The Lambeth Decision: A Sydney Briefing

friends, I’m aware that the Tong pdf link is currently not working. I’m chasing it up.

all sorted now. Enjoy

Thank you David,

I just finished listening to Peter Jensen. It clearly shows the fundimental difference between biblical christianity and liberlism. Liberalism attempts to form God and us through what they want and believe is true, thus eliminating or distorting what God has to say while orthodoxy attempts to to let God form us through his revealed word.
Clearly if we hold to liberalism then we take the form of God and decide what is right from wrong, therefore we have become the judge and jury.
A wonderful sermon that clearly shows us what God wants and how we should follow. It clearly and precisely ties together what scripture tells us and how there is no tension. As a former liberal, this was contradictory because it I was not grounded in God, but in shaping God in what I wanted him to be and in justifying actions contrary to his clear written word.

God Bless You and Peter Jensen.

I have not heard such a clear explanation of the differences in theology as this explanation by Mark Thompson.  Really helpful.

have not heard such a clear explanation of the differences in theology as this explanation by Mark Thompson.  Really helpful.

Yes, let’s blame the beginning of our current troubles on Newman (Tract 90, “who taught us to lie”) and Gore Lux Mundi.

Ridiculous. Reading Newman’s words in Tract 90 shows that even the more Protestant-minded Anglicans could not even use the Articles totally consistently in their interpretation either.  Thompson is not at all being fair to history.  Lux Mundi is not Liberal (in the sense that we know it today, i.e., revisionist, for it takes the dogmas of the Church and shows how they fit with science, rather than simply denying the Scriptures and the dogmas of the church like today’s Liberalism does).

Newman and Gore were liberal (in the sense C.S. Lewis would classify himself), not Liberal (in the sense of V.G. Robinson).

If we are going to cast stones about “agendas” maybe we should talk about the spinelessness of Cranmer and his agenda to sneak in Zwinglianism towards the end of his life (see Cyril Richardson’s *Cranmer Dixit et Contradixit*).

So let’s be fair to history.

Sorry, see especially Dom Gregory Dix’s conclusion in *The Shape of the Liturgy* and *Dixit Cranmer Et Non Timuit* to which Richardson’s work is a response.

Tract 90 was raised this morning in another thread and as someone who has no problem with the 39 articles I didn’t have any comments on that.  I did however find the run through of the liberal theological shift very helpful - it is something we have not really embraced in England with a few exceptions, many of whom are now thankfully retired.  I have not had much exposure to it so I found the explanation very helpful.  I agree it may not be helpful to blame Newman for that.

One very small correction to the Mark Thompson paper “The Anglican Debacle”—Otis Charles was not married in Pasadena. <a/ href=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/29/BAGTN6CD4E54.DTL&hw=bishop+otis+charles+nyssa&sn=001&sc=1000>Otis Charles was married in San Francisco at St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Episcopal Church</a>.

I just finished listening to Peter Jensen.

Philip Jensen, Peter’s brother. Easy mistake to make.

Thank you to Deja Vu for the correction. Obviously not all web reports had the correct details.

Thank you too for your concern and interaction The Common Anglican. I guess we will have to disagree on the impact of Newman’s Tract 90, which I warrant cannot stand alone as a sole cause — or even a major one — of our current distress. I did try to be fair to history.

A lot was left unsaid in the address. I would love to have explored the source of authentic Anglicanism in the sixteenth century, especially the Thirty-nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer (1552) and the Homilies. I think we have been led down an unfortunate path by giving Richard Hooker such prominence (another nineteenth century innovation). I find the suggestion that he gives us THE Anglican principles of doctrine etc. quite ludicrous. Yet there was only time for a short survey in order to support the main points of the address, which I hope were established:

1. There has been a long standing struggle within the denomination that can be traced as far as the sixteenth century itself.

2. Several (at least 5) new features mark our current distress as something extraordinary which can be rightly described as a crisis.

3. We need to act now.

Once again, thank you for your comments.