The Jensens and Christianity.(Letters)(Letter to the Editor)

SIR: James Franklin's article "Is Jensenism Compatible with Christianity?" (December 2004) has at least this in its favour: it misrepresents and selectively misreads its main targets, conservative evangelicals in general and Sydney's Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen and the Dean, Phillip Jensen in particular, as consistently as it does the Bible and Jesus Christ himself.

Franklin accuses conservative Christians of eschewing historical and linguistic scholarship. But the approach to the Bible employed by evangelicals and taught at the theological college at which both Jensens trained and where Peter was Principal for sixteen years, is the literary-historical method. It uses the insights of history, archaeology, linguistics and literary studies to shed light on the text, especially in its original languages. Franklin might not like the resulting theology, but it cannot be for lack of scholarship.

He also alleges that Sydney evangelicals are preoccupied with doctrine to the exclusion of good deeds. However, even leaving aside individual acts of giving and compassion, one need only consider the outstanding and multi-faceted work of Sydney-based Anglicare and the three overseas aid programs over which Peter Jensen presides and to which Bible-believing Christians give generously. Once again, Franklin has taken issue with a straw man.

He has also misrepresented the relationship of Anglican evangelicals to wider Christendom. It is liberals who espouse the ideas he favours who have cut themselves off from the Catholic and Orthodox arms of the church. One of the ways they have done this is by denying the biblical teaching on the distinctive role of women in the church. Liberals also drive a false wedge between Jesus (who they see as inclusive) and the apostle Paul (who they see as exclusive) and give Jesus' words greater authority. But orthodox Christianity under, stands all Scripture to be God-breathed and equally authoritative, not just the recorded words of Jesus. So, ironically, it is modern-day liberals, not conservative evangelicals, who are out of step with both historical Christianity and wider Christendom.

If all this was not enough, Franklin misrepresents the teaching of Jesus. His Jesus is concerned with action, not with "details of doctrine" or guilt and sin. But Jesus was intensely concerned with both. Why else did he say, "I am the way, the truth and the life"? Why else did he castigate the religious leaders of his time saying, "You are wrong, for you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God", or say to a healed man, "Stop sinning lest something worse happen to you"? And why else did he start his earthly ministry with the words, "Repent and believe the gospel" and finish with, "Father forgive them"? Sadly, even Franklin's depiction of Jesus misses the mark.

Claire Smith,

Mosman, NSW.