The following press release has been issued by the Diocese of Sydney:
Archbishop’s statement on Lambeth
Statement from Archbishop Peter Jensen – speaking after the service of ordination of 48 deacons at St. Andrew’s Cathedral in Sydney –
‘With regret, the Archbishop and Bishops of the Diocese of Sydney have decided not to attend the Lambeth Conference in July. They remain fully committed to the Anglican Communion, to which they continue to belong, but sense that attending the Conference at this time will not help heal its divisions. They continue to pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference.’
Oh well, never mind.
Yes, because, of course, the worst possible way to heal divisions in an organization is to gather and talk with those you may disagree with. The best way is to meet only with those who agree with you in another place and make plans to form a separate organization.
Yes, that’s the way to healing.
It’s probably very true to say that their presence wouldn’t help heal the divisions within the communion
Will they now stop going to the annual Australian bishops’ conference as well? Please?
How childish can you get? “I’m not coming to your party!!”
I’ll second the general thrust of Pat O’Neill’s sarcastic comments too.
“… the Archbishop and Bishops of the Diocese of Sydney have decided not to attend the Lambeth Conference.” Can we assume that Brian Farran, Bishop of Newcastle, which lies within the province of New South Wales, of which Jensen is primate, is not of their number? Farran rcently dissociated himself from GAFCON.
The main thing though, now, is what they do. Given the reduced numbers going to the alternative, if it functions properly at all, they could be walking off into their own wilderness as regards a larger communion. They have to set up a system now of alternative structures and, in effect, raiding parties to redistribute some people in Western Churches to their structures. So far they seem rather late in organising and can only do it by annoying as many would be friends as they can.
… have decided not to attend the Lambeth Conference …
… remain fully committed to the Anglican Communion …
??????????????????????????????????????????
God be praised. I would always appreciate from people of Jensen’s ‘heart’ to stay home instead, wishing they knew more about people’s sex lives or whatever ticks them off…
This IS good news! Now, perhaps Sydney will do Australian Anglicans a favor too, and stay away from their General Synod. GOOD RIDDANCE, I say!
I don’t think this is a surprise — it is certainly consistent with Archbishop Jensen’s long time plea for an evangelical Anglicanism based in the Global South rather than looking to Canterbury — I am also not surprised that Southeast Asia prefers Canterbury (at this time, anyway) which would explain a lot of the GAFCON politics.
>>the Archbishop and Bishops of the Diocese of Sydney … remain fully committed to the Anglican Communion … but sense that attending the Conference at this time will not help heal its divisions. And exactly what is it, oh wise Australian Sydney bishops, that will help heal divisions? Can’t say I’m surprised, on one level, part of me can’t say I’m bothered. From what I know of the Australian Church, there are plenty of people there that would much rather the Sydney diocese and its leadership would stay at home more often. On another level, very sad that anyone decides… Read more »
Well, as Jed Bartlet used to say “Decisions are made by those who show up”. You don’t show up, you don’t get to complain about the decisions.
Sorted.
Oh the humanity. Jensen is speaking for himself and the other five bishops in the Diocese of Sydney. His title “Archbishop” derives purely from the fact that he is the bishop of Sydney. Sydney is a part of the Province of New South Wales of which he is metropolitan which means little as far as telling bishops what to do.
Appearances are not what they seem. I wonder if Akinola knows he’s running with small fry, or if he’s instead taking advantage of the difficulty in making these distinctions.
How childish can you get? “I’m not coming to your party!!” Tim, it’s only childish to you because you think of it as a party. The behavior of the reasserters is only “rude” to you because to you religion is only therapy. It’s only a social club. It is only taste in a certain type of worship, and who are we to condemn one another over matters of taste, and exclude people from the club? Nothing real is at stake to you. Please rethink your position, or at least understand that reasserters believe there are important issues at stake here.… Read more »
and they should have added…
” And we shall be signing lay presidency into action shortly after Lambeth, which will rock the Angllican Communion to the core.
So we do not want to sign up to any wishy washy Covenant that infringes our jurisdictional independence, and stops that legitimate Biblical development, freeing Anglicanism from the last vestiges of priestcraft. “
Broad tent Anglicans still live in Sydney. Do not underestimate Australians’ stoicism. The harder souls attempt to suppress and oppress Aussies, the greater their commitment to freedom and their determination increases inside their cores (we’re very Jewish, in that sense). There are still many examples of broad tent Christianity in Sydney. Many members and leaders of various faith communities are doing excellent work at peace making, revering Creation, offering hospitality, nurturing the poor, allowing souls to develop and manifest their gifts (including females). Secular leaders have continued to show more awe of God than some religious leaders. The current communion… Read more »
Is it any wonder that so many Bishops feel the Lambeth conferences are a total waste of time? (Syndey is not the only one). Last Lambeth conference passed overwhelmingly a very clear resolution on homosexuality — called Lambeth 1.10. It is quite long so I will link to the text: http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/communion/ctexts/iss_communion_ctexts_lambeth1-10.asp The key part of the resolution was: in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage; Now since 1998, the American church has at… Read more »
Perhaps TEC and the AngChurchAustralia can compare notes?
E.g.,
* How to restart a diocese (San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh)
* How to restart an Archdiocese (Sydney).
The important thing: as the wonderful people of “Remain Episcopal” (San Joaquin) have taught us, how BLESSED it is when the Anglican faith is FREE to be practiced again!
Better times in Sydney ARE coming. Alleluia! 😀
[Lord have mercy on the Brothers Jensen—and on us all.]
In response to Lapinbizarre; the Sydney announcement applies only to Bishop of the Diocese of Sydney — Dr Jensen and his several assistant bishops. It doesn’t apply to the Bishop of the seveal other dioceses in New South Wales, of which Dr Jensen in the metropolitan.
My response to the announcement is simply to repeat my view that Dr Williams should consider cancelling Lambeth entirely. It is a waste of resources. It is likely to do little that is good and useful but it has great potential do do harm.
When I was young we used to make fun of the “double speak” of the soviets, now I live under a president in the US who has done nothing but double speak for seven years. How sad an archbishop of my church must speak this disingenuous language as well.
While I knew it was coming, the confirmation on the news this morning had me seething with anger. Please pray for those of us who must live under the Jensens and their cronies. I attend a church (80km distant) that ‘welcomes all people regardless of age, race, sexual orientation or religion’ even though it is under the control of these bishops. Bishop Gene Robinson chose (unannounced) to worship there when in Sydney last year. It was a pleasure to meet him. Sometimes I wish the Jensens and their cronies would leave the Anglican church and allow us to perhaps align… Read more »
An unsurprising response from Sydney, but none-the-less tragic.
I understood that the leaders of GAFCON had said that conference was not being set up as an alternative to Lambeth, but with Nigeria and now Sydney withdrawing, it would appear that perhaps it is after all.
JND
What makes you think Tim is thinking of Lambeth only as a party?
Do you have any evidence for the claim that nothing real is at stake for him?
What makes you think there is nothing real in Christianity for him?
Did Pat say the liberals had “muted” into a separate organisation?
I haven’t followed this thread properly for a while… maybe I have missed all the statements affirming this. If so, please point me to them.
JND writes: …”because to you religion is only therapy” … “perhaps you should consider inventing your own religion”… First, I did not mention the word `rude’ in my earlier comment, so you have no business attributing it to me with quotes in yours. Second, you have no basis *whatsoever* for stating that I find religion a “therapy”. Your comment goes downhill from there onwards. The issue at stake at Lambeth is not these so-called “reasserters” and their over-inflated problems about one issue, namely sexuality. You have too much focus on the institution of the Anglican Communion not on *communion* which… Read more »
“Pat, what method do you use for determining when you are brothers with a difference over adiaphora, and when you have mutated in to a separate organization? Of course this is not being undertaken lightly. How can you just assert this stuff without any proof? Why do you think anyone will listen?”
I don’t think you do it unilaterally, while declaring you are deciding to absent yourself from a meeting in an attempt to “heal divisions.” You certainly don’t declare that YOU are the real organization, while refusing to take part in that organization’s functions.
Much as I disagree with Sydney here (and I do think they’re being a bit huffy), I’m quite uncomfortable with the equation of commitment to the Communion with attendance at Lambeth. I even read somewhere that one draft of the Anglican Covenant would require attendance at meetings of the “Instruments of Unity.” But we must remember that the first Lambeth Conference was only allowed to proceed with the proviso that it be voluntary and collegial. (As for the Primates, they should be barred from meeting alone together, never mind told it’s mandatory). 😉
Margaret, Margaret, Margaret. Despite all your “conservative” spin, the fact is that Lambeth passed a number of resolutions. Several Lambeths have passed resolution affirming that self-appointed messiahs aren’t allowed to poke their noses into other dioceses. Yet your heroes all ignore that one. And even the resolution you referred to included far more than any of you “conservatives” are prepared to admit. It also included a very clear call for every single bishop, every single province and every single diocese to undertake a deliberate and intentional process to listen to the concerns and experiences of homosexual persons. How ’bout we… Read more »
Thanks Erika; I’m equally worried that a party might be seen as an “only”. After all, wasn’t there someone nearly 2000 years ago who got in a lot of trouble for going to parties with the “wrong” sort of people?
Out of all of Luke 14, v21 stands out scarily.
Brian K I don’t agree. Lambeth should proceed. Rowan gave a very good three point articulation of why it should proceed at New Orleans. Not least because there are beleaguered Christians in small countries who will benefit from the sharing of ideas and grace with others. Actually, this has the possibility of being one of the healthiest communions in decades. With the vilifiers and accusers gone, they can get on with offering succour, hope and suggestions to the quieter voices that have been overlooked during the poltical posturings of recent conferences. Remember Zechariah 3 “Then he showed me Joshua the… Read more »
“in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;” No Margaret, this is not the late modern anti Modern “resolution” that made a scandal at Lambeth in 1998 and since. This is the traditional, un-Biblical (originally from the Platonizing Philosophers of Hellenist Alexandria) that the European Academics of Emperor Louis the pious managed to force on the Church of Christ inb the 2nd Millennium. It may be equally unwarranted (and equally extraneous to Christianity) but… Read more »
SYDNEY STATEMENT VINDICATES PRESIDING BISHOP OF TEC
In her deposition at the Virginia property hearings, Doctor Jefferts-Schori denied that there was a split in the Anglican Communion, but that there were tensions and distancing amongst members. Sydney state unequivocally they are still part of the Anglican Communion, even though they are not going to Lambeth. This should be used as evidence in the afore mentioned case, disproving the CANA case that the Anglican Communion has split. Indeed there is NO statement from any Anglican province that they have left.
Thankyou Bishop Jensen
Another piece of trivia…. Jensen’s brother, who is Dean of Sydney and more hard line than the Archbishop believes women should not preach in public to mixed congregations. So even he thinks the ordination of the five women in his own Cathedral is wrong.
A lot of conservative Evangelicals would regard women deacons as the thin edge of the wedge. Therefore Sydney is innovative and heretical to some.
Shucks. Forgive me if i sob uncontrollably.
Now if we can get all of the right wing reactionaries of the Church convinced to do likewise, maybe something constructive will get done.
What can you expect from an Archbishop who prefers wearing a collar and tie instead of the usual Anglican vestments for celebrating the Eucharist? The centrality of the pulpit in his cathedral – rather than the altar – is one of the signs of his preference for the words in the Book to the reality of the Word-made-flesh on the altar. I suppose if the other Bishops of the Diocese of Sydney want to ‘follow in his train’ the members of their parish congregations should not try too hard to stop them. Just make sure it is not your money… Read more »
“Perhaps you would like to take your evil, snide, judgemental and misguided remarks elsewhere, or have the guts to apologise.”—Tim
Right on, Tim!
“But in the hypocritical world of “conservative” schism, picking and choosing is standard practice.”—Malcolm+
You can say that again!
Tim, You do not know Peter Jensen’s heart. If you will apologize for *your* initial evil, snide, judgmental remark, I will apologize for attributing to you positions that you claim are false.
Pat: maybe the definition of the ‘real organization’ should be sought elsewhere than just looking at the bureaucratic institution. To use a bizarre example. Let’s say the AMA officially started promoting superstitious new-age healing techniques. A group of ‘real’ physicians might break away. But who is the ‘real’ group? Why does BUREAUCRATIC continuity count as the defining characteristic for you?
Tim, do you believe as an unregenerate individual you ARE sinful in God’s sight? Do you believe Christ literally died to save you? Do you love humanity enough to warn them about this? If you believe so, then I apologize sincerely to you! But then I cannot understand your attitude if this is so. If you misrepresent to people what SIN is you are distorting the message and you are impeding people from repenting. Please consider what you are doing!
Ron…Sydney are loyal to the Reformation. Doctor jesnsen does wear vestments but NOT chasuable , which was only illegally re-introduced to Anglicanism in the 19th century.
They do have a communion table…but technicaally there is no altar in the BCP or Anglican Church.
You do better petitioning the Anglo-Catholic bishops who are foolishly going to GAFCON.
Robert Ian Williams, “vestments” are the chasuble, dalmatic and cope and their accompaniments (stole, alb, mitre, etc.). Cassocks, surplices, rochets & chimeres are not vestments, so I would be interested to hear if the archbishop does in fact wear vestments. As to the “illegal re-introduction” of vestments in the 19th century, the 1559 Act of Uniformity states “be it enacted, that such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in use, as was in the Church of England, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI… Read more »
Personally I find it quite amusing to see souls misrepresent what Grace of God is, or mercy, or forgiveness. Whenever they do so, they refute Jesus’ success. Personally, I’m quite happy to trust that God knew what God was doing when Jesus was sent, and that Jesus is ordained as the High Priest. I don’t have a problem with God imposing Grace and forgiveness upon us. God does get pissed off when humanity and naughty angels try and pick and choose who is “in” and who is “out” and which covenants or laws are still valid. e.g. Jeremiah 31:33-34 “This… Read more »
They were never worn between 1559 and 1849…Indeed Laud, Juxon, Sancroft, Keble, Pusey and all the High Church ones never wore them. There is an excellent evangelical answer to the law you quote…too long for me to tyope here. Get back on subject!
“Robert Ian Williams, “vestments” are the chasuble, dalmatic and cope and their accompaniments (stole, alb, mitre, etc.). Cassocks, surplices, rochets & chimeres are not vestments, so I would be interested to hear if the archbishop does in fact wear vestments. As to the “illegal re-introduction” of vestments in the 19th century, the 1559 Act of Uniformity states “be it enacted, that such ornaments of the church, and of the ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in use, as was in the Church of England, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI… Read more »
“Tim, do you believe…?”
Incredible: that JND the (Baptist?) Inquisitor could purport to be *Anglican*. :-0
Lord have mercy!
The split is on its way – and the sooner the better!
I am not an expert on the definition of vestments (having grown up in Sydney). However to give him his due, I am fairly sure Jensen and all other clergy would wear a surplice and stole while celebrating communion. At other services they are quite likely to wear just a suit and tie and perhaps an academic gown. The cope is allowed and worn at my church (St James, King Street). The chasuble is illegal. I am not sure what would happen if they allow lay administration and have no intention of ever attending to find out. JND, I have… Read more »
JND I don’t want to get involved in your theological discussion with Tim, but nothing he may or may not believe has anything to do with his initial statement that “I’m not coming to your party” is childish. If you’re serious about your beliefs you will want others to share them. To split yourself off from a huge meeting place and point of conversation because the others don’t agree with you is precisely that – playground behaviour. I don’t happen to support the break aways’ theology, but if I did I would want them to stay and engage, engage, engage,… Read more »
“If you misrepresent to people what SIN is you are distorting the message and you are impeding people from repenting.” In so far as you represent to the world that sin is some sort of crime against God, which He will let you get away with if you are sufficiently self hating, and if I am right in perceiving in you some sort of acceptance of PSA as the core interpretation of Atonement, and in so far as you seem to think the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was an innocent person being punished for other people’s crimes, it… Read more »
I have two almost entirely irrational prejudices against evangelicals, Robert Ian Williams. The first is that they cook up “facts” to suit their arguments; the second is that they occasionally have rather bad manners. Your 7:41 p.m. post confirms both prejudices. “They were never worn between 1559 and 1849…Indeed Laud, Juxon, Sancroft, Keble, Pusey and all the High Church ones never wore them.” Of the five individuals who you state “never wore” vestments, only one – Keble – may well never have done so. The wearing of the cope at communion was a cornerstone of Laudian high churchmanship. Laud and… Read more »
But Ford Elms, how can you say that? Let me ask you – to paraphrase Ray Comfort, if I were dying, about to expire in a few minutes, and were unsaved – what would you tell me? What is your message of salvation? Universalism?