Last Friday I came across this article from Phillip Jensen, the Dean of St. Andrew’s Cathedral, which talks about the visit of Hugh Palmer, the Rector of All Soul’s Langham Place in London. Having read through the article a few times, I can see some insights that I agree with strongly, including the suggestion that being overly nostalgic can lead to an inappropriately formulaic approach to ministry. As a representative of the Emerging Church, I couldn’t agree more. However, it was this comment that caught my attention most dramatically:
“Some reputations are never deserved. Much of the negative reputation of the Sydney Diocese, St Andrews Cathedral and Moore College has come from the slander of the enemies of the gospel.”
My concerns with this comment should be immediately apparent, but I’ll spell them out for good measure:
- Writing off “much of” (precisely how much is never made clear) negative reputation as mere slander serves as an effective means by which to ignore criticism.
- Suggesting that many critics of the institutions Dean Jensen mentions are “enemies of the gospel” serves to label and demonise people with legitimate questions, disempowering them and further reinforcing their alienation from the Sydney Diocese.
- Using the label “enemies of the gospel” for one’s critics serves to create the impression that one is being persecuted, thus convincing oneself of really doing God’s work regardless of whether this is true or not.
- Placing most of the responsibility for one’s reputation upon other parties effectively prevents one from engaging in an honest critique of one’s own behaviour and accordingly prevents systemic problems from being rectified.
Perhaps the most notable observation one may make about Dean Jensen’s ”enemies of the gospel” remark is that it is essentially an ad hominem attack. Even if critics were indeed enemies of the gospel and do criticise out of impure motives, this doesn’t instantly invalidate their comments. It is the criticisms themselves which must be analysed, not the people who make these criticisms. If Dean Jensen continues to ignore this elementary rule of logical discourse, he will do so at his own risk and to his own detriment – and to the detriment of the Sydney Diocese, St. Andrew’s Cathedral and Moore College.
August 23, 2007 at 9:42 am
I’ll start by saying that I love Phil Jensen and have appreciated his teaching ministry over the years. Moreover, I sat next to him during a Test match at the SCG and had a great time.
On the one hand I agree with Jensen that those who hate the gospel do often criticise Sydney Diocese. In that case it is good to see that we are being faithful.
On the other hand I agree with what you’re saying – it is too easy to label those who criticise Sydney Diocese as “enemies of the Gospel”. Moreover, there now seems to be many within the diocese itself who are critical of it and who are not enemies of the Gospel. These include Keith Mascord – former Moore College lecturer, and David Smith – son of Bruce Smith – who has experienced first hand the Diocesean “machine”.
August 23, 2007 at 10:18 am
Thanks for your comments, OSO.
For what it is worth, I haven’t met Phil Jensen personally. This said, I am sure that he is quite a lovely and personable individual. Furthermore, I have no doubt that he sincerely wishes to proclaim Jesus and it is from this motivation that his passion derives its origin. However, I believe that remarks such as his “enemies of the gospel” comment undermine what he is fighting for and to a large extent diverts attention away the larger body of his message. Personally, I think that being more gracious towards his critics would have a profound impact on his more critical listeners and make the Sydney Diocese much more approachable for outsiders.