AUDIO
![]() |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
Just this past term I have had the great pleasure of co-teaching - with Professor Ashley Null, the renowned Cranmer scholar - a MA unit offered here at Moore College entitled 'Anglican Identity'. In it we made careful study of the development of the English reformation and the works of leading figures like Fisher, Cranmer and Hooker.
A highlight was reading the moving testimony of Catherine Parr, last wife of Henry VIII, to her conversion to the gospel of justification by faith.
I was curious, however, as to why so few Sydney clergy thought this was a subject that might interest them, or that the study of the founding documents of our denomination might be well worth their while.
This was confirmed by casual conversations with Moore students. I asked them 'how do you understand your identity as an Anglican?' - and was met with baffled looks and shrugs. The denomination is a 'good boat to fish from', mostly, but there is (it seems to me) no great passion for Anglicanism itself and no great commitment to study its formularies and its history.
Perhaps it is because the international controversies have become wearisome and even a source of embarrassment. Perhaps it is because the denomination changes at glacial speed - and we in our time are addicted to change, even for its own sake. Perhaps we are also in the grip of the 'lone ranger' vision of the brave church planter, unencumbered by denominational vagaries. Perhaps the baby-boomer generation have so scrubbed away any outward signs of Anglican distinctiveness that it is hard to see what it is anymore.
But I was surprised that even the GAFCON movement, with its bold and remarkable vision for an global Anglican movement, has not caught the local imagination. It has been perceived as a political rather than a spiritual movement.
More than ever, we need to renew our vision of what it means to be an evangelical Anglican. My conviction is that not only is being evangelical the most authentic way of being Anglican - we've been saying that for years - but also that being Anglican is a great way of being evangelical.
How come?
Firstly, because the Anglican formularies (the 39 Articles, the Prayer-Book and the Homilies) subject themselves at every turn to the authority of scripture. Though they provide an extraordinarily rich theological foundation, they also offer themselves to be tested against a scriptural norm.
Second, because Anglicanism has a great sense of what is of primary and what is of secondary importance. Other Protestant denominations have a tendency to make secondary issues - like the manner of baptism or church discipline or church government - a primary distinguishing mark. And they endlessly divide because of it. The Anglican formularies commit us to important things - and allow us freedom under Scripture on the secondaries. What a blessing!
Third, Anglicanism is a great mission strategy. From the beginning, Cranmer and the others knew that they were in a battle for hearts - hearts, like Catherine Parr's, that needed conversion. Today, the opportunities opening up for mission because of our Anglican networks - in Sydney and elsewhere - are extraordinary.
I am sure I could add more to this list. But I am not sure that the message is being heard.
The text of Ed Loane’s wonderful speech to the Anglican Church League is here. In it, Ed recounts the League’s century-long determination to defend the evangelical character of the diocese of Sydney from liberalism and tractarianism. It struck me however that for most of that century evangelical Anglicans knew what the Anglicanism they were defending was. There was a strong positive as a corollory to the negative. If today we have lost a sense of what that Anglicanism really is, then a determination to defend it becomes merely negativity for its own sake, or sectarianism. We need urgently to relocate the evangelically-beating heart of our Anglicanism. No amount of fighting off charismatics or New Perspectivists or Anglo-Catholics will seem meaningful if there is not this real sense that being Anglican is worth it for a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical.
[More interesting stuff on this theme from Anglican Church League President Mark Thompson and from the very astute John Richardson, a Moore graduate serving in England.]


Is historical awareness/interest generally on the decline?
After all the recent 'Jesus' poll found that Gen Y Australians were more likely to believe in Jesus' miracles than know what century he lived.
Can you picture Latimer, Ridley, and Cranmer going to the flames saying 'Well, at least it was a good boat to fish from'
I think it's certainly true that - aside from Anglican oddities like insisting on Confirmation for those baptised as adults, often in consecutive services - our congregations see very little distinction between us and the other protestant churches many of them have come from.
There may be a second reason as to why there is little interest in all this. Even within our own diocese there are some sometimes bizzare church activities that do not seem to be condemned. Only last Sunday a worried parishioner gave me a flyer from a church in Sydney advertising a halloween Gothic Mass, involving corpse candles, and where in the flyer one reads 'all human beings dead or alive are encouraged to express themselves creatively and joyfully.' This parishioner could not believe denominational authorities would not stop this.
I know I've used an extreme case, but when people observe the distinctives of Anglicanism, even within our own diocese, being flouted to the point that what is being done is blatantly heretical, and nothing is done about it, they are even less likely to be concerned about holding onto our valuable heritage.
RECLAIMING HALLOWEEN WITH THE GOTH n ROLL RECTOR AND THE FESTIVAL OF ALL THINGS DARKLY BEAUTIFUL
As Halloween takes hold in Australia as a commercial celebration, there is one suburb where the authentic experience will take over the streets.
Meet Gwilym, the renegade Rector of St Lukes, Enmore who brought the first ever Gothic Mass to Australia for last year's Under the Blue Moon Festival.
This year Gwilym takes us back to the controversial tradition of All Hallows Eve, where the souls of those in limbo are said to be released through the prayers of their loved ones. Gwilym reignites this tradition, reclaiming Halloween as directly related to Christ's passion, death and resurrection bringing light to darkness and new life for the dead.
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=182059460694
This will be a most unusual event with a gothic dj on decks playing Dead Can Dance, Sisters of Mercy and Nick Cave tracks, as well as the historic and one of a kind 1883 Wordsworth and Maskell organ getting a work out with gothic and dramatic pieces. The atmosphere will be gothick ambience with candlelit procession and service, and Soul Cakes. Soul Cakes hark back to medieval times and are the origin of the modern “Trick or Treatâ€.
Corpse Candles will be given out for the finale candlelit procession as the 1883 organ heralds us out with soul stirring music.
Like last year's Gothic Mass , The All Hallows Eve Mass will be intensely visual and evocative, the right kind of spooky with reverance. Fittingly it is in Enmore, the suburb of Sydney where all human beings dead or alive are encouraged to express themselves creatively and joyfully.
The All Hallows Eve Mass will begin at 7.30pm on Saturday 31st October 2009 at St Luke's Anglican Church, 11 Stanmore Road, Enmore.
Details from www.stlukesenmore.org.au or speak to the Goth n Roll Rector on 02 9557 4219
i find the call to denominational loyalty to be somewhat distracting to living my life in the fullness of christ, as too the debates about encroaching liberalism in the (anglican) church. i do not mean to be harsh, just a personal challenge.
let me share something of my journey as an anglican. baptised and confirmed anglican, grew up in anglican fellowship group and evening prayer anglican service (as all were back then). part of a variety of denominational churches, though largely anglican. never considered myself as anglican, but my background and experience was. attended moore college and employed by a number of anglican churches. came to realise whilst i may not consider myself to be anglican, by training and experience i was. came into some sharp debate about calvinism, predestination and creationism and came to a point of being 'proud' to be anglican for the sake of those who have travelled before and explored some heights of theology. came to see how painfully harsh i had been treated by (people within) the rigid and authoritarian structures that is anglicanism. and so now ... a lapsed anglican.
all this to say, like all denominations, good and bad in anglicanism. though for my mind, i am committed to my local gathering, committed to encouraging and supporting other believers i share fellowship with and respectful of those in christ who have walked and fought before.
Jesus lived in first century Anno Domini
I'm Gen Y
but I'm a statistical anomaly!
:)
I think that part of the problem with "Anglican' are the non-theological ways of defining Anglican which are generally the ones which most evangelicals encounter first, i.e.
1) Being Anglican means robes, strict prayer book liturgy, organ music & choirs, etc. I'm certain that I'm not the only one to have been told that I wasn't a genuine Anglican because of the informal style of service I attended. (In my case, ironically, by an Anglo-Catholic).
2) Being Anglican means putting denominational loyalty ahead of theology, even when false teaching arises.
In addition, the weakening of denominational loyalty seems to be part of a wider trend. The upside of this is when people choose a church based on what it teaches, not the denominational brand. The downside comes from Western individuality, when we choose a church because of what it gives us.
it's interesting that early Anglicanism is so much defined about what it isn't - in particular, it's not Roman Catholicism - which is bad (just read the 39 articles). Now - what do we define "Anglicanism" against? Other protestant denominations? Hillsong? Roman Catholicism? Of course - what *should* we define it against is also an important question.
I note of course the Archbishop of Canterbury's positive statements regarding the possibilities of Anglican churches and priests returning to Roman Catholicism (link).
This seems to have moved somewhat from the Anti-Roman feelings in the 39 articles.
In fairness to ++s Cantuar and Westminster, they were both rather rushed before issuing that communique. Still, some nomenclature therein does strike me as unfortunately one-sided and question-begging (inter alia, I'd have added a "Roman" here and there.)
Yes, early Anglicanism had a strong polemical tone. Fair nuff.
In our cultural context, there are few denominations we say are preaching a false gospel!
This may be a good thing, this may not be. But part of a groups identity lies in how they define themselves over and against other groups. If we no longer define ourselves against various groups - we lose our distinctiveness.
Of course - that's where (I hope) the FCA steps in - holding onto "true" and "historical" Anglicanism.
I don't have any bible college background like you all but this conversation intrigues me.
Why do we have to be infatuated with our denomination? I thought our lives where to be devoted to living like Christ and glorifying God. I agree with Roger G in his statement of "the weakening of denominational loyalty seems to be part of a wider trend. The upside of this is when people choose a church based on what it teaches, not the denominational brand". Isn't the biblical teaching more important than its denomination?
I also agree with his statement that in western world we choose a church more for what it can do for us than what we can do for it.
Maybe the solution is to drop all denominations and become one true body? All believers under the same name but no distinction between Anglican/Presbyterian/Uniting.
Personally, I worry when I here more about how we are losing our denomination (and I have only heard this in Anglican circles so far) than how we are effective in our community.
God bless
Seems to me that we Christians have progressed from individualism as it applies to me to individualism as it applies to my church. And so denomination doesn't matter.
But surely we should be concerned for the progress of the gospel in places where we are not? Isn't this the knock-down argument for caring about denominations, presuming they're built on solid doctrinal positions?
One of the areas we have to be most careful is the sacraments. While we want to protect against terrible distortions and abuses, it seems to me that quite alot of baby is being thrown out with the dirty bath water.
Thoughts anyone?
Schadenfreude?
@Michael:
What is the baby of which you speak, Michael?
I have moved around with the military and found that staying with the same denomination will not always guarantee a biblical based church. So I would rather hold onto a more basic level of the bible and my fellow brothers and sisters to guide me on my path.
Hopefully this topic will come to a resolution that all can be happy with :-)
God bless
For the benefit of others (and as I advised Michael in my paper a month ago), the Diocese of Nelson (the one clearly evangelical diocese in NZ) will be launching 'The Institute for New Anglicanism' in February next year. Just this last week I have been speaking of this initiative to the Bishops' Conference in Aotearoa NZ and Polynesia, where it appears to have been well received. The Institute for New Anglicanism will be a research and training unit of Bishopdale Theological College, and focussed on providing theological frameworks (especially missiology) for explorations in new modes of Anglican missional ministry in the very different landscape of the 21st century. (I'll continue in another comment)
Michael - I must say I am a little cross about this (and not just because it appears from our vantage point as another instance of Sydney carrying on as if no one else has an original idea). The launch of this initiative involves developing partners and support in our missional context (Aotearoa and Pacifica) - and developing the type of network you call for (and as I proposed to you) involves building relationships of mutual respect (and observing simple courtesies).
The difficulty you have caused me (no doubt inadvertently, but somewhat thoughtlessly), is that our initiative in the Diocese of Nelson will now look as though we are climbing on a Sydney bandwagon and initiative and draw us into the types of suspicions that goes with that - in our part of the world, there is a strong perception in NZ that Aussies - including the Sydney diocese - barely know NZ exists, or the state of evangelical ministry in NZ (witness Robert Tong's ill-informed piece on the church in NZ a couple of months ago)
We welcome discussions and partnership with others who share the same interest (such as yourself - which is why I sent you the paper on 'New Anglicanism'). But my goodness - relating to 'Sydney Anglicans' can be such a frustrating exercise. As someone who knows Sydney Anglicans well (Moore College trained and ministered in the Diocese for 10 years) - Sydney's blinkered approach to developing wider relationships is such a hindrance to gospel partnerships!
However, I forgot to link to, or mention, what looks like a really interesting development in NZ under your leadership, a diocese with which Sydney has had historic links. For which, apologies. You are ahead of us in developing such an Ãnstitute'. Couching it in terms of mission is exactly on the money.
I think you can safely report to anyone who wants to know that there is no bandwagon! This is, at the moment, simply an opinion piece.
Further information and my paper are available on our website: www.bishopdale.ac.nz
We welcome expressions of interest in participating in the conference, or in being part of a ongoing network looking to build both a research and praxis base in this area.
Grace and peace,
Tim Harris
Dean, Bishopdale Theological College
In times past this has largely been an academic discussion over who has claim on essential/definitive/classic Anglicanism, depending on which historic era you take as your point of reference. In our present day and age, I believe there is something of the culturally radical 'considered innovation' in Anglican DNA (I'm thinking in terms of the wisdom and insights of Cranmer's 'Prefaces' as an example) that offers a significant framework as we consider where a 'New Anglicanism' might lead us in the very different missional frontiers and contexts.
We would be interested in exploring some form of Australasian consultation along such lines if others are similarly interested.
Thanks for raising this issue in your opinion piece - I hope it gets due consideration in various Sydney quarters...
Source
Gwilym has asked me to post this statement which I put in the next post
Opinions within the church vary concerning Halloween, some feel that it is wholly un-Christian and should be completely ignored and condemned, others feel that it is harmless but should not be encouraged, while others see Halloween as an opportunity to reclaim this ancient spiritual tradition as a Christian festival.
I belong to the third group because I believe in the power of God, which, through Jesus Christ, conquers all the powers of darkness. My intention is to bring to the light those who walk in darkness, to rebuke sin by exposing it to the light of Christ and the Gospel.
At St Luke’s we have used the Under The Blue Moon Festival as an opportunity to reach a group who would not normally have anything to do with the church. The event is part of our Connect 09 strategy; a once-a-year opportunity to speak words of truth to young people of a particular group. It is a sincere invitation to people who may be flirting with the darker side of life to come to the light of Christ. It is an invitation to set aside the foolishness of superstition and embrace the reality of Christ and His gospel.
I am a Christian who believes in the inclusive love of God, salvation through Christ crucified and risen, and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. I believe in the truth brought to us in the Bible and the historic Creeds. I adhere to and obey the formularies of the Anglican Church of Australia.
But this episode is a warning about jumping to conclusions on what looked like solid evidence. I wonder how many other times this happens (especially on reports from overseas) when it can't be checked.
From looking at the St Luke's website, the festival's web page and facebook page, and this forum, it does (at first glance) look like the facts were more of less accurate. Though perhaps wrong conclusions were drawn from them.
Or have there been other reports elsewhere?
Given what was posted earlier it is reasonable to allow the Bishop and the rector of Enmore a right of reply. Let's leave it at that please.
This is a public forum and is read widely, including by secular journalists.
Some of my reasons follow:
1. No matter how you cut the cake, Anglican polity is not biblical (making it tough to call ourselves evangelical). Pragmatically useful? Perhaps. But I grow weary trying to convince my church to implement an Anglican equivalent of biblical eldership or biblical deaconate (lack of which, IMHO, stands in the way of effective local witness and mission). And I’m tired of trotting out Hooker's latitudinarian argument to inquisitive new believers when, truth be told, I don't buy it anyway (which stands in the way of integrity with respect to our position on biblical authority, inerrancy and perspicuity). Is church government a primary issue? Of course not. But does the Anglican position make us evangelical? Not one bit.
...
...
This list could go on, but I trust by now most Anglican readers will be protesting far too much to make the exercise profitable. Whether or not you agree with my assessment; whether or not these things are true of your local church (admittedly I may have had a very, very bad run); whether or not you live on my side of the theological fence (discussion of which would be way off topic) – rest assured that there are many, many reasons why young men like me have lost confidence in Anglicanism. Both as representative of reformed evangelical theology (seriously, why do we even argue that we are reformed anyway?!) or as a useful platform to fish from.
Sorry guys, as much as I honesty love the Anglican church (and have prayerfully poured so much of my heart and soul into its defence), I’m taking my tackle and pole and heading elsewhere.
As you might guess I applaud Michael’s article – spot on. I'm all for denominational loyalty if only because I think the tradition is so important.
Being Calvin's 500th anniversary this year I've read my way through The Institutes (incredibly blessed) and half a dozen Calvin books including Bruce Gordon's new biography, Witt and Kingdon's Sex, Courtship and Marriage in Geneva and just started Philip Benedict's Christ's Churches Purely Reformed: A social history of Calvinism.
Yes I understand we live in different times, different challenges requiring different approaches but NEVERTHELESS I do believe we need to reconnect with the past in order to make sure we remain within authentic biblical Christianity stream of consciousness as explicated through the tradition of the church (whether Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anabaptist.
One of my current projects is to dig into the reformed tradition regarding freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, because what we have been taking for granted for so long, we can no longer do so. The reformed tradition had much to do with securing freedom of conscience and religion in the first place. Why not become reacquainted with the tradition? Likewise we could learn a lot from observing and cogitating on the pattern secured in Geneva for sex, courtship and marriage during Calvin and Beza’s time.
The beauty of Anglican polity is that it doesn't pretend to be biblical - whereas those denominational structures that do claim a biblical patter over-reach and overemphasise, no?
That's more than fair. And no doubt why you stay and I go! I have no problem with that. We both love Jesus, we both want to see his name adored, so I can live with this kind of disagreement.
Agreed. But would you argue that this is reason not to try? Especially when it hurts our ability to reach out (eg. organised diaconal ministry)?
Perhaps it might be helpful, Michael, if you would flesh out what it could mean to "renew our vision of what it means to be an evangelical Anglican."
However:
1 - I don't see that our polity restricts our mission at all. Not the case in case after case.
2 - remember that Anglicanism through the parish system doesn't just plant a church in a relatively easy-to-reach part of the city. It has to deal with the whole lot, even if it means inefficiency. We still run churches in demographically tough places. The much-derided parish system is still the best springboard for effective, local mission that I know of. Not that it is everything.
3 - the theological heritage of Anglicanism is Reformed without being scholastic (for want of a better term). It actually subjects its theology to scripture and not scripture to its theology.
4 - Anglicanism has a view of the sacraments which is modest but biblical. It doesn't do away with them (what a completely ludicrous suggestion that would be!) and it doesn't overlay them with hocus pocus or import a covenantal theology to describe them.
5 - What a blessing the normative principle is over the regulative principle!!
6 - it changes slowly, because young men don't know everything.
I'd say the same about my parish church. Not perfect - but growing, connecting, seeing people saved, well pastored and a pleasure to be at.
Given the endorsement, perhaps I should be checking out your parish!
In all seriousness, I understand the difficulty you're expressing. There are many, many good little parishes out there which far from being a perfect fit (your point on the perfect church is well received) are nevertheless difficult to fault without appearing horribly shallow, mean-spirited or consumerist.
Nevertheless, I think I can answer your question. Here is a short list of “more†that I think can be reasonably asked for:
3. Leadership with a vision. Leaders by definition lead. Churches where the push for change, the ideas for outreach, and the passion for ministry consistently come from the congregation against unwilling leaders are, in my opinion, communities without biblical leadership. In a similar vein:
4. Leaders who we want to follow, and to whose authority we can submit. At a minimum, I think we should desire to emulate our pastor’s life and doctrine (life and doctrine I say...). And we need to be confident to submit to his authority, knowing that it is granted by God, and directed by scripture for our good. Godly man, gifted teacher, loving enough to discipline. Anything less is a no-go. I don’t know if it’s fair to list this one Allan, given what you’ve said about your pastor. In my experience, such men are hard to find (praise God if you’re lead by one!).
Note that I’m speaking here of things that go beyond the general theological norms we see in most SydAng churches (ie. preaches the gospel; sacraments; loves the lost of the city; Christian community...). I’m speaking of how these things apply to church practice – and specifically what they must mean at absolute minimum.
I would argue that if after much prayer and conversation you feel your local church is missing any of these, then it has probably ceased to be (functionally) a biblically obedient, god-honouring place. And if you’re 0/4 with no change on its way, then it’s probably time to look elsewhere.
As to where I’m going – given your theological concerns, you probably wouldn’t be much interested (although I’m with Michael here: this Diocese has a very biblical view of Holy Communion; this has been my experience in parish as well). Suffice to say it’s a non-Anglican church plant.
But this isn’t the point is it?
Someone objecting to the Diocese’s low position on Holy Communion is not commenting on frequency but doctrine and I suspect Zwinglian doctrine to be precise.
What a blessing the normative principle is over the regulative principle!!
Who says and on what basis?
My drum kit says! :D
Yes, I suspect this might be the argument.....
Leave the nest by all means - we are not perfect or sufficient. But don't soil it before you go. It leaves a bad smell.
Tom is saying the normative principle allows him to play his drums whereas the regulative principle won't.
Historically speaking, it is a Anglican v Presbyterian (Calvinistic) argument.
PS I will sustain the Calvinistic argument for the Lord's Supper over the Zwinglian argument that has become so endemic in Protestant worship, including I suspect SydAngs, which is precisely what I think you are objecting too. But maybe not...?
I think we are on the same page on this issue.
Article 29 is Calvin's teaching though in truth he says a lot more about the matter.
The remembrance meal understanding of LS is the Zwinglian understanding.
Cheers
As for the Zwinglian interpretation? There are certainly those who argue that a memorialist position is validly Anglican. That is, they say they are not setting aside the formularies by casting the Supper in memorialist terms.
I am not of them.
Di
If only Luther and Zwingli had butted out allowing Calvin and Melanchthon to define the doctrine....
(Yes, I know we would have just found more reasons to disagree. Come Lord Jesus!)
And Calvin hoped that his position would be acceptable as a mediating position between Zurich and Wittenberg.
The disagreement was between Luther and Zwingli, and Calvin sought a mediating position, which was found to be acceptable by the Zwingli Camp (and since Zwingli was now dead, killed in battle, Zurich was now lead more or less by Bullinger). It was less acceptable to the Luther camp though right? Does any of that make sense?
So it could be said that Calvin & Zwingli may not have been so diametrically opposed as some suggest (and in fact, as I have suggested). A question that comes to my mind - did Zwingli & Bullinger hold different positions on the Lord's Supper?
Though I suspect I am further pulling this thread off it's main point...as interesting as it may be (for some at least ;-)
Mike, if you could get hold a copy of Bruce Gordon's recent Calvin biography it would help clarify the issue for you - the index p 386, 393 gets you into the subject.
Cheers
I thought you might be interested in reading the American response to "A New Anglicanism". There is a thread on Stand Firm at: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/24947