Previous News Items

• LETTERS: May 2008 ... Readers react to a newspaper's closure
• OPINION: Two new appointments that challenge assumptions
• LETTERS: April 08 ....READERS HAVE THEIR SAY
• Australia's first woman bishop
• Bishops' conference settles on women bishop protocols
• Primate welcomes breakthrough first woman bishop

Show all news items

LETTERS: April 08 ....READERS HAVE THEIR SAY
April 17, 2008

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Market-Place readers are invited to respond to articles and raise new issues of concern through the ‘Letters’ page. Write to: market@ix.net.au

Which side destroyed unity?

Dear Sir,

As a clergyman in the Diocese of Sydney I read with great sadness the letters in the 12 March Market Place. Perpetuating the ungracious initial article by publishing letters calling people like me fascists, is surely going too far. Moreover, that my approach to Scripture is arrogantly broad-sided as "brutally inhumane" just shows how much some of the authors consider Anglican Unity a value.

With that in mind, I turn then to the ironic final question of Dr Mavis Rose. She writes: "Is the issue of a bishop's sexual orientation momentous enough to risk destroying Anglican unity?"  And I want to ask two things.

First, has not such a bishop already destroyed Anglican unity by accepting consecration? My ordination vows ask me to "instruct the people committed to my care from the Scriptures and to teach nothing except what may be proved by the Scriptures?" If we do not move together on sexuality, with the point proved by the Scriptures, are not those who move without convincing the rest rupturing our unity?

Secondly, must we believe that Anglican unity is an end in itself? 

The reformers called us to unite around Christ in the fellowship of believers being guided by the Word of God. If the Anglican church moved away from Christ and His Word, then I would stick with Christ every time.

On a brighter note, while in America this week, several Anglican ministers were deposed and locked out of their churches because they refused to adhere to the progressive liberalisation of the church they know and love, I want to give "Three Cheers" to our Australian Bishops.

They have worked together with respect to ensure that those in Australia who still believe the Bible has authority in the church will not suffer the same fate.

Revd Nigel Fortescue

Naremburn Cammeray Anglican Church, NSW

Two standards

Dear Editor,

Thank you for publishing some very thoughtful letters on the present behaviour of Archbishop Jensen and the power-brokers of the Diocese of Sydney.

In earlier years some of us believed that it was possible to work constructively with the Diocese of Sydney, in spite of obvious differences in theology and worship styles.  That time now appears to have passed, except for the parishes of Sydney that still embrace an inclusive Christian faith and ministry.

The simple fact is that Archbishop Jensen now has two distinct standards of conduct in his relations with the wider Australian Church. 

When the decision was given that there was no barrier to the consecration of women as bishops he was quick to appeal for, and even demand, special consideration for those Anglicans outside Sydney who could not in conscience accept the ministry of female priests and bishops.

But at the same time he was adamant that under no circumstances would he grant similar consideration to Anglicans within his own diocese whose conscience supports the ministry of female priests and bishops.

When a woman is consecrated a bishop in the Australian church she will not be allowed to exercise her episcopal ministry in Sydney, even in parishes that support such ministry. He apparently justifies this stand by the simple fact that he is right and all who disagree with him are wrong.

At his episcopal consecration in St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney in 2001 Archbishop Jensen solemnly swore to be bound by the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia.  Yet he is on record as supporting lay presidency at the Holy Communion service, contrary to the laws of the Anglican Church of Australia. 

It seems that only the danger of legal action, and the fear of offending his friends in Africa and South America, has caused him to hesitate to give formal assent to this illegal measure in his diocese.

Truly we live in interesting times.

Revd Robert Willson

Deakin, ACT

Not helpful

Dear Editor,

It was with great sadness that I read 'The ISSUES' article in the February edition of Market-Place.

While I do not agree with the decision made by the Sydney bishops, I feel that your article smacks right in the face of the 'unity' that you want to promote. It seems some what hypocritical to criticise the Sydney bishops when the main desire of your article is to create further divisions within the Anglican communion.

I do not find it particularly helpful reading descriptions of Peter Jensen's words as 'weasel words' and 'spin doctoring'. It is much more than an issue of homosexuality that concerns evangelical Christians. It is a matter of the authority of the Bible.

I pray that we might find some encouraging, Biblical articles in Market-Place in the future - not a waste of paper reporting the politics of the church!

I would have thought that as brothers and sisters we need to build each other up in the truth of Christ - not follow secular newspapers in writing articles because they are 'sensational'.

Nicholas Stone

Crookwell, NSW