First, we apologise for the difficulties some of you have had accessing TA recently. The same difficulties have delayed publication of more news items. We hope they will be resolved soon.
Now, here are two report from ABC Radio in Australia. First:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Sydney on the state of Anglican Communion
Concerning what Peter Jensen says here about Archbishop Akinola, for a full set of links to what Peter Akinola really said (or not) go here.
And second:
UK Guardian journalist Andrew Brown on the state of Anglican Communion
As a footnote to that, here’s a comment from Andrew’s blog this morning.
There are two comments by Jensen in this article that should be highlighted: “…the difficulty arose not with the election of a woman bishop, but with what this woman bishop said, which is to refer to Jesus as Mother, and instantly she did that, she sent – it was a highly symbolic action and she sent a shock wave right through the communion…” and: “A bit hard for Jesus to be our Mother when the church is his bride, and to confuse the categories like this is a great foolishness…” There are some core constructs in certain parties theological models… Read more »
Abp Jensen admits it is all about Gene Robinson. It sounds to me as if he has rashly mounted on a high horse about this “presenting issue”.
In his outburst against the Jesus as mother idea, with its solid roots in Matthew, St Bernard etc., he sounds like a testy fuddy-duddy.
Jensen is obviously ill at ease with his chosen bedfellow Akinola. Maybe he will learn the value of a little tolerance and open-mindedness when the nature of the alternative dawns on him.
Cheryl – your explanation seems to show that Jensen’s (and most Anglicans’) understanding comes straight from the Bible….. Did Jesus say he was going to come back more than once? Jesus did not say he was a hen…. he said he wanted to gather his people like a hen – there is a difference What does Hebrews teach us about how to interpret the OT post Christ? Why do “liberal” churches (like ECUSA) shrink despite trying to accomodate every new idea / social change and Bible believing churches grow, even in England?? Maybe because God is behind his word and… Read more »
Archbishop Jensen seems uncomfortable with metaphorical language, which the Bible is full of. The early church theologians recognized this, as did later Christians. The narrow literalism displayed by so many is a product of the early 20th century fundamentlist movement.
I hope that, if he ever traveles to Jerusalem, he will not be shocked to find the city is not in the shape of a gigantic Victorian upholstered footstool.
Cheryl- Your comment was of your usual high standard. I think though that it has to be strange to call Jesus ‘mother’. Maybe she thought ‘sister’ would sound ridiculous – as indeed it does. But no more so than ‘mother’. Why is ‘mother’ strange? (1) Because Jesus was always talking about his Father, to whom he was not married; (2) Because of the Church = Bride equation; (3) Because of the NT use of Son language. The danger is that she is not talking about the real historical flesh and blood Jesus, or wanting to do so, merely about some… Read more »
Here’s some prognostications by a lawyer (law suits like battles being sometimes compared to train wrecks in slow motion): (1) The next 5 years in what has been called the Anglican Communion and its component parts will be characterized by power struggles and chaos. (2) Those who think these power struggles will only involve struggles within the ranks of traditionalists and struggles between traditionalists and r_________s, are incorrect. There will also be struggles between those on the left as well. Particularly between those who will seek to compromise some liberal positions to be part of the “in” group and those… Read more »
calling Jesus mother has ancient roots, and is perhaps most famous in the writings of Julian of norwith. apparently Jensen is as illiterate and uneducated as he is pompous.
Thank-you, Thomas, for referencing Julian. Perhaps we should send a selection of her beautiful “feminine” God-writing to Mr. Jensen and the others who seem totally unashamed of their illiteracy.
Thomas, No-one who has met Peter Jensen could ever honestly call him pompous. He is as gracious and self-deprecating a man as you can imagine. But I guess in the end that is a matter of opinion. However, your other ad hominem attacks are uncalled for, and open to public scrutiny: “Illiterate” – he studied law at Sydney University, from which he gained an MA (hons), he worked as a primary school teacher, and he has published theological papers, books and booklets. “Uneducated” – his L. Th is from Moore Theological College, his BD from London University and his D… Read more »
Actually, I would never call Jesus a woman (and I don’t think he is confused about his sexuality). But a brash theological hyperbole that Jesus is the full embodiment of God opens the questions on who is the Father and the Holy Spirit. If Jesus is the full embodiment of God then he must epitomise all the characteristics of God, including the feminine ones. If he is not the full embodiment of God, then Jesus probably is what he said he is, that is the Son of God (or for the Jews moshiach ben David), who was sent by the… Read more »
The fact that Julian of Norwich said something does not make it true or appropriate.
It is amazing how the passage of time gives a (sometimes undeserved) aura to things (Richard Dawkins is right about this point). If you or I say something now, maybe in 500 years’ time it will be venerated as infallible.
“The fact that Julian of Norwich said something does not make it true or appropriate.”
Agreed, but it also means that it is not part of a liberal conspiracy, but rather part of the Christian tradition, in much the same way as something said by Calvin, or Knox or Wesley or Spurgeon….
Christopher
I like your comment. That applies to many things, including propositional revelation.
Cheryl –
Exactly. Propositional revelation is a highly questionable concept, as is verbal inspiration. But there are two reasons why the Bible deserves central emphasis:
(1) Primary documents are always worth more in various ways (e.g. historicity, authenticity) than secondary and tertiary;
(2) It is impossible either to write or to understand secondary and tertiary documents without grounding in the primary.