The Book Common of Prayer Collect for the third Sunday after Easter shows that Dr Jensen's outlook is authentically Anglican. This Collect is positively for truth and righteousness and at the same time recognises that we professing Christians, because of our sinful natures, are capable of falling into error and behaving in ways that are contrary to our professed faith:
Almighty God, who shewest to them that be in error the light of thy truth, to the intent that they may return into the way of righteousness: Grant unto all them that are admitted into the fellowship of Christ's religion, that they may eschew those things that are contrary to their profession, and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same; through our Lord Jesus Christ.So its yes to righteousness and truth is as good as its no to sin and error.
At an evening event on Thursday celebrating orthodox Anglicanism at the Emmanuel Centre, Westminster, Dr Jensen, who is General-Secretary of FCA International, also related a story illustrating the spiritual state of many Anglican churches in the West. An episcopal colleague of his in another Australian diocese, a Liberal Catholic by tradition, dismissed from office a clergyman in a country town who had committed adultery.
The small congregation of people in their 60s and 70s was angry with the bishop for enforcing clerical discipline. 'He's our vicar, he's nice, we like him. ' 'But he's committed adultery.' 'That doesn't matter. We like him.'
Dr Jensen called that 'pride in sin'.
Cranmer's Curate is blogging off in May, due to a busy parish schedule. Youth group prayers would be appreciated for our Purpose of Life Mission weekend (May 18th-20th).
This story about the need to verify a public statement at the FCA celebration about the treatment of a Southwark lay reader appeared on the US-based orthodox Anglican news service VirtueOnline. Archbishop Cranmer has done a thorough exposee of the appalling treatment of Mr Peter Gowlland who courageously upheld traditional Christian marriage in the Southwark church where he served faithfully as a reader for many years.
This piece about the Pax Borisannica was published on Archbishop Cranmer.
Hi Julian, off-topic: Is there any further news about Richard Turnbull and Wycliffe Hall?
ReplyDeleteThank you Michael - the VOL story has the information it seemed responsible to report at this stage.
ReplyDeleteHe seemed pretty cheerful when he rang last week so I'm not sure what off sick means.
Stories tell us SO much and this story from Dr Jensen leaves many questions in the air.
ReplyDeleteI thought how Jesus might have framed this? How does it compare with stories He told about adultery? What has happened to the crowd with stones in their hands? If you change the word "like" (very Anglican) for "love" - does that alter the way we hear the story?
Then there are the consequential stories of healing and restoration or not.
For example:
Five years later the Vicar and his wife went to see the bishop and told him of their healing journey together and asked for another chance to serve God - strengthened by their experience.
Or:
Two years later the Vicar and his new wife turn up to ask the bishop for a new chance to serve God.
Martin,
ReplyDeleteI believe the incident is an actual one, not a parable, so ++Jensen doesn't have a choice about how it ends! He may also not know how it ends, since it was told to him by the bishop concerned at a conference.
It well illustrates the point of a congregation who were not prepared to accept clergy discipline. Whether it will result in some sort of reconciliation later - lets hope and pray so.
"and asked for another chance to serve God"
Its important to remember that the vicar can serve God right now - it would be a mistake to think one can only serve God if one holds an official clergy position.
"Two years later the Vicar and his new wife turn up to ask the bishop for a new chance to serve God."
Each case depends on its own facts of course, but in my diocese I think there is no way that a priest who had committed adultery would be allowed to act as a rector again so soon, if ever. He would certainly have to act in some other clergy function for a considerable time before being trusted with the care of a congregation again.
And if he had left his wife for a new one, I suspect he could say goodbye to any form of ordained ministry, permanently.
Michael, Sydney
Thanks Michael, though I think my question is a little more nuanced and asks for a biblical perspective bearing in mind how Our Lord taught when faced with an adulterer.
ReplyDeleteThe way we frame a story has so much to tell. So I asked if the word "like" was replaced by the word "love" would that have a bearing. If the people had come saying:
"But he is such a Godly teacher who has transformed our lives!" Would that impact on how we hear the story?
Yes, I understand how the story was intended to ridicule those who objected to the bishop's "discipline" - and the description of them was intended to demean them - but I am trying to set this in a less "pre-judged" formula.
"Each case depends on its own facts of course,...."
Interesting to read that Situation Ethics holds sway there .....;-)
"I believe the incident is an actual one, not a parable" http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20John&verse=7:53-8:11&src=9
ReplyDeleteMartin,
ReplyDelete"Yes, I understand how the story was intended to ridicule those who objected to the bishop's "discipline" - and the description of them was intended to demean them"
Then you understand more than I do - where did it say that? In Sydney, ++Jensen carries a fair amount of respect even from those who vehemently disagree with him, partly because he is known for *not* "ridiculing" or "demeaning" his opponents. So I doubt that was his intention here.
It is clear that both he and the liberal bishop disagreed with the parishioners, but that is not the same thing as 'ridiculing' or 'demeaning' them.
"Interesting to read that Situation Ethics holds sway there .....;-)"
Not really. "Situational ethics" refers to ethical principles being variable per se, whereas my point was that the *application* of a principle may vary depending on the facts.
Michael, Sydney
Perhaps Michael you might consider that the story does more than demean and ridicule the congregation - it inspires Jensen to accuse them of "pride in sin".
ReplyDeleteI have a feeling, going on past form, those pilloried here would be amongst those generously offering to Jensen "a fair amount of respect even from those who vehemently disagree with him".
Yet again I ask if the example Our Lord sets in his encounter with the woman taken in adultery is supportive of the bishop's action or that of the congregation?
Might not some have walked away in Jusu's day
muttering: "Bad things will come of this lack of discipline." ?
And then there are the Biblical teachings that compel us to respect the grey/white haired folk. I cannot see anywhere in this story the respect due to this group of Christian elders that they deserve.
No Michael I am not impressed by the story, nor am I impressed with the defence you offer.
As we receive it here, I think this was a mistaken teaching, not based on sound Biblical or Christian principles.
"Perhaps Michael you might consider that the story does more than demean and ridicule the congregation - it inspires Jensen to accuse them of "pride in sin"."
ReplyDeleteMartin, as I wrote above, I don't see how it "demeans" or "ridicules" anyone. Nor since you ask, do I think ++Jensen was accusing them of anything except being wrong about rejecting clergy discipline. As he tells the story, both he and the liberal bishop were right: The bishop was correct to discipline the rector, and if the congregation members were going to object to that, then they needed to show a sound scriptural reason. Where in Scripture does it suggest that their liking for the rector and his ministry is relevant?
"Yet again I ask if the example Our Lord sets in his encounter with the woman taken in adultery is supportive of the bishop's action or that of the congregation?"
Why would it support either? There is nothing in the story of the woman caught in adultery that says that a minister who sins in office cannot be disciplined for it. Jesus does not for example suggest that she could or should hold a position in the church. 1 Corinthians 5:1-8 seems to be much more on point: Paul does not suggest that the man caught in incest should be stoned (the Old Testament penalty) but he does say that he must be put out of the church until he ceases the incestuous relationship and repents. Isn't that more to the point?
"And then there are the Biblical teachings that compel us to respect the grey/white haired folk. I cannot see anywhere in this story the respect due to this group of Christian elders that they deserve."
How would the bishop have been respecting them, if he encouraged them to follow incorrect teaching? Isn't that rather DIS-respecting them?
"No Michael I am not impressed by the story, nor am I impressed with the defence you offer."
I can see that; however, your reasons are not clear to me. You don't seem to like the idea that a clergyman can be accountable for his behaviour in office, but why is that?
"As we receive it here, I think this was a mistaken teaching, not based on sound Biblical or Christian principles."
Sure, but why? You appear to be espousing the position that there can never be any reason to discipline clergy, and I don't understand your reason for that.
Michael, Sydney
There are many aspects of this story that concern me Michael, and as I explore it through your responses I am more troubled.
ReplyDeleteMy first reaction to this squib was to question the pastoral impact on such a private story becoming public. What two bishops exchange is one thing but to see it used in this way quite another.
The Internet has made our world a village.
It is not impossible, in fact I would say likely that someone involved in this original story will hear of this.
I would doubt very much that the bishop who told this story intended for his remarks to a fellow bishop to get back. It would not be hard to identify those involved.
I think it is one of my great pastoral duties as a pastor to retain the confidences given to me and would never dream of using them directly as a vehicle for my opinions as has been done here. While I preach and teach from my experience I would not come close to doing something like this.
Then there is the teaching itself.
When I contemplate the teaching of our Lord - it would seem that the important characteristic is that of restoration. Jesus gives the woman not just her life but a new life.
We hear nothing of restoration from the bishop, whereas the congregation have already forgiven. St Paul's teaching gives restoration and I guess the local people already know their likeable Vicar is repentant and set on a new life.
What an awful thing to have a pastor who was disliked by all!
Martin, you wrote:
Delete"I would doubt very much that the bishop who told this story intended for his remarks to a fellow bishop to get back. It would not be hard to identify those involved."
With respect Martin, you appear to be speculating both about the circumstances and about what was said between this bishop and ++Jensen. For all we know this event might be already public. I can't add anything more except that I personally am unable to identify the bishop involved, nor the diocese nor (naturally enough) the rector or parish.
To put this in context, there are 23 dioceses in Australia, and five of them are large arch-dioceses with multiple "area bishops" who effectively act as ordinaries within their area. We can't even say precisely when this happened - there is no reason to assume it is a current bishop.
"When I contemplate the teaching of our Lord - it would seem that the important characteristic is that of restoration. Jesus gives the woman not just her life but a new life."
Precisely. How do you jump from that point to the assumption that a Christian, who is engaging in sin for which he or she is not prepared to repent, should be given a position of responsibility within the church?
"We hear nothing of restoration from the bishop, whereas the congregation have already forgiven. St Paul's teaching gives restoration and I guess the local people already know their likeable Vicar is repentant and set on a new life."
Actually we are not told that they have forgiven. They may not have taken his sin seriously in the first place, which is not the same thing as forgiving. Nor are we at any point told that the Rector is repentant - that is something you are assuming. Throughout this discussion you appear to be *assuming* the best about the parishioners and the rector, and the worst about the bishop and ++Jensen - for no objective reason that I can see!
"What an awful thing to have a pastor who was disliked by all!"
Indeed. That is why I think it is so important to not judge a pastor by whether he is "liked", "loved", "disliked" or "hated" (all highly subjective, and dependent upon whom you ask) as per your original suggestion, but rather by the standards laid down in Scripture.
And to say unhelpful things such as: "You don't seem to like the idea that a clergyman can be accountable for his behaviour in office, but why is that?" and "You appear to be espousing the position that there can never be any reason to discipline clergy," don't help.
ReplyDeleteI am questioning this story as retold above. I am exploring what it means and how the very words used (nice) are themselves intended to convict. My own position is irrelevant. I am not a bishop with this authority. Let us stick to the question in point, shall we?
But let us say that your guesses come nowhere near my position.
"And to say unhelpful things such as: "You don't seem to like the idea that a clergyman can be accountable for his behaviour in office, but why is that?" and "You appear to be espousing the position that there can never be any reason to discipline clergy," don't help."
DeleteI am not trying to be unhelpful, and I appreciate you are presenting your points sincerely and with conviction. However, I did not make those comments in order to be disparaging. Quite simply, the arguments you are using do appear to logically lead to the position that there can never be a reason to discipline clergy.
"But let us say that your guesses come nowhere near my position."
I am not going on guesses, but on what appear to be the necessary objective meaning of your post. You are welcome to explain where my reasoning is incorrect.
As I understand it, you have argued that because the congregation "love" or "like" their rector, therefore he should not be disciplined for an adulterous affair, regardless of the fact that there is no evidence that he has repented of the sin involved in the first place. If that is not the case, please explain.
Well, Michael perhaps we have exhausted this topic.
ReplyDeleteQuite clearly as you say I would like to see the best in these experienced Christians:
"I guess the local people already know their likeable Vicar is repentant and set on a new life."
and you seem to imagine the worst:
"the fact that there is no evidence that he has repented of the sin involved in the first place."
What I have been saying is that this lack of important facts comes because we are being directed by the story to think that that gravity of the offence and the need for repentance were deemed unimportant by the 60 and 70 year olds simply because they "liked" their Vicar. Or even to think that a priest so exposed would not consider repentance necessary.
Yet all we are told is they were angry at the bishop for sacking their Vicar because they "liked" him and they were willing to set aside his wrongdoing because of this.
As I said originally this story is set in a such a way and I wanted to feel my way through by changing a word or two, imagining that these people were just reluctant to express their love and compassion, their forgiveness and willingness to move on together with a priest who had sinned mightily.
And overall my concern for identification remains a real one - I had imagined that the Australian Church was somewhat larger! I am a journalist and PR man by training (not wanted for the job above then!) and this is just the sort of revelation I teach theological students to avoid. I am sure I would know who is intended if it were here in Wales (40yrs of memory!) and I guess that it would not be hard to find the parish and person involved.
I shan't be trying, I shall not mention this elsewhere. I would be happiest if the little story and our conversation vanished into cyberspace today. I think that's what should happen, not in the name of secrecy - but out of discretion - and potential hurt, that I am sure nobody intended.
Martin wrote,
ReplyDelete"Quite clearly as you say I would like to see the best in these experienced Christians: "I guess the local people already know their likeable Vicar is repentant and set on a new life." and you seem to imagine the worst:
"the fact that there is no evidence that he has repented of the sin involved in the first place."
No Martin, I don't think that is in the least fair. I am not "imagining" anything, that is the whole point. The only one who has been making assumptions without any evidence is you – there can be times when making such assumptions is useful, but not when you then proceed to draw conclusions about the two bishops based on those assumptions!
"What I have been saying is that this lack of important facts comes because we are being directed by the story to think that that gravity of the offence and the need for repentance were deemed unimportant by the 60 and 70 year olds simply because they "liked" their Vicar. Or even to think that a priest so exposed would not consider repentance necessary."
Since ++Jensen was there and knew the whole story, which you do not, I think he has every right to so direct us.
"As I said originally this story is set in a such a way and I wanted to feel my way through by changing a word or two, imagining that these people were just reluctant to express their love and compassion, their forgiveness and willingness to move on together with a priest who had sinned mightily."
I agree you are entitled to use this on a counterfactual basis to illustrate any point you like – I am simply saying that it is not a basis to criticise either the archbishop or the bishop.
"And overall my concern for identification remains a real one - I had imagined that the Australian Church was somewhat larger! I am a journalist and PR man by training (not wanted for the job above then!) and this is just the sort of revelation I teach theological students to avoid. I am sure I would know who is intended if it were here in Wales (40yrs of memory!) and I guess that it would not be hard to find the parish and person involved."
I suggest careful research before presuming to find the Anglican situation in Australia in any way comparable with that in Wales! But be that as it may, I cannot see any objective basis for your concern.