http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/15/1065917482898.html

Given the Sydney Morning Herald has thought this newsworthy, and given their apparent incapacity to report things the way they were and give you a real feel for the occassion, this is what happened. I write this sadly because it has been brought into the public light already.

A lay representative brought a censure motion against the Dean for a comment he made in the Cathedral Courier (like their parish news bulletin). This was seconded by a clergyman.

It was supposed to just be tabled and then the motion would be hanging over the Dean’s head like a dagger at least until next week. It was doubtless designed as a media ploy.

The Dean himself moved that the matter be dealt with immediately which the Synod supported.

Investigation revealed that there was one sentence in the bulletin that mentioned the ordination of women. It was in the context of a paragraph that spoke regretfully of the fact that the Anglican communion no longer has a ‘commonly received’ ministry - that is, no longer do all dioceses automatically receive all other priests & bishops from other dioceses in ministry, as was once the case.

The offending sentence constituted a statement of fact, an observation, not an expression of theological opinion by the Dean.

In the end, the censure motion was outrageously inappropriate on several levels:

1. This is the kind of discomfort that should be sorted out interpersonally.
2. The very idea of censuring a minister for expressing his theological opinions in the weekly bulletin could not be a more dangerous precedent.
3. The Dean did not even express his opinion in the paragraph his question, but merely observed a verifiable and obvious fact.
4. The Archbishop had said more or less the same thing as the Dean’s comment, if anything more strongly worded, on Monday in his presidential address.
5. Censure motions are not the veil through which to discuss the issue of women’s ordination. As long as supporters of women’s ordination continue to argue from feelings instead of scripture, they will petrify the opposition against their cause. As long as they tie the issue to personal scapegoating, they are an embarrassment to their movement.

In the end, the Synod was only deliberating between whether to disallow the motion being put, or to vote it down overwhelmingly. It was clearly recognised as the vicious, malicious personal tactic it was.

In the end, the Synod voted it down unanimously. Not even the mover (who I was sitting very close to) had the courage to vote audibly for her own motion, yet she didn’t have the wisdom to withdraw it when it was obvious where the tide of opinion had gone.

Rob Forsyth began the first speech in opposition by saying he had never been so angry in all his years at Synod. Considering some of the issues that have been dealt with during the Bishop’s time at Synod, that gives you an idea of the inappropriateness of the motion. It was apparent that most of the Synod shared Rob’s emotion.

Dean Jensen did not ‘survive’ the censure motion, as the SMH portrayed it. It resulted in an overwhelming show of support for him by a Synod outraged at the impropriety of it. So in the end it had two effects doubtless the exact opposite of what the mover had hoped:

1. It showed her to be completely foolish before the whole Synod.
2. It cornered the Synod (even those who perhaps would ordinarily not be great supporters of the Dean) into the most overwhelming shout of “NO” I’ve heard from them.

I must say at a personal level I have never felt such strong sympathies or support for Philip Jensen as I did yesterday afternoon. No minister deserves that kind of treatment, whatever disagreements one may have with him. He was clearly emotionally drained by the ordeal.

Those who brought the motion should be deeply ashamed of themselves, and if they have a shred of godliness they will apologise to the Dean (who, incidentally, at the end of the unpleasantness, stood up and made a personal statement of apology for any offence caused by his ministry).

If the media can’t reflect events accurately, those present will have to fill in.

Hear hear.

<edit>(I just realised that my above approval may have implied that I was there.  I wasn’t. Just chucking my 2.2 cents in from the sidelines)</edit>

Good grief, there’s been a lot of unsavoury behaviour on display of late. Abp Jensen likened to Hitler, the bishops on Lateline last night, Spong’s antics, and now (on a smaller scale) this. I wish people would stop putting their agenda before their actions. The ends doesn’t justify the means people!

Thanks for inside report Matt. You are 100 % accurate in your analysis.

When I read the SMH report this morning I was dumbstruck and knew there must have been more to it.

I could see straight away that Phillip’s quote reported in the Herald was merely a mild statement of fact… and thought the report bizarre.

Please can readers write to the Herald to correct the record…

The report itself gives the Herald readers’ impression that there is groundswell belief in the church against Phillip that was crushed by the diocesan heavies (the bishops). The Herald shouldn’t get away with not report the overwhelming support against the censure. It’s bad journalism pure and simple.

Excuse my poor grammar in the previous post. I was getting over-excited.

What I meant to say is that the report has been written within a certain set framework - the battler v big brother. In this case it is Ms Macpherson that is the little battler being crushed by the big, powerful institution. This fails to report the situation accurately.

The fact is the censure motion was a political stunt that backfired.

Thanks Matt. I was hoping you were going to give us a summary.

I too was frustrated in the extreme at the reporting in the SMH this morning (having already had a general idea of what happened before I read it this morning). I suspected that the papers would probably carry something because it was too good an opportunity to escalate controversy for them to pass by Although I suspect if it had been written by a different SMH journalist who has quite vitriolic in her opposition to Phillip Jensen the article could have been even more misleading. I’d be interested to know what the ‘...’ in the statement the SMH published actually was.

I’ll write a letter in but can’t see me being published two days in a row (<-- subtle plug for my new-found published status *hehehehe*)

Matt,

A truly excellent account of the entire event.
Well done - you saved me a lot of time just now.

Ugh.  What a mess.  As I mentioned in the introduction thread I am Not Anglican, so this is not My Synod, but you are all very definitely my siblings in Christ so I’ll be praying for you all. 

SJK.

Thanks to all for your comments, I stole some of Jeremy’s phrasing for my letter to the SMH (is that plagiarism? Probably not because doubtless it won’t get published.)

To answer Dani’s question, I think the crucial word left out by the SMH’s ‘...’ in the quote is “bishops” (i.e. consecration of women bishops). It would seem odd to put a ‘...’ in for one word so maybe there was a bit more, but the thrust of the quote is still correct (nothing important has been left out).

I just noticed, too, that the SMH is still insisting on giving Phillip a PhD. I hope they do that for me too one day, it will save a lot of work… Dr Williams. Hmm. *begins fantasy*

To answer Dani’s question, I think the crucial word left out by the SMH’s ‘...’ in the quote is “bishops” (i.e. consecration of women bishops). It would seem odd to put a ‘...’ in for one word so maybe there was a bit more, but the thrust of the quote is still correct (nothing important has been left out).

Ta!

[quote author="Dani Treweek"]I’ll write a letter in but can’t see me being published two days in a row (<-- subtle plug for my new-found published status *hehehehe*)

I liked your letter Dani: very well written and expressed.  Regarding being subtle ;-), you were as subtle as I was with my friends when I had a letter published in SC: I wrote to them telling them a new issue was out online, and the letters were particularly interesting!!! ;-)

Thanks Matthew for the eyewitness account.  I am absolutely disgusted at the motion as well as the poor reporting.  This whole episode seems disgraceful, and I am glad he dealt with it as soon as possible.

Ian.

*sigh*

*sigh*

I wish those who were responsible for this had been a bit more, erm, responsible. They didn’t do anything for those of us who feel suspicious of the Jensens’ activities, in pulling this stunt. (How could they not have realised that it would unify those who supported the Jensens, even those who are fencesitters??? the mind boggles - even I with my shoot-off-mouth can see the repercussions of stuff I say and do. Sheesh.) Even I could see (in the context) that the bald statement of fact by the Dean was a reflection, not a deliberately stated personal view.

Oh well. I think I’ll just retreat into this corner over here and die, ok?

<Deleted>

Anyone know if the Dean’s original (writing? statement?) is online?  I’d like to be able to read it myself.  If not, no dramas - not particularly important. 

Cheers,
SJK.

G’day Matt,

I know you’re deeply angered by what happened in synod right in front of your eyes, but I think previous posts have made clear enough the impropriety of the action taken against Philip Jensen. Let everyone’s words and deeds speak for themselves in the clarity of the public arena - with additional clarification when needed, as you helpfully did with the SMH report - and we’ll leave the invective to “Christians” who seem to only believe in courtesy, respect and love for those whose views they don’t oppose.

Cheers,

Timbo

You’re right, Tim, I am still seething over the whole thing and went a bit far.

On reflection I’ve decided to delete the whole post - it’s all a bit unnecessary. Would you mind deleting the part you quoted from your post so it’s not still available to hurt the people involved?

Thanks brother

Matt