg Clarke’s article on reading the Bible in school is bubbling away in today’s SMH letters; a good response today would be worth attempting, especially as there were no supportive letters today. [edit: oops, correction, yes there was, I didn’t look carefully enough! But still, worth writing]
I wrote yesterday in response to Ian Waters, making a a couple of points including one similar to that of Matthew Adams, but at more length. One always wonders how many others there were that never saw the light of day - or rather, the black and white of print.
Bob
Greg Clarke’s article on reading the Bible in school is bubbling away in today’s SMH letters; a good response today would be worth attempting, especially as there were no supportive letters today. [edit: oops, correction, yes there was, I didn’t look carefully enough! But still, worth writing]
I’m not sure who Chris Henning is, but if this (‘On this rock the Jensens build a church’, September 12) is the standard of his writing I hope I don’t have to read him often. The caricature of Peter Jensen as an arrogant, hard-hearted man could only be painted by someone who doesn’t know him. Among those who do know him (including most of his theological opponents) he is recognised as a gracious, humble (and yes, determined and focussed) man, who does not simply walk over people for what he wants. Likewise, his brother Philip, to those who know him, is a far cry from the sniping caricature that Henning paints.
As to the presumed substance of the article, church music, as someone who loves Bach, Handel, Mozart and Beethoven, I would vehemently affirm with both the Archbishop and the Dean of Sydney that music is a servant of the church, not vice versa.
Are you sure he’s serious? It seems too ridiculous to be for real. Plus it’s under the title “Half Truths”. Is he poking fun at the article and letters about music in the cathedral? I’m confused.
Are you sure he’s serious? It seems too ridiculous to be for real. Plus it’s under the title “Half Truths”. Is he poking fun at the article and letters about music in the cathedral? I’m confused.
Campbell
Long-time forum lurker
Yes - satire is an art lost on some. Last week he wrote about Sarah Palin concluding with :
Talking of moose, have you ever tasted one? I have, and it is delicious. Try this recipe: shoot one 1.5 tonne moose. Cut out the fillet, and mince it finely. Mix with egg, bread crumbs, onion and things. Flatten and fry.
There you have one wonderful mooseburger. Nothing tastes better in the Alaskan morning air. There’s no waste, because you feed the rest of the carcass to your dog. You feel really close to nature living off the land this way. Where city living is full of complexity and doubt, on the chilly mountainside life is simple: one shot, one mooseburger. Doubt never enters your head.
