Talk:Phillip Jensen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Very Reverend?
this starts by referring to Phillip Jensen as "very Rev". Is this an actual title, or is someone being silly?
Mihoshi 01:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
It's serious. You get Rev, Very Rev, Most Rev and lots of other fun silly titles in the Anglican church. I want to get ordained as "Kinda Rev"
If we're getting free titles, I'd go with "Unbelievably Rev". Why not? Does Wikipedia cover the process of rev, very rev, and so on? It would be good to link that title to something
Mihoshi 12:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hey. :-) 202.59.19.66 12:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
You can find a list of revd., very revd, etc. at Forms_of_Address_in_the_United_Kingdom#Clergy. Journeyman 01:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The Very Reverend ..... is his title as the Dean of a Cathedral.
--Amandajm 14:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Correct context
What is the correct context refered to in this article? If we need to satisfy NPOV, then I think we should state it. - 202.59.19.66 12:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Phillip Jensen addressed the context of his talks at the 2004 Sydney Synod. The transcript of this explanation is linked. the following is a excerpt from it. "For the last twenty years I have been in dialogue with a group of Evangelical Anglicans who have come together under the name Reform. Their conferences have become stuck because there are those who want to take one action, those who want to take a different action, and those who want to take no action. However with the current crisis in the Church of England, their committee knew that at this conference they would have to agree to take action or give up. So they pressured me to come to their conference in order to persuade their membership that it was time to take action. I gave three long talks – each over an hour – as well as being in their consultation groups all day and into the evening.
The talk pursued one long argument through the topics such as – should Christians fight or contend, if so how – with what weapons under what circumstances and with whom? This required discussion as to the nature of the Church of England: Is it the church of the English people or the church of Jesus Christ in England? Is it God’s heavenly church or a temporal religious organisation? It required discussion on congregationalism and denominationalism as well as corporate sin and responsibility compared to individual sin and responsibility. In particular it required the exploring of concepts of the corrupting consequences of heresy and immorality, in order to gain some agreement and understanding of the extent of the problems in England – where there is great diversity from one diocese to another, and confusion between the present presenting problems and the underlying real historical problems. Especially we discussed the issue of the extent of the problem and whether the Church of England was systemically corrupt and sinful. All these issues and more, as you can imagine, need to be explored by the faithful members of the Church of England before they can choose to take serious action and reform the church. In the process of this lengthy discussion I used many illustrations of the problems. I tried to keep them anonymous wherever possible because I was illustrating principles and ideas not attacking persons. Some illustrations could not be anonymous because they were so famously public there was not much point to trying to cover what was being spoken about. The Journalist who attended only one of the talks, referred to some of these illustrations without ever explaining what they were illustrating or what I was speaking about. He clearly did not understand some of the illustrations and filled in the names where I had studiously avoided doing so. I was not playing the man but the ball. So what of these notorious illustrations? As I remember it, the Prince of Wales illustration was part of the discussion on whether the Church of England was the Church of the English people and if so then he could become as he wishes “the defender of faith” – or the Church of Jesus in England and if so he should become “the defender of the faith”. However such a consideration cannot be made without noticing the connection between his morality and his religion. On the difficulty of the Church of England’s understanding of itself, I used my first visit to King’s College Chapel in 1983 as an illustration. There were large signs indicating that this was the holy place of God and a house of prayer for all nations. Therefore we were bidden to be quiet and meditative. Beside these signs was the counter selling mugs and tea towels and recordings. I pointed out that if the signs were right then as a follower of Jesus I should have cleansed the temple of the traders. On the other hand if the signs were wrong and it was only a beautiful rain shelter then they could legitimately sell their goods and wares and I could legitimately use the place to declare to the other tourists the great saving message of Jesus.
But what of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the phrase “the prostitution of Christian ministry”? There I was discussing whether the church had become systemically corrupt. With allusions to several different bishops but without naming him or any other one, I pointed out that when the chief office bearers publicly subscribe to the church’s official set of beliefs but privately pursue a different set – while still in the pay of the church – we do in fact have corruption. They cannot teach what they do not believe for that would be hypocrisy – but not to teach what they have been appointed and have undertaken to teach is a dereliction of duty. Worse still, their appointments and committee work is at best under a cloud of suspicion, or worse are plainly expressions of their personal agenda.
I am sorry that the media reporting of my activities have caused embarrassment to Christians in Sydney over the last week. Our friends around the world are in great difficulty at this time and are looking to us for help. Their problems are much greater than embarrassment. We cannot ignore their pleas for assistance. We cannot be engaged in their battles without calling sin, heresy and corruption for what it is. We are engaged in a spiritual warfare and if the first casualty of war is truth you can rest assured that a war with the father of lies must inevitably be encased in falsehood, rumours and lies."
I'm not sure how one would summerise such an explanation, certainly the SMH made no attempt to.
[edit] Islam/Christianity
"Phillip Jensen told a April 14, 2006 service at St Andrew's Cathedral that Islam denies some of the Christian beliefs about Jesus. Islam views Jesus as a prophet but does not believe he was the son of God who died on Good Friday to save humanity from its sins and was resurrected on Easter Sunday. "Now that Islam has become more common in our society, you need to know the difference between Christianity and Islam," he said. "For the Koran, and therefore Islam, denies that Christ dies." http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/islam-and-christianity-cant-both-be-right/2006/04/14/1144521506471.html"
Why is this in the article? It's not exceptional in any way, and is given with no comment. --Sambostock 10:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I reads as if it was put in by some fairly inexperienced young person for whom this was a clarification of the difference between Christianity and Islam. As a quotation from Phillip Jensen it's worthless in terms of the article. It tells us nothing about nothing about Jensen except that he acknowledges that Christian beliefs and Islamic beliefs are different. I'm deleting it.--Amandajm 14:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV??
The links at the base of this are all favourable to the Sydney Anglican point of view (nothing wrong with this in itself - just lacks balance) - so I will try to added some to balance them. Likewise I shall look at the text to provide some further NPOV references. Cor Unum 12:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
