/karen/

Disqus comments

Other comments

Hmm - I’m not so sure, Karen. I worship at the Cathedral and am not sure that Cathedral styles of worship and Jensen styles of worship are one and the same thing. Do you think he would be willing to change to take on the position?

Could you please clarify the difference between Cathedral styles of worship and Jensen styles of worship?

From what I know of Phillip, he would become “all things to all men” for the sake of the gospel. But he also staunchly defends the truth. Which is probably why people hate him so much.

Umm…

Cathedral styles of worship:
-Formal
-Stately
-Anglican (Reformed Catholic)
-Liturgical
-Conservative (!)

(Perceived) Jensen styles of worship:
-Radical
-Reformed (Calvinist)
-Informal
-Open-necked shirt for preaching :O

That’s all I had in mind on that point. i.e. is he part of the anti-robes brigade that will upset many in the Cathedral?

I was interested in your comment that he staunchly defends the truth. I take that to mean that he staunchly defends what you understand the truth to be. I just say that because, unless his teachings are infallible, surely it would be better to say that he staunchly defends what he understands as the truth? There is a wide range of understanding about doctrine in the Anglican Church. To suggest that his position is “the truth” and that those who disagree with him “hate him” for defending the truth is probably going a bit far. But maybe I’m misunderstanding your point. Sorry if I am.

I will continue to pray for him as he makes up his mind on this very important issue. If he follows the example of St Paul and is “all things to all men” in the Christian sense, and is truly willing to serve the needs of the Cathedral congregation then, by all means, let him come!

Yr bro in Christ,
Minorbob.

PS - sorry to hear about the car. Mine’s in for rego repairs (again!!). I feel your pain, sister!

From what I know about Phillip, he doesn’t wear robes normally but he agrees with the principle of robes. My understanding about the robes business is this: during the Reformation, the clergy, seeking to reach the common man, decided to dress like them. Unfortunately, though the fashion of the ages changed, the dress of the clergy did not. And so Phillip dresses in everyday clothes so that he might reach all people with the gospel.

However, at the last Club 5 conference we attended at Stanwell Tops, during his sermon Phillip told us he hated wearing suits and ties. And yet he had worn a suit and a tie in an interview for the Ministry Training Strategy (MTS) video we had just watched before that sermon because he is chairman of the board of directors and therefore had to look like a chairman. He was talking about suits and ties in the context of 1 Corinthians, being “all things to all men” in order to win them for Christ. And therefore I think that he would adopt that principle if he ever became dean of the cathedral, no matter what his private opinion on robes.

RE the truth: I probably should have qualified my usage of the word. I was using to to refer to the truths we all believe in as Christians—the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Jesus, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all believers, etc. But I know that Christians in Sydney do divide over such hefty theological issues so I shall re-define “truth” to refer to the truths of the Bible. At this point some will say that there are many ways of interpreting the Bible and everyone disagrees over how it should be interpreted. As one of my friends blithely said on the weekend, “You can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say.” In response, I would contend that if you did, you would be making the Bible say what it wasn’t actually saying. As all Scripture is “breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16), surely God would have made his book to make sense and have purpose and meaning. Sometimes what the Bible says isn’t always clear to us and sometimes we resist what the Bible says since it speaks to us about our sinful natures and tells us shocking revolutionary politically incorrect things we don’t want to hear. But, contrary to postmodern thought, the Bible’s author is not dead; the Bible does mean something; the Bible, as Phillip says, “is its own interpretation” and therefore does not need interpreting.

Sometimes what the Bible says does need clarifying and that is one of the great functions of Phillip’s preaching. He is an excellent communicator and teacher (he is very good at both expository preaching and thematic studies of the Bible), and I know that my knowledge of the Bible has greatly increased as a result of sitting under his preaching for the past six years (at Mid Year Conference, Club 5, National Training Event and Campus Bible Study). That’s why I think that his presence would be a wonderful gift to the people at your church.

Of course, his preaching might result in people leaving your church. I remember he told us once about his first year as Anglican Chaplain at UNSW. At the beginning of the year, there were about 50 people going to Unichurch. By the end of the year, 49 of those 50 had left because they did not agree with what he taught. But 25 years on, there are hundreds of people attending Campus Bible Study every week, seeking to glorify God in their lives through prayer, Bible Study, fellowship, evangelism and, for some, full-time ministry.

Anyways, I’ve rambled on for long enough. Many thanks for the commiserations about our car!

OK Karen,

I see your point quite a bit better now - thanks for clearing that up.

I was interested in what you wrote about robes and that “Phillip dresses in everyday clothes so that he might reach all people with the gospel”. Do you seriously think that clerical garb interferes with people hearing the gospel? I don’t think that anyone’s uniform actually interferes with people being able to listen to what they say. In fact, people’s uniforms usually encourage people to listen to what they say. If someone told me that they thought that my driving was too fast, I might listen to what they say. If a police officer in uniform told me that he thought my driving was too fast, I DEFINITELY would listen to what he said! Likewise, people wouldn’t say “I can’t understand what the chef recommends because he is dressed with an apron and a funny white hat.” Someone with an apron and a funny white hat is probably more likely to be listened to when it comes to food matters.

In short, wearing particular clothing doesn’t show that someone is a different nature of person to someone else - although it can show their profession and hence their area of expertise. As such, it is possible that wearing clerical garb could actually help people take more notice of what a professional minister is trying to say.

Do you see where I am coming from here? Do you think it’s a good point?

Best regards,
Minorbob

PS. I love how interactive and how clear your site is. May congrats. And it’s all CSS too - wow. I am in the process of thinking about changing my site from a table-based layout to a css-based one. Will see how I go.
PPS. We have both been guilty of spelling “Phillip” with only one “l”. I wasn’t sure which was correct although I see from “The Briefing” that he’s got two!

Thank you for raising that very interesting point! It’s making my brain cells do some serious work.

Do I seriously think that clerical garb interferes with people hearing the gospel? I guess it depends on the target people group. Young people may immediately switch off upon seeing a pastor dressed in robes and collar whereas for older people that sort of garb would command respect like officers in uniform. At CBS Phillip’s audience are mostly university students of Generation Y (I think it’s Y ... I don’t think it’s X anymore) who have been reared in a culture which idolises youth and fosters rebellion against those in authority. (NB: some of my workmates who have been working here for the past 12 years have commented on the gradual change in student behaviour and they all agree that students now are much more demanding and much ruder than they were several years ago. They blame it on things like fast food and the internet which have cultivated this mentality of, “I want it and I want it NOW!”) I suspect that Phillip dresses the way he does to reach students so that, even if they later switch off because they don’t agree with what he is saying, they will not switch off immediately.

Another point: people respect the police because they have the power to fine and arrest others, and people respect chefs because they know what they’re talking about when it comes to food. But people usually don’t respect clergy or think they know what they’re talking about (never mind how many years of Bible college they’ve been through or how many theological letters are after their name) simply because the majority of people scorn God or disbelieve his existence.

Again, however, there is a difference in generations in this matter; those who were brought up in a culture which taught children to respect ministers may pay more attention whereas those who are being brought up in our culture which ridicules the church will more likely to be disrespectful.

But I do think that the clerical garb does have some distinct advantages in that it blatantly identifies wearers as being God’s servants. I read a story recently in Southern Cross about a pastor working in Surry Hills who chose to wear his collar in the street so that people would start recognising who he was and that he was a minister. He actually got bashed up for doing it but he is undeterred in his mission to reach the people of the area for Christ.

in Christ,

Karen.

P.S.1. Thanks about the CSS—my web-geek husband taught me that stuff but I haven’t gotten rid of tables yet. I want to revamp the site to make it table-less (when I have time ... when I have time ....)

P.S.2. Yes, two “l’s” for Phillip; I keep spelling it wrong because the first guy name Philip that I ever met spelt it with one “l”.