Pilgrims to the mount of olives late this month may be startled to see a couple of hundred Anglican divines kitted out in purple toiling up the slope. Most of the faces will be black. Back home these men are princes of the church; their followers run into tens of millions. But somewhere among the bishops, dressed incongruously in civvies, will be the humble, smiling face of Peter Jensen, the Archbishop of Sydney.
What’s afoot in Jerusalem is the destruction of the Anglican Communion, the worldwide church loosely aligned to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It spread with the empire and has so far survived, despite all its contradictions, for about 450 years, guided by the tart good sense of its founding monarch, Elizabeth I: “There is only one Jesus Christ and all the rest is a dispute over trifles.”
Exceptional article that is written with fairness, accuracy and style. That the Archbishop is a strong and godly leader cannot be denied. Would that we had more bishops with his spine and his spirit. I would love to see a debate between him and Archbishop TuTu, his reappraiser equaivalent!
This is one of the most biased, least honest and accurate descriptions of what ails the Anglican Communion that I have seen. It includes amost all of the liberal talking points, much based on speculation and wish fulfillment on the part of liberals, but minimizes the reason for the tear in the very fabric of the Anglican Communion.
Agree with Dave.
I agree, of course, with #1 & 2. This article looks and reads like an op-ed piece, an editorial, instead of as anything at all resembling even the attempt at objective reporting. This is a journalist travesty, of a sort that wouldn’t be tolerated if the tables were turned and the writer were promoting the opposite side.
Right off the bat we learn, among other things, that the leaders of GAFCon are intent to carry out the “destruction” of the AC. One side is “tolerant,” but the other is filled with “hardliners.”
Read one way, it’s an amusing, unintended parody of true journalism. And I can just laugh at its silliness. Taken another way, it’s pathetic and a shameful, scandalous violation of professional standards. But then again, we’re used to that with the liberal mass media, aren’t we?
David Handy+
Reverse this and this would qualify as hate speech in Canada and in the UK and much of Europe.
Jensen is a frequent flyer in the pursuit of schism, turning up wherever needed David, your bias is showing. Whatever happened to separation of facts and opinion? Oh for the days when journalists learned about objectivity.
The nub of the problem is that TEC have indeed created a new “Jesus Christ,” one rather more to their liking, but largely disconnected from the Christ of the Bible. Can you say, “False Gospel” ?
The dispute is entirely over the nature of Christ, and the rest are derivative trifles.
Utterly ridiculous. A not-even-thinly veiled hatchet job. This is not news reporting. It is advocacy that does not even attempt to begin to present the issues or the players in a fair, balanced manner.
This article apparently speaks with an Australian accent! The author speaks of “schism” but demonstrates the lengths to which the Archbishop is going to stay within the canon and civil law of Australia (the Church there exists by an act of parliament). To my American ears, these two things–schism and conformity to the law–are direct opposites, non-sequitors if you will.
Therefore, whilst agreeing with much of the critique above that the article is clearly biased, I found it helpful that such a progressive author would articulate that Sydney (and presumably much of the Global South) seeks the end of the Communion as we know it, rather than the collapse of the Communion in both shape and substance. Ironically therefore, this appears to me to be an encouragement that GAFCON may be much more constructive than some of the polarized language has suggested.
Despite my recent call to “read it all”, I could not. The perspective was so skewed I felt it useless to read more than half.
If this article were any more slanted it would be horizontal.
Go back to journalism school!
The author speaks of “schism†but demonstrates the lengths to which the Archbishop is going to stay within the canon and civil law of Australia (the Church there exists by an act of parliament).
It’s all about power. ++Jensen and his brother Jensen+ speak of taking a stand, but it would “hurt Christianity” if he lost his title. The good archbishop is a bit of a joke in Australia (see this article or search YouTube for his TV interview). His principles extend as far as his power and won’t cross that line. In comparison, someone like ++Orombi who is willing to give up everything for his principles is a stark contrast to ++Jensen.
WOW! I wonder which way the Morning Herald is leaning in this? This is little more than a liberal hit piece. Moving on…
ICXC
John
A hatchet job for sure. That said, there’s no doubt that ++Jensen’s anglicanism is of a rather strange sort for many of us and scarcely recognizable.
I agree with many of the comments especially #14. ++Jensen has always seemed to me to be a fine Christian man but not much of an Anglican. I have no problems with Presbyterians or Baptists (I used to be one-Presby) but while I agree that they are wonderful Christian and they are (mostly) orthodox, they are certainly NOT an example to follow for being Anglican.
Again, that said, I respect Archbishop Jensen as a Christian Leader but I often worry about his “orthodoxy” in that he has promoted “lay presidency” of the Eucharist.
Archbishop Jensen seems to be a solid, Bible believing Christian who “tows the line” regarding the word of God and wont take a step back from it, or allow himself convenient wiggle room.
As a Bible believing, fundamentalist Christian myself, its tough to see whats not to like about him.
Having said that, I do confess that I don’t know more about him than this article presents. From what I have seen, I would be proud to say that he was my Archbishop.
Peter Jensen is regarded as a bit of a joke in Australia, #12? That’s news to me. Last time I looked I lived in Australia – but not Sydney – and the Archbishop is regarded in my neck of the woods by orthodox Christians of all denoms with deep respect. He is , of course, mocked unceasingly by the liberal church and the secular media – which is as it should be.
#15 “I often worry about his “orthodoxy†in that he has promoted “lay presidency†of the Eucharist.”
Wot?
Implementing lay presidency would make Peter Jensen unorthodox?!!
That’s a joke right?
You’re really saying that the definition of orthodox Anglicanism is an ordained president at the Eucharist?
So Peter Jensen would be unorthodox by advocating lay presidency>
But Shori would be orthodox for practicing ordained presidency?
That would be according to which part of Scripture?
#18 Yup, allowing someone other than a priest (presybter if you want) or bishop to Consecrate the elements is a departure from Orthodox Anglicanism. It may or may not be a departure from “Orthodox Christianity” but Anglicanism IS NOT a “sola scriptura” grouping. (Note I did not say “denomination”). Also having a female or a non-believer presiding over the Eucharist would also be “unorthodox.” So, no lay presidency is not the “definition” of unorthodoxy but it is one of the things which departs from the “Faith and Practice” of the Church Catholic (note, NOT “Catholic Church” which term is often confused with “Roman Catholic.”)
If the man wants to be a presbyterian, then be one. But Anglicanism is not just “Christianity with robes or “Presbyterian with a Prayerbook.”
#19 I am sure a sense of perspective is VITAL here.
The Anglican formularies affirm that Scripture is the ultimate authority and that where they differ from Scripture, Scripture trumps them.
So when you “worry” about Peter Jensen’s Anglican orthodoxy, you are overlooking that orthodox Anglicanism itself concedes it is answerable to biblical orthodoxy. And that is VITAL.
Also keeping perspective, I believe there is infinitely more to worry about Shori than the fact that she is a woman who presides! In fact I’m wondering where in orthodox Anglicanism you find an obssession with gender at the Eucharist?
Still keeping perspective, I think to say you disagree with Peter Jensen on lay presidency is a fair conclusion – and that is why Sydney have not proceeded to implement it because of the effect on unity – but to say you worry that he is unorthodox……?