The Ugley Vicar

Christrian Csomology; Incarnarion and 'Evil'

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 1 Mar 2014 20:49:00 +0100

The topic of CChristinan Cosmology continues to fascinate me because in presenting the demands of the gospel, a I hope to tomorrow, THW Baia on qhixxh we presen these demands to everyone is hat Christianity is 'cosmological'. Thua:

The creation of the Universe is not just a one-off action after which God went off, as it were, to bide God's time and see how it turned out out (deism, I rhink), but an ongoing act. We exist right now, from moment to passing moment, because God wills that we exist (theism, no?).

But this notion has interesting theological implications, for it means that God wills to exist things which we would rather did not. When I am falling off my bike into a roadside patch of stinging nettles (as I once did) Christ, by his will, upheld the existence of myself, the force of gravity that pulled me to the ground and the chemical interaction of the secretions of the nettles with my skin which caused me a reasonable amount of pain.

This ‘interlacing’ of God and the material world is also implied by the Christian doctrine of the incarnation — that God took on human form. As the Thirty-nine Articles in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer put it,

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person (Article II: II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man)

In other words, God’s nature peculiarly and specifically occupied a space determined by the location of a particular body — the body of the man Jesus.

Now extend that principle to the entire Universe. There is nowhere where God is not ‘present’. As the Psalmist put it,

Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? ⁸ If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. (Psalm 139:7–8, NIV84)

Nevertheless, Christians are not pantheists. We do not believe that everything is divine. The permeation of the world by God is because each part of the world derives its ongoing existence from God himself.

Morality Matters to Matter

But why would God ‘uphold’ such a world, where undesirable states and circumstances occur so often? (This is the old ‘Why would a good God create a world of suffering?’ in another guise.)

It would be foolish to think we could answer such questions completely. Nevertheless, the points about the Universe we have considered already may give us some hints.

1. The Universe has a personal origin, being created by a personal deity for himself.

2. At the heart of God’s purposes in creation is the relationship between himself and human beings whom he has created in his image. The world exists ‘for them’ as well as for God.

3. The relationship between God and human beings, however, is flawed and distorted by their inclination to disobey him. Out of this flows sin and evil.

4. The Universe nevertheless continues in its existence moment by moment because it is ‘upheld’ by the personal creator, and yet the creatures who matter most in his creation are separated from him and mired in sin.

We venture to suggest, therefore, that this distorted relationship between God and his creatures impacts his ‘upholding’ of the Universe. What he ‘upholds’ is a Universe inhabited by and, as regards this planet specifically, presided over by creatures who reject him. There is a broken relationship between God and his ‘imaging-creatures’ at the heart of creation. We should not be surprised at the suggestion that this impacts the creation God upholds, so long as that situation persists. As the Apostle Paul puts it in his letter to the Romans:

¹⁹ The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. (Romans 8:19–21, NIV84)

The picture the Bible gives is that the created world is the way it is because of human sinfulness — in other words, that morality matters to matter. We have a clear indication of this early on when God is recorded speaking to Adam after the latter has disobeyed him:

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.” (Genesis 3:17, NIV84)

It might seem odd that it is the ground which is cursed rather than Adam because of what the latter has done. Yet if we can posit a relationship between human moral actions and the fabric of creation uphold by the God against whom humanity rebels, this perhaps makes more sense. In any case, the curse on the ground rebounds against Adam and becomes a form of judgement on him as it makes his life more difficult.

Thus we suggest that the physical nature and behaviour of the Universe is affected by human behaviour because human behaviour affects our relationship with the God who upholds that physical universe.

All Will be Redeemed

A Christian cosmology, however, also contains the fundamental principle that all is not lost. Certainly there are profound problems, but they are not without resolution. On the contrary, God has always intended that the problem of sin would be resolved. And as we have seen above in the words of St Paul, this will have cosmological implications: ‘the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay’.

The key to this act of rescue is, in Christian theology, the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Thus Paul again writes,

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰ and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Colossians 1:19–20, NIV84)

We may wonder why the death of this particular individual should have such massive implications, but the claim of this passage, and of Christian theology in general, is that the being of God interpenetrated the physicality of this person: ‘all his fullness [dwelt] in him’. Thus what happened to this person happened, in a sense, to the creator and upholder of the universe. Moreover, it brought about reconciliation between God and his image-bearing creatures. Given that the outcome of that broken relationship is an hostility between the fabric of the world and the human race and that the ultimate expression of this hostility is God, we should not be surprised that the effecting of reconciliation involves death in particular — both the act of dying, which is the ultimate physical judgement, and the overcoming of death.

The Universe is a ‘Story’

What all this also means is that the Universe has a ‘narrative’ — a story. There is a beginning, there is an end, and we are therefore in the middle. The Christian Universe is therefore going somewhere, whereas the atheist materialist Universe is not, or rather it is, but the place it is going is to a state of ‘heat death’, where nothing will ever happen again, forever. Either that, or it will somehow ‘restart’ into an endlessly repeating cycle.

Some materialists see nothing to worry about in either scenario. Yet as the South African philosopher, David Benatar, observes in his book Better Never to Have Been, if suffering is the inevitable accompaniment of life (and it is) and if life (as he believes) has no other outcome than death and non-existence, then why not skip the ‘middle bit’. It is ‘better never to have been’ than to come into existence without being asked and to experience suffering, despite the occasional ‘offset’ of pleasure. In his view, the sum of ‘suffering+pleasure’ can never outweigh the assured result of not coming into existence, which is a guarantee of no suffering ever.

A Christian cosmology, however, rejects this conclusion since it asserts that there is, in fact, something still to come. Specifically, in God’s purposes there will come a time when the entire fabric of creation is renewed and restored — what the Bible calls ‘a new heaven and a new earth’.

You reading this may have many reasons to be greatly interested in the narrative of your life, and indeed of the wider world. You may have ambitions, goals and intentions for yourself and those human beings who mean most to you. But our assessment of these concerns must differ fundamentally, given our basic cosmology.

According to a Christian cosmology, you are not wrong to think of yourself and others as fundamentally important — and not just to you but in the great scheme of things, not least because there is such a thing as a ‘great scheme, for the world you and they inhabit is a created thing, whose purposes lie in the mind of a Creator.

A materialist cosmology, however, must throw a bucket of cold water over your consideration of yourself and those you might love, for both you and they are the outcome of forces which are presumed to have no interest in such beings as yourself and which are fundamentally unmoved by the fate of you and yours. Insofar as there is any ‘meaning’ to your personal narrative, it is one that you impose, not one that is in any way related to a wider ‘plotline’. You are an accident of accidents, here for no reason and destined to be forgotten in a universe where there will one day be forever no one to remember.

But the Christian says ‘No’ — for the outcome is not the endless non-being of death. And to this point we must now turn.

The Universe will End

Again, Christian theology agress with much modern science that the Universe will have an end. Where they differ, of course, is on the nature and causes of that end.

For the materialist scientist, it is a result of that mysterious thing called ‘entropy’ — the tendency of energy to spread itself evenly throughout a system. It is the principal of entropy that causes your cup of tea to cool to room temperature and it is doing the same to the whole Universe, though the final temperature will be well below 20^o Celsius. Indeed, it will be something like what is called ‘Absolute Zero’: -273^o, at which temperature nothing can happen. The final fate of the materialist universe is a truly depressing eternity of cold and dark.

By contrast the Christian view is that the end of the Universe as we know it is by no means the ‘end’ in absolute terms. But it’s complicated and we’ll have to return to that subject later.

For the atheist, the beginning may just be one beginning amongst many. Furthermore, it is of no significance for what happens next, or for what sentient beings like ourselves might think about what happens in the ‘middle bit’.

Of course, lots of things have happened since the ‘Big Bang’, and lots of other things will probably continue to happen. But according to this view, there is no ‘story’. To quote the title of the book by Jacob Bronowski, for example, there is no ‘ascent of man’.

Of course, the human race has come into existence in that time and has developed in its capacities to understand and control the world. But these developments are not, for the atheist, part of a developing plotline. It is pure chance that the human race happens to exist and to possess the capabilities it does. And human history will probably have no effect on the ‘End’ to which the Universe is inevitably heading — nor is that ‘End’ going to give meaning to the human story. Like the Universe itself, we came into existence and we will one day disappear, but it makes no difference to anything, except our own individual experiences on the way.

By contrast, Christianity emphatically does think in terms of a ‘story’. The universe exists for a reason. It is changing and developing for a reason. And when it comes to an end, this will also be for a reason — because that part of the ‘story’ is finished. The overall story may not be clear to us now, but it is there, and the reason is because of the Universe’s own basic cause.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

An Alternative Baptismal Liturgy for the Church of England

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:27:00 +0100

(Drawing on a variety of sources, this tries to set out an 'alternative' approach)

At the Baptism of Infants

If the baptism is taking place during another meeting of the Church, the material marked * may be omitted.

* Hymn

The minister greets the congregation and then says:

From earliest times it has been the practice of the Christian Church to admit to baptism children who are not old enough to speak for themselves. In the Acts of the Apostles we read of the jailer at Philippi who, when the word of the Lord was preached to him, was baptized with his whole family. And in the city of Corinth the households of Crispus and Stephanas were baptized.

The Bible also tells us that children of believers are sanctified, enjoying the favour of God through the faith of their parents.

Yet to be effective, the outward act of baptism in water must be joined with inward faith in the Word of God. It is therefore necessary for this child to be brought up as a believer if he/she is to enjoy the benefits which will be promised to him/her today.

In baptism he/she will be united with Christ. He/She will be buried with Christ in his death, and so he/she must die to sin in his/her own life. And he/she will be raised to new life with Christ in his resurrection, no longer to live in slavery to sin but as a servant of righteousness and a child of God.

Therefore as we praise our God who gives us these great blessings, so we also pray that he will grant this child grace to believe, and his/her parents the wisdom and ability to bring him/her up to love God as his/her Father, to obey Christ as his/her Saviour, and to walk in step with the Holy Spirit as his/her guide and comforter.

* Hymn or other musical item

* Sermon

Minister:
Dearly beloved, insofar as all people are born sinners,
and that no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born again of water and the Spirit, I invite you to call on God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his great mercy he will grant to this child what by his/her own nature, however innocent, he/she cannot have, that being baptized with water he/she may be born anew of the Spirit and made a living member of Christ’s Church.

Therefore we pray, saying together,

All:

Almighty and everlasting God,
who of your great mercy and power
saved Noah and his family from the flood,
and led your people Israel safely through the sea;
we ask you to look mercifully upon this child.
Wash him/her from sin,
sanctify him/her with your Holy Spirit,
and unite him/her with your Son Jesus Christ,
that he/she, being steadfast in faith,
joyful in hope,
and grounded in love,
may so live in this world that he/she may finally come to the life everlasting,
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

Minister:
Hear the words of the Gospel of Mark,

(It is suggested these words are read by a member of the congregation or a parent or godparent.)

“People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.’ And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.” (Mark 10:13-16)

Minister:
You hear in this Gospel the words of our Saviour Christ, how he commands the children to be brought to him, and blames those who would have kept them away, exhorting everyone to become like little children if they are to enter God’s kingdom. You hear how he took them in his arms, laid his hands on them and blessed them. Be in no doubt, therefore, that he is likewise willing to receive this child, to embrace him/her with the arms of his mercy, to give him/her the blessing of eternal life and to make him/her a partaker of his everlasting kingdom.

As the Church of Christ, we have a duty to support this child by prayer, example and teaching. His/Her parents and godparents have particular responsibility for guiding and helping him/her in his/her early years. This is a task for which they will need the help and grace of God. Therefore let us now pray for grace in guiding this child in the way of faith.

All:

Faithful and loving God,
bless those who care for this child
and grant them your gifts
of love, wisdom and faith.
Pour upon them
your healing and reconciling love,
and protect their home from all evil.
Fill them with the light of your presence
and establish them in the joy of your kingdom, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

Minister:

And we pray for ourselves,

All:

God of grace and life,
in your love you have given us a place among your people;
keep us faithful to our baptism
and prepare us for that glorious day
when the whole creation will be made perfect
in your Son our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen

The minister addresses the parents and godparents:

Parents and godparents, you have brought this child to baptism, you have prayed that he/she may be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, you have heard how our Lord Jesus Christ welcomes such children to himself. And now for his/her part this child must promise through you, who speak on his/her behalf, that he/she will forsake the Devil and all his works, believe in God’s holy word, and walk in obedience to him all the days of his/her life. Therefore I ask you,

Do you, in the name of this child, renounce the devil and all rebellion against God, the deceit and corruption of evil, and the sins that separate us from God?

Parents and Godparents:
I renounce them all.

The whole congregation may be invited to join in the following affirmation of the Creed.

Minister:
Do you believe and trust in God
the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth?

Parents and Godparents:
I do.

Minister:
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary, suffered
under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
that he descended to the dead,
that on the third day he rose again;
that he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and will come to judge the living and the dead?

Parents and Godparents:
I do.

Minister:
And do you believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting?

Parents and Godparents:
I do.

Minister:
Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?

Parents and Godparents:
I turn to Christ.

Minister:
Do you submit to Christ as Lord?

Parents and Godparents:
I submit to Christ.

Minister:
Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?

Parents and Godparents:
I come to Christ.

The Baptism
Having first ascertained each child’s name, the minister dips him in water, or pours water on him, saying

N, I baptize you
in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

After the baptism, the minister makes the sign of the cross on the forehead of each child, saying:

Receive the sign of the cross. Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified. Fight valiantly under the banner of Christ against sin, the world and the devil, and remain his faithful soldier and servant to the end of your life. Amen

The child is welcomed by the congregation.

All:

There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism:
by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.
We welcome you into the fellowship of faith;
we are children of the same heavenly Father;
and inheritors together of the kingdom of God.
We welcome you.

*If a sermon has not yet been preached, it may be preached here.

* A hymn or other musical items may be included.

*If the baptism is not taking place during another meeting of the church, these words are used in closing:

Minister:
The peace of the Lord be always with you.

All:

And also with you.

Minister:

May the blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be amongst us and remain with us now and always.

All:

Amen

The use of the form in the box headed THE BAPTISM is declared ‘sufficient’ by the rubrics of Common Worship for a legitimate baptism to have taken place according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. The other material here draws on a variety of liturgical sources to provide a framework for the rite of baptism. It does not constitute an official‘form of service in itself.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend: Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

‘The Work of Your Hands’ — Building a Christian Cosmology

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 20:23:00 +0100

Cosmology is the science of the origin and development of the Universe. It sets out to discover why the world is the way it is.

In recent decades there has been the suggestion of a conflict between Christianity and cosmology — and of course to some extent this is inevitable, if a particular cosmology insists on the non-existence of God and that therefore the universe exists entirely because of self-contained material causes.

However, whether there is conflict or not, Christianity still has to have a ‘cosmo-logy’ within its overall ‘theo-logy’. In fact ‘cosmology’ — an account of how and why the universe originated and where it is heading — has always been a fundamental part of Christian thought. The Hebrew Bible begins with the words ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.’ And nothing in the revelation of God in the person of Christ Jesus changes that essential picture. On the contrary, it enriches it and fleshes it out, giving us an even clearer account of ‘why we are here’.

So what might we say are the fundamental elements of a Christian cosmology and why does it matter?

The Universe Had a Beginning

To this extent modern materialist cosmologies and Christian thought are in some agreement. They both accept that our current universe — the world around us, of which we are ourselves a part, had a beginning. It did not always exist.

The ‘beginning’ of the universe is not a self-evident concept. In fact not only some ancient cosmologies but some relatively modern scientists have insisted that the world as we know it has always existed. Thus for many decades, there was conflict in the astronomical community between the ‘steady state’ theory of an ‘eternally existing’ universe and the ‘Big Bang’ theory. Indeed the term ‘big bang’ was invented by the English astronomer Fred Hoyle as an expression of derision for what he thought was a ridiculous idea.

Furthermore there are those who want to argue that though the Big Bang theory is true, the universe per se has no ‘beginning’ as such. Nevertheless, there is fairly widespread agreement that the universal chain of events that result in our existence today does have a point of beginning, and with this idea, Christians have no problem (indeed one of Hoyle’s reasons for preferring the ‘Steady State’ theory was that it reduced the option for a creator).

The Universe will End

Again, Christian theology agress with much modern science that the Universe will have an end. Where they differ, of course, is on the nature and causes of that end.

By contrast the Christian view is that the end of the Universe as we know it is by no means the ‘end’ in absolute terms. But it’s complicated and we’ll have to return to that subject later.

The Universe is a ‘Story’

Meanwhile, if you have a beginning and an end, it seems obvious that there must be a ‘Middle’. And so there is. Both Christians and materialists agree we are between these two great events, but they disagree fundamentally on the significance of this.

The existence of a Beginning, Middle and End suggests a story — especially if they occur in that order! But here again Christians and atheists disagree. For the atheist, the beginning may just be one beginning amongst many. Furthermore, it is of no significance for what happens next, or for what sentient beings like ourselves might think about what happens in the ‘middle bit’.

The Origin of the Universe is Personal

One of the great questions of cosmology is quite simply, ‘Why is there anything at all? Why is there something rather than nothing?’

Some would argue that ‘nothing’ is simply not an option. Eventually they hope to show that the existence of something is inevitable. And to a certain extent, if you take a totally ‘materialist’ outlook, that must be true. Whatever caused the universe (and we are talking about the universe here) it presumably didn’t have a choice in the matter.

But here again is where Christians must differ, because in Christian theology, the existence of the universe is a result of choice, because its fundamental cause is a being possessed of ‘personhood’.

This is basically what is meant by the term ‘creation’. In modern discussions, the concept of ‘creationism’ carries a particular emphasis on the way the Bible is interpreted, meaning that the world was created in six periods of twenty-four of our modern hours — six days. But not all Christians are ‘creationists’. Since at least the time of St Augustine of Hippo, in the early 5^th century, some Christians have taken a ‘non-literalist’ view of the six days of creation outlined in Genesis 1.

Yet although not all Christians are ‘creationists’, they do (or should) all believe in a Creator God. The two principle Creeds of the Christian Church both assert that God is the Creator of ‘heaven and earth’, of all things ‘visible and invisible’.

And this focus on God as the ‘Creator’ (rather than on the precise process by which he created) means we should similarly focus on what it means to say that everything is created. And essentially what it means is this: that everything which exists does because of another’s personal desires and intentions. There is a personal origin to everything.

This realization has two particular consequences: it changes the way we look at ourselves: we are not our own invention in charge of our own destiny — we are someone else’s idea. And secondly it changes the way we look for knowledge. If the universe springs out of personal ideas, then understanding the universe, and living effectively within it, means understanding that personality. This is why the Bible says more than once, ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.’ True wisdom begins with personal relationship with this personal God.

By contrast, if we reject the idea of God, the origins of the universe are usually assumed to be fundamentally impersonal. In fact, the material cause is regarded as very different from ourselves — beings with self-knowledge, with intentions and so on. According to such accounts, the immediate cause of the universe is not regarded as very different from the thing caused. The blind, impersonal physical universe is the result of blind impersonal physical forces. The universe is not designed, it just fell out that way, and for no different reasons fundamentally than those which might cause a dice player to throw six six times in a row.

Of course, the unpleasantness of the second picture (and it is unpleasant) does not show that it is wrong. But it does raise the question of what, if we are serious about life, we should do in response to it. The South African philosopher, David Benatar, came to the conclusion which formed the title of his book Better Never to Have Been in which he plausibly argues just this point. If suffering is the inevitable accompaniment of life (and it is) and if life (as he believes) has no other outcome than death and non-existence, then why not skip the ‘middle bit’. It is better never to have been than to come into existence without being asked.

But the Christian says ‘No’ — for the outcome is not the endless non-being of death. And to this point we must now turn.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Explaining the Gospel? Baptism Should Help

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:21:00 +0100

It has long intrigued me that when Philip explained the gospel to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40, the conversation ended with a request for baptism.

The eunuch (you may remember) was in his chariot, returning from Jerusalem and reading from a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. Philip had been prompted by the Holy Spirit to go and meet this chariot, and when he heard the eunuch reading, he took the opportunity to get up alongside him.

We’re told that when the eunuch asked whether the passage from which he was reading (Isaiah 53:7-8) was about Isaiah or someone else, Philip ‘began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus’ (8:35).

And then, when Philip was done telling, the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?’

The question that intrigues me is this: how did Philip tell the gospel so that it led to that question? Most gospel explanations I’ve heard lead to the need for faith, but not the request for baptism. Yet in Acts, baptism seems closely connected with coming to faith in the gospel.

Is there something we can learn from this, and from the example of Philip specifically?

These days there is a renewed emphasis in the Church of England on evangelism — the proclamation of the gospel. This is much to be welcomed, but the question that often gets asked is, ‘Just what is the gospel?’ The answers given tend to vary, but starting from baptism may help.

In baptism, we act out the essential core of the Christian faith. The regulations in the order for ‘The Public Baptism of Infants’ in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer state that,

... the Priest shall take the Child into his hands, and shall say to the Godfathers and Godmothers, Name this Child. And then naming it after them (if they shall certify him that the Child may well endure it) he shall dip it in the Water discreetly and warily ...

Sprinkling was only for the ailing child or for adults who wouldn’t fit in the font. And dipping, as with the full immersion of adults, has a special significance, standing for death and burial.

But this is not primarily about the future death of the individual being baptized. When we baptize, we are not symbolically anticipating someone’s death still to come, but holding out to them the prospect of a death that has already happened.

Isaiah 53:9, the passage being studied by the eunuch and Philip, says, ‘He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death ...’ No wonder the eunuch was confused. This was about someone who had died, so how could it be about Isaiah, if he wrote it?

When you apply it to Jesus, however, it begins to make sense, because (as the Creeds say), he ‘died and was buried’. So when we baptize someone, we symbolically do with them what happened to Jesus — as they are dipped under the water, they go through death and burial.

The important thing we need to explain is why. And the answer is simple but striking: there needs to be a death to sin and there needs to be a death for sin.

Paul describes the need for death to sin this way in a passage which talks about our baptism:

¹⁰ The death he [Christ] died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. ¹¹ In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Romans 6:10–11, NIV84)

Those who believe in Jesus are to count themselves ‘dead to sin’, and baptism spells that out for them.

But there also needs to be a death for sin. After all, Christ was without sin that needed to be forgiven by God. As the passage quoted above from Isaiah goes on to say, ‘He was assigned a grave with the wicked ... though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.’ Christ was innocent, yet he died a sinner’s death — not for his sins, but for ours: ‘he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed’ (Isa 53:5).

Since Adam was warned that sin would lead to death (Gen 2:17), this has been the ultimate consequence of sin. And if God is to be true to his word (which, of course, he is!), then there is a need for a death for sin. Even our good works cannot save us from this punishment:

But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die. (Ezekiel 18:24, NIV84)

And this applies to us all. As Paul puts it, ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Rom 3:23, NIV 84).

So what is to be done? We all stand before God condemned as sinners. And as Paul famously says, ‘the wages of sin is death’ (Rom 6:23).

But it is this necessary death for our sins that is also symbolized in baptism:

For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— ⁷ because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. (Romans 6:6–7, NIV84)

Notice, however, our death is a death ‘with Christ’. It is a real death, but not a ‘literal’ death, because what is symbolized in baptism is true for us in union with Christ. Talking about baptism and sin, Paul writes,

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴ We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. ⁵ If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. (Romans 6:3–5, NIV84)

Paul uses the language of ‘union with Christ’. Baptism is ‘baptism into Christ’. Thus what is true of him is true of those who are baptized into him. He was crucified, their old self was crucified with him. He was raised, we are raised to new life with him. Both things were necessary and both things are real. There had to be a death for our sins, and there has to be a death on our part to sin. Equally, there has to be a resurrection from death (or else we just stay dead) and that is effective now in our new life in Christ through the Spirit as well as being a promise for the future.

Perhaps, given that we all agree on baptizing, baptism will also give us a gospel on which we can all agree.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Sex, Marriage and Salvation

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:36:00 +0100

Oh no, not sex again! Yes, sorry, but here are five recent talks by myself. The recording quality of the first isn't great, but the others are better.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Cairo Cathedral: Situation Vacant

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:15:00 +0100

Position Available:

Interim Minister, All Saints Anglican Cathedral, Cairo, Egypt

Required skills and experience:
- Evangelical convictions and approach to ministry
- Experience of parish leadership
- Experience of cross-cultural ministry
- Ability to commit to 1-2 years of service.

Housing and a living allowance is provided. Applicants are welcome as individuals or with the support of a mission agency.

Contact Andrew Reid at spicksandspecks@gmail.com if interested, who will put you in touch with Bishop Mouneer's office.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Baptism, ritual and actual

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 2 Nov 2013 18:33:00 +0100

The other day I was having a talk with a couple from our congregation about baptism. As readers of this blog may realize, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this subject recently, and as a consequence of this, it seemed helpful to suggest to them a distinction between ‘ritual’ and ‘actual’ baptism. Others may find this helpful too.

The reason for this is partly that the gospel itself distinguishes two kinds of baptism — in water and in (or by) the Spirit. John the Baptist was, of course, the archetypal ‘baptizer with water’, but the disciples practised water baptism too. When the Ethiopian eunuch was persuaded of the truth of the gospel, he asked, ‘Here is water, what is to prevent me being baptized?’ (Acts 8:36).

This we may call ‘ritual’ baptism, not to disparage it, but to clarify what is taking place. Going through the ritual of baptism means a person is physically baptized. There is thus no doubt it has taken place. It may be appropriate or inappropriate, but as a ritual it is real — it has actually happened.

There is, however, another baptism — the baptism in (or ‘by’ since the dative may be ‘instrumental’) the Spirit. This is first described on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, but other examples follow, eg Acts 10:44-45).

This I intend to call ‘actual’ baptism, for unfortunately, just as the debate about ‘ritual’ baptism has been hijacked by discussions concerning outward forms and appropriate timings, so the topic of ‘Spirit’ baptism has been hijacked by the Charismatic movement and I don’t want to get bogged down in that, any more than in the debate about baptismal policy (please note!).

Unlike ritual baptism, it is harder to say whether Spirit baptism has taken place. Yet there is no doubt that it does, according to the New Testament, and there is no doubt as to its key effect. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12:13, ‘We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body.’

Baptism ‘in the Spirit’, is first and foremost not a personal experience of ‘more of the Spirit’, but a joining with the body of Christ. This is the ‘actual’ baptism which is signified by ‘ritual’ baptism, not least because ritual baptism enacts the truths of actual baptism.

When we read the New Testament, and especially the Pauline epistles, joining with Christ is the key ‘outcome’ of baptism, for ‘all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death’ (Rom 6:4, NIV 84). Hence,

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Rom 6:4, NIV 84)

Hence also,

If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. ⁶ For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with (Romans 6:5–6a, NIV84)

Baptism in water symbolizes in actions what Spirit baptism actualizes through union with Christ — our death and resurrection.

Baptism is therefore not simply an ‘entry ritual’ into the Christian life. Much less is it a ‘declaration of our faith’ (insofar as it declares anything, it declares the gospel — see Acts 8:35-36). Baptism, rather, is the Christian life when it is actualized by the work of the Holy Spirit through our faith in the gospel (Col 2:12). ‘Being baptized’ is the ongoing condition of the Christian, who is baptized ‘into’ Jesus.

But ‘being baptized’ is also our ecclesiology, for the actually baptized person becomes thereby a member (a limb or organ) of the Body of Christ, which is both ‘Christ’s body of which he is the Head’ and ‘the Church’.

To be ritually baptized, again, signifies and symbolizes this, but it does not guarantee it, any more than feeding on Christ’s body is guaranteed by eating the Lord’s Supper. Hence Paul draws the attention of the Corinthians to Israel at the Exodus:

They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. ³ They all ate the same spiritual food ⁴ and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. ⁵ Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert. (1 Corinthians 10:2–5, NIV84)

Actual baptism is only guaranteed to those who persevere in faith. Nevertheless, actual baptism is not a matter of a one-off ‘coming to faith’. It is an ongoing state: ‘I am baptized’. And the baptized is dead, and daily dying, to sin, having put on Christ.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Towards a 'Unified Field' Theology

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:37:00 +0100

The ‘holy grail’ of physics has long been the ‘Unified-Field Theory’ — a description that would encompass all the basic physical phenomena of the observable world and explain why they are as they are.

Recently I have been thinking that we could do with something of the same in Christianity — a ‘unifying theology’ that both draws together different aspects of the faith and explains why they are as they are.

Quite apart from anything else, it would surely help us face and respond to new challenges, whether individually or collectively. I remember some years ago being asked by someone studying elementary theology what should be our attitude to ‘the Sabbath’ and thinking to myself, ‘You ought to be able to work this out for yourself, given where you’re up to in your studies.’

Somehow, although this person had a tolerably good grasp overall of the Bible and its message, and was learning to preach and teach, they were stumped by a question which is answered by biblical theology itself (see Col 2:16-17).

It was as if their theological ‘framework’ was not so much a framework as a loose collection of bits — atonement over here, law over there, Christ’s nature in a drawer in the kitchen, and so on.

But then this person was no different from many of the rest of us. Take, for example, the ‘five marks of mission’, on which the Anglican Communion has drawn for so many years as a summary of what we should be about.

• To proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom

• To teach, baptise and nurture new believers

• To respond to human need by loving service

• To seek to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and to pursue peace and reconciliation

• To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth

They look comprehensive — and I suspect the reason for that is precisely that they were drawn up to include ‘something for everyone’. But what is the underlying rationale? What holds them together? What decides that there shouldn’t be six marks, or fourteen? What is the connection between responding to human need with loving service and baptizing people?

Recently it has been suggested that the five marks are really one mark — to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom — and four other ‘manifestations’ of that mark. This may be disputed, but at least it has the merit of ‘unifying’ the marks.

Yet of course the theological task is far more complicated than that. At my 7am men’s Bible study group this week, we actually got onto the question of why we are here, and why did God make the world this way and not some other way, including the propensity for sin.

To some people, such questions will seem childish, because they suggest there might be ‘answers’ we could comprehend. But though they may be posed ‘naively’, they are asked justifiably. Why should we not seek to understand all we can of the ways of God and the nature of the world?

Furthermore, if there is a ‘unified’ theological ‘field’ available somewhere, the answers to these big questions will be related to the answers to much smaller questions, like ‘What about the Sabbath?’

I think, therefore, that the task is well worth attempting and that though we may ultimately be as (un) successful as physicists have been in their area so far, we might make some progress which would stand us in very good stead, given the problems facing the church both from without and within.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Ministry and the 18:26 Principle

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 23 Oct 2013 11:01:00 +0100

I have recently experienced a revolution in my ministry. I’m calling it ‘the 18:26 principle’, and whilst I’m glad to have discovered it, I can’t help wishing I’d been doing it for the last twenty years rather than the last four months.

In June this year I went to the Evangelical Ministry Assembly at the Barbican, where I heard Rico Tice and Vaughan Roberts both extolling the virtues of ‘one to one’ Bible study.

Like many clergy, I suppose, I’ve been leading and encouraging group Bible study for most of my ministry. You know the thing — gather a group, appoint a leader, read a passage, discuss what it means. They vary in quality, but they have been the staple of the church’s life for decades, not just for evangelicals (as perhaps used to be the case) but across the spectrum.

About ‘one to one’ work, however, I knew nothing. I’d never experienced it, I’d never seen it done and I’d never trained in it. For me (and I guess for many others) the ‘secret’ of ministry lay in pulpit preaching. Study the passage hard with all the resources available, work out what it was saying, prepare your material and ‘preach the word’. Do that, I thought, and they would come — except they didn’t, and when they came they didn’t stick.

Recently, however, I’ve had time for personal reflection (let the reader understand) and on the principle that God works everything for good, it gave me the opportunity to talk with a colleague about the practicalities of ministry. Amongst other things, he expressed the view that the conservative evangelical constituency (of which we are both members) is over-reliant on pulpit work and insufficiently engaged in working with individuals.

The same thought, incidentally, was voiced by the 17^th century Puritan Richard Baxter in his The Reformed Pastor:

It is too common for men to think that the work of the ministry is nothing but to preach, and to baptize, and to administer the Lord’s supper, and to visit the sick. [...] It hath oft grieved my heart to observe some eminent able preachers, how little they do for the saving of souls, save only in the pulpit; and to how little purpose much of their labour is, by this neglect.

And Baxter, too, recommended focussing on individuals — not just in meeting their needs but in teaching the faith.

With all this in mind, and having recovered somewhat from my period of reflection, I began looking and praying for opportunities to read the Bible with people ‘one to one’. And soon they began to come in. At present, I am working with seven people on a weekly basis (one individual and three couples) as well as leading two larger groups, and fascinating it has been.

This is not, however, your typical Bible study. I am there as a teacher, and so I teach. The result is much more of a ‘tutorial’, much less of a seminar. But judging by the response it is hitting the spot.

When I say it is a ‘tutorial’, I mean I don’t just look for a sharing of opinions. These are people without a theological education, without training, whose desire for God is strong, but whose knowledge of the Scriptures is piecemeal. So we will look at a passage, and I will explain it to them. The ultimate model for this, of course, is Jesus himself. When he met with the disciples on the Emmaus road,

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27, NIV84)

Or again, in the Upper Room:

He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. (Luke 24:44–45 (NIV84))

Perhaps we should read these accounts not just as descriptions but as methodology. But note (a) the group is small and (b) opinions count for nothing — the teacher is there to teach.

Another example is found in Acts, and this is what gave me the ‘18:26 principle’:

[Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately. (Acts 18:26, NIV)

What I have found is that those with whom I have been doing this have said they are getting into the text more deeply, that they are getting a new grasp of things, and so on. So the more I can do, the better.

It does, however, require a number of qualifications. First, you’ve got to be able to do the textual thing yourself. And you need a breadth of knowledge of the Bible and biblical theology. Often the best bits in these studies are when we ‘digress’ — when we go off on a side track — and this requires being able to think on your feet theologically. Finally, perhaps most importantly at first, it requires a willingness to buck the cultural trend of being uneasy with the idea of ‘authority’.

It is a feature of our culture (and of our church as a result) that there aren’t ‘answers’, there are just ‘questions’. By contrast, this sort of study is based on the principle that I know more than the people I’m teaching and that I have the authority to teach them. Like Priscilla and Aquilla, I must work on the principle that there are better understandings of these things that some people need to hear.

But it is wonderful work. Like I said, I wish I’d been doing this for decades not months. But better late then never. May I commend it to you as well?

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Baptism and the Gospel

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:07:00 +0100

So here's part of what I'm tackling on Sunday morning, just to get the little grey cells working. In Acts 8:26-39, we read of the encounter between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, which eventually gets to this point:

"The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who* is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”

Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. [ie 'It's someone else'!]

As they travelled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”

So here's the thing: how did Philip so present the 'good news about Jesus' that it led to the eunuch asking for baptism?

See if you can come up with a short presentation that would do the same.

* Shouldn't that be in English "about whom is the prophet talking"?

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

JAEC 2013: Talks Now Online

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:54:00 +0100

In September this year we held the third 'Junior Anglican Evangelical Conference' (aka 'Jake'). The talks from that conference are now online, courtesy of Church Society.

'Talks' were, of course, only part of what went on at the conference, so don't judge the whole by the parts, but you may enjoy listening to them.

JAEC 2014 is now planned for the 8th-10th September at King's Park Conference Centre, Northampton. It is open to first-post incumbents, curates, ordinands and 'enquirers' of an evangelical Anglican persuasion and the theme is 'The Effective Anglican: Seizing the Opportunities in the Church of England's Ministry'.

JAEC is organized by a small group of Conservative Evangelicals, so that theology under-girds what we do, but the Conferences are open to anyone who supports the overall aim of 'the transformation of the Church for the proclamation of the gospel'. On that basis, women are welcome.

If you'd like to register for next year's conference, or enquire, please use the email link to the right.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Baptism Matters

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:09:00 +0100

How important is baptism in your theology? My guess is that most people, looking at this question, will assess it in terms of either the necessity or the effectiveness of baptism. This, after all, is where the debates of the last few hundred years have tended to focus. ‘Should baptism be administered to children not old enough to confess the faith for themselves?’ for example. And if it is, what does it do?

Yet, as anyone who has entered these debates will know, the answers to these questions are not easy to read from Scripture — certainly not from Scripture read in the light of the Church’s tradition, which from early times practised the baptism of infants.

This the lack of a ‘definitive’ biblical answer is revealing in itself, for it must surely mean that questions about the practice and effectiveness of baptism were not much in dispute — unlike, say, circumcision. Outside the gospels there are only a few sprinkled references to baptism. Indeed, at one stage Paul seems almost to disparage the practice, saying, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17, NIV).

And yet a closer reading of Paul, especially in Romans, will show not only that he assumed baptism would take place but that it played a fundamental part in his theological system, for it is through baptism that we are united with Christ and it is through union with Christ that we receive the benefits of his death and resurrection:

[...] don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴ We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Rom 6:3-4, NIV)

Yet even when we have noted this emphasis, it is easy to miss its wider significance, for in Pauline thought ecclesiology is a sub-set of Christology. That is to say, his understanding of the Church is an understanding of Christ, for the two are ultimately inseparable. For us, what ‘matters’ is, so often, the process of baptism. But for Paul what matters is the outcome — into whom you are baptized rather than in or by whom.

A striking example of this thought is found in 1Corinthians 12, where Paul talks about the Church as a body made up of many parts, each with a different function. Yet in applying this principle he says something quite unexpected:

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. (1 Corinthians 12:12)

What we should surely expect him to say is, ‘So it is with the Church.’ After all, this is the point he goes on to make:

...in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. (1 Corinthians 12:28, NIV84)

But, as we have seen, what he says is, ‘So it is with Christ.’ And the reason for this is that me means exactly what he says in v 27 ‘Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.’ For Paul (unlike for some of us) this is no mere metaphor, but a living reality. Hence in chapter 6 of the same letter, when dealing with the question of resorting to prostitutes, he appeals to the principle of being a part of Christ’s body:

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! (1 Corinthians 6:15, NIV84)

Paul’s answer is based on his Christology. But his Christology is also his ecclesiology. To be a Christian is to be part of the Church, and the Church is Christ’s body, therefore what you do with your body, you do with hiM.

The converse of this, however, is that what he does with his body is done with you:

If [through baptism, vv 2-4] we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him ... (Romans 6:5–6, NIV84)

Indeed some of the outcomes of this principle can be quite surprising:

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12a)

It is not that we have no need of circumcision, but rather that those who are baptized into Christ have also been circumcised, just as they have been crucified and raised with him.

But baptism is often the ‘missing (or misunderstood) ingredient’ in our own understanding. For some it is indeed the mark or means of church membership, but this is conceived institutionally, as belonging to an organization, rather than as being organically joined to Christ. The result, however, is that the institution is sometimes seen as an alter Christus, mediating Christ to the individual and the world. (Talk about other clerical ministry being ‘derived from’ the bishop is, I think, a particular and pernicious example of this error.)

For others, baptism is simply not there at all, or it is just a ‘declaration of my faith’. The problem then is that ‘my faith’ becomes the link — and potentially is the ‘weakest link’ — holding me to God. But baptism is not a declaration of my faith, rather it is a declaration of God’s work and his promises. The baptized person goes through an action of burying, washing and rising, and so experiences symbolically what is true for him or her ‘in Christ’. As Luther put it, “My faith does not make the baptism, but rather receives the baptism” (LW 51:186). And as he says elsewhere,

True, one should add faith to baptism. But we are not to base baptism on faith. There is quite a difference between having faith, on the one hand, and depending on one’s faith and making baptism depend on faith, on the other. Whoever allows himself to be baptized on the strength of his faith, is not only uncertain, but also an idolator who denies Christ. For he trusts in and builds on something of his own, namely, on a gift which he has from God, and not on God’s Word alone. (LW 40:252).

Furthermore, our baptism is not just something done with human hands, for there is one who baptizes us with the Holy Spirit, and that baptism does more than symbolize the truth. When I ‘receive’ my baptism through my faith in Christ — whether at the time or later — I am truly ‘baptized into’ him. He and I become one, and I become one with all those who are similarly ‘in him’, which is to say I become a member of the Church, which is Christ’s own body: “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body” (1 Cor 12:13).

Our baptism therefore doesn’t just declare what God has done for us. It declares what God has done with us. We have died, we have been raised because Christ has died and Christ has been raised and we are united with him.

The Church is the company of the baptized. But the baptized are baptized into Christ. And so the church is Christ’s body, of which he is the head and we are the limbs and organs. And that is also why Paul’s theology of marriage is so important to our understanding of baptism. But that will have to wait until later.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Another Interesting Vacancy

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 10 Oct 2013 08:42:00 +0100

With little time and so much to do at the moment, I'll keep the pot on 'simmer' with another job vacancy someone has asked me to point out.

A post in the Western Lake District has come up, in the delightful village of Gosforth. It includes a number of surrounding villages, but the ministry would be based in Gosforth, rather than a 'jump in the car' kind of ministry. There are some evangelicals working together, with a number of vacancies meaning the area can be reshaped in the coming year. The advert is here and if you know someone who may wish to apply, please have them be in touch. It would be a suitable incumbency for someone who is finishing a curacy, or for someone more established in the ministry. They should have a pair of walking boots and a canoe, because Gosforth is in the Lake District National Park...

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Two Interesting Parish Vacancies

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 6 Oct 2013 16:31:00 +0100

One in the current Diocese of Wakefield:

profile as a pdf here.

The other in the Diocese of Chelmsford:

St Michael's, Gidea Park

Let me know if you apply for either - just nice to know.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

The Junior Anglican Evangelical Conference -- forward to 2014!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:45:00 +0100

Anyone following me on Twitter might have been bemused recently by ‘tweets’ referring to JAEC2013.

The initials actually stand for Junior Anglican Evangelical Conference, 2013 being the year — but it could just as easily have been JAEC3 as this is the third such conference we’ve now run.

It all started in early 2011 when a colleague and I, on our way to a Deanery Chapter meeting, were speculating about the lead being given to young evangelical clergy, particularly at the Conservative end of the spectrum. In particular, we were expressing concern about their grasp of, and commitment to, Anglicanism. If they were going to minister effectively within ‘the system’, they needed to be enabled to work within the system, but some of them were coming from churches which were almost ‘independent presbyterian’ in their approach. ‘Something, we decided, had to be done, and JAEC2011 was born.

Actually at that stage it was the Anglican Evangelical Junior Clergy Conference and it took place over three days at St Mark’s College, Audley End. Most of the thirty who attended were actually ordinands, but they seemed really to appreciate a programme with a positive view of Anglicanism.

At the same time, the work of preparing for the ‘keynote’ address led me eventually to write the book A Strategy which Changes the Denomination, which drew extensively on the 1945 report Towards the Conversion of England. In fact this became almost a ‘watchword’ for the longer term.

The first conference ended on a high note of expectation and it was inevitable we would have a second, which subsequently took place at King’s Park Conference Centre in 2012. After that, however, we felt we should get a bit more organized and also reconsider our objectives.

Thus by the time the third conference was being planned, the objective could be summed up as follows: ‘To identify and encourage the next generation of Anglican evangelical denominational leaders prepared to undertake the transformation of the church for the proclamation of the gospel towards the conversion of England.’

It’s a bit of a mouthful, but it means we are trying to do ‘exactly what it says on the tin’.

We also changed the name, from AEJCC to JAEC, not least because it could be pronounced ‘Jake’. And so JAEC2013 (or JAEC3) took place last week, again at King’s Park and again with about thirty ‘delegates’.

One particularly encouraging feature of this year’s conference was that we are now beginning to attract four ‘generations’ — people in the selection or ‘discernment’ process, ordinands, curates and incumbents. It was our hope from the outset that the older, more experienced, attendees would be able to encourage the younger, and so it is beginning to prove.

Undoubtedly some people will be wondering about (or should I say ‘suspicious of’?) the ‘theological tradition’ of JAEC. The answer to that is that it represents an initiative based in the Conservative Evangelical tradition, but open to all evangelicals committed to the overall goal of ‘the conversion of England’. In fact I am pleased to say we had two women presbyters with us this year, one of whom is a ‘returnee’.

The structure is fairly straightforward, including opening ‘Morning Prayer’ (from the BCP, to represent our shared heritage), a Bible Reading (this year from Lee Gatiss, of Church Society) in 2 Timothy, ‘input sessions’ (including one on sexuality and ‘Pilling’ and another one ‘where are we now’) and feedback sessions. We also had a ‘Church of England Pub-Quiz’, which I think I can safely say was unique, not least in not having a pub.

Although the programme was rather packed, the comments show it was generally much-appreciated. And so plans are under way for JAEC2014.

Reflecting on the conference, my own feeling was that in essence it is doing what NEAC was attempting to do — drawing Anglican evangelicals together from across the two provinces to be encouraged by one another and to share wisdom and insights about the ministry of the Church. The difference is that, unlike the last two NEACs, there is a sense of unity, despite a degree of diversity — and of that I am unashamedly proud, not least because it suggests a successful attempt at including such differences.

Next year’s dates are already decided — 8th-10th September, again at King’s Park. The likely price is around £130, so if you’re interested, book it in your diary. You might also like to email me at the address in the side column.

England is a long way, still, from conversion, and indeed the Church of England is probably less united than a year ago. But JAEC represents an attempt at focussing on our proper goal together and subsuming some of our differences under the banner of the Great Commission. My thanks to my fellow organizers, especially Linda Peake who took care of the bookings, and to the staff at King's Park. Soli Deo Gloria!

What they have said about JAEC 2013:

"I found JAEC13 to be brilliant ..."

"'Twas great ... really glad I came ..."

"What was most valuable for me was the chance to ask probing questions of you all, at different stages of ministry and process."

"Thank you very much for this year's conference. I found it very helpful indeed. Particularly like the model of its being targeted at four groups (candidates, ordinands, curates and first incumbents) with some of the older, more experienced ministers there for our benefit too. You must keep it going!"

"Thank you to JAEC - such a good thing to be amongst passionate Anglicans who put Jesus in his rightful place and love his work and his Word." (from one of our women attendees)

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Who's Afraid of PSA?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 4 Sep 2013 16:37:00 +0100

Sorry, but it does rather look like it here and here.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Penal-Substitutionary Atonement -- it was once so Anglican!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:16:00 +0100

When you get to my age, the initials PSA take on a new significance, but it seems the same is true theologically. Where once 'classical evangelicals' preached that Jesus bore the punishment for our sins on the cross, now it seems the evangelical constituency is not so sure.

As to the rest of the Protestant churches, they gave this one up a long while ago, didn't they? The presenting issue is the increasingly-notorious line in the song 'In Christ Alone', by Stuart Townsend and Keith Getty, 'Till on that cross as Jesus died, The wrath of God was satisfied', but it has been under pressure for years even amongst evangelicals.

Recently I put my toe in the waters of a lengthy debate on the subject with a tutor at my old theological college, St John's Nottingham, who is convinced that not only is the concept of 'satisfaction' wrong but that there was no 'punishment' of Jesus, adding that the disputed phrase in the Townsend-Getty song is nowhere found in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, to which Anglican clergy must assent.

And that is true, but it is in the Homilies, which the Thirty-Nine Articles commend as containing "godly and wholesome Doctrine". So here are some quotes from the Articles on the subject of Christ's death, God's wrath and the punishment for our sins.

My interlocutor replied that this only showed what some people once believed -- which is also the attitude to the Articles I find outside evangelical Anglican circles. But as I say to them on the latter subject, it happens to be what some of us still believe. The homilies quoted are principally Of the salvation of all mankind and Of the Passion: for Good-Friday, parts One and Two.

God sent his only son our Saviour Christ into this world ... and by shedding of his most precious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or (as it may be called) amends to his Father for our sins, to assuage his wrath and indignation conceived against us ...

... whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part towards their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of Christ’s body and blood, whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied.

[God] hath given his own natural Son ... to be incarnated, and to take our mortal nature upon him, with the infirmities of the same, and in the same nature to suffer most shameful and painful death for our offences, to the intent to justify us, and to restore us to life everlasting: so making us also his dear children ...

And yet, I say, did Christ put himself between GOD'S deserved wrath, and our sin, and rent that obligation wherein we were in danger to GOD, and paid our debt (Colossians 2.14).

Let us know for a certainty, that if the most dearly beloved Son of GOD was thus punished and stricken for the sin which he had not done himself: how much more ought we sore to be stricken for our daily and manifold sins which we commit against GOD,

For if GOD (saith Saint Paul) hath not spared his own Son from pain and punishment, but delivered him for us all unto the death: how should he not give us all other things with him (Romans 8.32)?

... even then did Christ the Son of God, by the appointment of his Father, come down from heaven, to be wounded for our sakes, to be reputed with the wicked, to be condemned unto death, to take upon him the reward of our sins, and to give his Body to be broken on the Crosse for our offences.

Was not this a manifest token of God's great wrath and displeasure towards sin, that he could be pacified by no other means, but only by the sweet and precious blood of his dear Son?

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Christ's 'Satisfaction of Wrath' - What's the Anglican Problem?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:47:00 +0100

These are just a few preliminary thoughts regarding the apparently contested line in Stuart Townend's song In Christ Alone, "And on the cross, where Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied", but I'm puzzling over what some Anglicans find objectionable here.

In the 1662 BCP service of the Lord's Supper, it says that on the cross Christ made a "full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world". The same point is reinforced in the Thirty-nine Articles:

XXXI. Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone.

So for Anglicans, Christ's death can certainly be seen as a 'satisfaction for sin'. But what (or who) is 'satisfied', and can we say it was 'God's wrath'? Once again, the articles come to our help:

IX. Of Original or Birth-sin
Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation.

According to this Article, then, in "every person born into this world [the flesh] deserveth God's wrath" because that flesh is the "fault and corruption of the Nature of ... man" - which may properly be called 'sin'.

Now at this point there are always those who want to chip in and say the Articles are no longer applicable or appropriate. But the point is that they, with the Prayer Book itself, are a summary of Anglican beliefs certainly as they once stood and, for some of us, as they still stand. (And remember, all Anglican clergy have to assent to the Articles and the Prayer Book.)

So, for those who are having trouble keeping up, sin (which affects us all) deserves God's wrath. But on the cross Jesus made a 'full satisfaction' for sin. And, as the Articles again tell us:

The Son, which is the Word of the Father ... truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us ... (II. Of the Word orSon of God, which was made very Man)

The point not to miss here is the comment about the cross reconciling the Father to us. Without the cross, then, we are not reconciled to the Father, neither is He reconciled to us. Rather, as Scripture says and the Articles affirm, we are by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3)

Thanks to the cross, we are no longer objects of wrath (on this we are all surely agreed), but if the cross is a 'satisfaction for sin', and sin is the reason for God's wrath against us, then surely God's wrath is one of the things for which the cross 'makes satisfaction'.

That being the case, surely the only criticisms of Townend's words, as far as Anglicans are concerned, have to rest on the fact that he was working with the stylistic constraints of rhyming 'died' with 'satisfied'. Perhaps Anglican purists would have preferred he had taken a leaf out of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards' song book and found an alternative to rhyme with 'satisfaction', but he didn't. Maybe next week. Meanwhile, I suggest Anglicans need to be a bit clearer what exactly the fuss is about.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

‘Flesh’ Beats ‘Sinful Nature’ for Clarity

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:34:00 +0100

Last night our PCC did some Bible study. The aim was to clarify our goals as a congregation, and the subject was the ‘two kinds of people’ identified in Romans 8:5-11 as those who live ‘according to the Spirit’ and those who (in the NIV) live ‘according to the sinful nature’.

The only problem was, one of our PCC wasn’t getting it. Her brow furrowed up as she insisted there must be other kinds of people. After all, there are those who, whilst they admittedly aren’t Christians, can hardly be accused of living ‘according to the sinful nature’.

As she was speaking, I had a sudden thought.

“The word Paul uses here,” I said, “is actually ‘flesh’. Now how long does flesh last?”

After a bit of thought, she replied, “Til you die.”

“And how long does spirit last?”

Again a bit of thought produced the answer, “Forever — for eternity.”

“So,” I said, “Those who live ‘according to the flesh’ are thinking on what timescale — this life, or eternity?”

“This life,” she replied.

“And those who live ‘according to the Spirit’ — are they thinking about just this life, or eternity?”

“Eternity,” she replied.

“And where do most people focus their attention — on this life, or eternity?”

“This life,” she replied.

“So they’re living ‘according to the flesh’, aren’t they?” I went on. “Their goals are all about this life, their interests are material things, they don’t think in terms of eternity. They certainly don’t think about facing judgement like we say in the Creeds, do they?”

The penny dropped. Indeed, when we went on to look at v7, ‘the sinful mind is hostile to God’, she got it straight away and a smile broke out when I asked what happened when we tried to talk to most ordinary people about the things of God.

Altogether, a good meeting!

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Some Thoughts on the (In)adequacy of Pulpit Ministry

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:56:00 +0100

(More thoughts on 'Pastoring')

One of the greatest changes in church life in the last forty years has been the improvement in sermons. Gone from many of our pulpits are blessed thoughts based loosely on a single verse — sermons that began, ‘My text for this evening is ...’, followed by the preachers’ own views — and in their place we have exegetical preaching, rooted in a careful study of the biblical text.

Anyone with a high regard for the Bible as ‘God’s Word written’ must rejoice in this development, which in the UK at least owes much to the work of the Proclamation Trust. We are surely right to think that when the Bible is properly expounded, God’s voice is heard. But this renewal of preaching has not been without its dangers — dangers identified in the seventeenth century by Richard Baxter (1615-91) in his The Reformed Pastor:

Proper preparation of a sermon takes time. But the length of time spent preparing a sermon is not necessarily a measure of the effectiveness of one’s ministry. For as Baxter recognized, if the work done in preaching is not matched by efforts elsewhere, then it may ultimately be to little purpose.

The exception to this would be where the congregation is largely composed of literate people, accustomed to learning from ‘lecture’ style input, whether in education or in business. Such a congregation may well thrive on a ‘pulpit centred’ ministry. But we should recognize equally that such a pulpit ministry will tend to attract these people in the first place. Indeed, is this not what we find amongst some of our evangelical churches classed as the most ‘successful’? Often the ministry will be to students or to those who work in our city centres. The congregation may be large, but it will often be ‘eclectic’, drawn from a wide geographical area, and somewhat culturally ‘monochrome’, consisting of a particular type of person.

Now this is not at all to denigrate preaching. On the contrary, preaching must remain a priority, not least because the congregation of God’s people is in part constituted by the act of gathering together under God’s Word. But if we imagine that preaching alone, or even preaching first and foremost, will effectively do the work of pastoring God’s people, we are mistaken.

Think again about the parable of the sower: ‘A sower went out to sow seed ...’. In the parable, the work of the sower certainly depends on the seed, but it is the soils which determine the outcome. The seed is the same in every case, but the results are different depending on where it falls.

Now apply that to pulpit ministry. The preacher may spend eight, twelve, perhaps even twenty hours preparing the Word — the seed. But what of the soil? What of the people to whom he will be preaching? How much time does he spend on preparing them?

Once again, an agricultural image may help. In the book of Isaiah, we read of the Lord preparing a vineyard:

My loved one had a vineyard on a fertile hillside. ²He dug it up and cleared it of stones and planted it with the choicest vines. He built a watchtower in it and cut out a winepress as well. Then he looked for a crop of good grapes, but it yielded only bad fruit. (Isaiah 5:1b-2, NIV)

The point being made here is that the vineyard yielded bad grapes despite the work lavished on it. The failure of the enterprise comes as a surprise precisely because the necessary preparatory work was done. So what about in our pulpit ministry? Clearing the stones and digging the soil are essential parts of the farmer’s work. Should we not also, where possible, work on the soil before we scatter the seed of God’s Word?

Of course the outcome ultimately depends on God. As St Paul famously wrote to the Corinthians, ‘I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow’ (1 Cor 3:6, NIV). Nevertheless, there is both planting and watering, sowing and digging to be done. And after that comes the weeding — the identifying and pulling out of those things which are inhibiting growth and choking the word in the life of the individual.

Let us be clear. Sermons are vital. They are the declaration of God’s Word to the gathered congregation. And therefore the sermon should be carefully prepared and prayerfully delivered. But once again we must consider the outcome in assessing what we do as ‘church’. If the outcome of the ministry of God’s Word is to be maturing Christians, we must recognize that the sermon alone is not enough. The foundation of this ministry is not the pulpit but the person — the one who ministers and the ones who are ministered to.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

CofE Acts on Usury

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:21:00 +0100

It's a subject I've posted on in the past, so it's nice to see this news.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

The Centrality of the Church to Mission

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:41:00 +0100

As I set out to demonstrate in an earlier post, the careful pastor understands that the gospel is the foundation of pastoral ministry and that therefore a good grasp of the gospel, and especially an awareness of the nature and importance of conversion, is essential to this work.

But what is the next stage? What is built on the foundation of the gospel? If we turn to the Bible, the answer is not — or certainly not just — the individual. Rather, it is the church. As Paul writes,

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, ²⁰built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. ²¹In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. ²²And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22, NIV)

Or again, as Peter says,

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— ⁵you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:4-5, NIV)

Deliberate pastoral ministry therefore centres on the church. People must be ‘built into’ the church — there are no ‘Lone Ranger’ Christians. And people must be ‘built up’ as the church — the relationships between people in the church will be crucial to their growth in Christ.

Once again, we find this set out in Scripture:

[...] speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. ¹⁶From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work. (Ephesians 4:15-16, NIV)

Another version of the above passage refers to the body of Christ being ‘knit together’, so with that in mind, we will address the life of the church in terms of ‘joining’ and ‘knitting’.

What is the Church?

But first we must answer the question, ‘What is the church?’ and this is obviously a potentially fraught subject. What we have said above, however, provides us with the outline of an answer: the church is where people are gathered, under Christ as their head, to be joined and knit together as a body and built up in love so as to do the priestly service of God.

The problem is, of course, that’s not how church is always understood or experienced! Nevertheless, that is the definition with which we are going to work. The key thing to notice, however, is that this definition focuses primarily on outcomes, whereas church is more typically defined in terms of structures or actions.

Thus for some people, the church is identified by its institutions or offices. They insist that any particular church belongs to the ‘right’ body or grouping, which is then seen as conferring historical or doctrinal legitimacy. In the Church of England, for example, it doesn’t seem to matter much precisely what is believed or taught in the local congregation, but being ‘CofE’ confers a certain air of ‘normality’ on things. In the Church of Rome, on the other hand, it matters very much what is believed, but a congregation with virtually the same beliefs (such as amongst some Anglican ‘Catholics’) would still not be accepted as a ‘true’ church, because it does not fully belong to that organizational body.

For others, the important thing is having the rightly-ordained ministers, or the bishops to ordain them. If those are there, then we can be satisfied that we have a true church no matter what else goes on. For yet others, such as in branches of Presbyterianism, the important thing is that the congregation or the minister affirms the established doctrines and does not depart from them.

More frequently, perhaps, (though often in conjunction with the above) church is defined by what is done on the occasions when the congregation meets. Indeed, this is the official approach we find in Anglicanism, where Article XIX of the Thirty-Nine Articles states,

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

Where there is proper preaching and the right administration of the “two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel” (Article XXV), there we have the visible church. (The Articles do also require that the preaching and administration of the sacraments be done only by those “lawfully called and sent” to do so [Article XXIII], which in Anglican terms means ordained by a bishop, but that is a matter of church order, not the church’s essence.)

Now we would be the first to agree that the Word of God, administered through preaching and the sacraments, is of primary importance. But it seems curious (to say the least) that most definitions of ‘church’ pay no attention to outcomes, whereas in Scripture this is primary. Indeed I would go further and suggest that this is a fundamental weakness in our theology.

If we define church in terms of what is done in the congregation, for example, we will be satisfied if certain things have taken place, no matter what other outcomes might not have been achieved. Provided we can ‘tick the boxes’ — songs were sung, prayers prayed, the Bible read, the sermon preached — we can dismiss the congregation and go home satisfied in the belief that some good must have been done, even if we’re not sure what it was.

The ‘deliberate’ pastor must set out to address this weakness.

Joining

The first step, naturally enough, is ‘joining’. With new converts, for example, we must make it clear that becoming a Christian means becoming part of the church. You cannot be a Christian and not go to church.

This was probably easier to convey to people in the days when coming to faith and coming to baptism went together. It is interesting that few if any modern presentations of the gospel would naturally lead anyone to ask, as the Ethiopian eunuch asked of Philip, “Here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” Partly, of course, this is because it is still the case that many people have been baptized as infants. Unfortunately, it is sometimes also the case that people really don’t think it matters that much. We take too far Paul’s words, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17), forgetting that Paul nevertheless did baptize (vv 14-16) and expected every Christian to have received baptism.

The point about baptism is that it is mark of membership (as well as a sign of the gospel to be received by faith). Those being prepared to receive baptism should be made aware they are being baptized into Christ’s body, and therefore into fellowship with others who are members of that same body:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, ²⁷for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28, NIV)

In the same way, however, everyone who comes to faith, whether baptized already or not, should have it clearly put to them: being joined with Christ means joining the church. (Of course, if they are not baptized, then baptism, and the preparation involved, will also spell this out to them.)

But this should not just be a matter between the new believer and the evangelist or the pastor. On the contrary, it must be spelled out deliberately and clearly to the whole existing congregation that we are in the business of adding new people to the body of Christ, which therefore means adding new people to our assemblies and meetings. And this brings us onto the subject of ‘knitting’.

Knitting

As we have noted already, the Bible’s definition of church includes outcomes, one of which is the body being ‘knit together’ for ‘the building up of itself in love’ (Eph 4:16, ASV). This ‘knitting’ will be a key focus of the time and efforts of the deliberate pastor and the first place to address this is the regular (typically Sunday) meeting of the congregation.

This is where the life of the whole congregation together will generally be expressed. This will also be where the enquirer or fringe member experiments tests out the quality of the congregational life. This will be where new converts are brought to begin their growth towards mature membership of the body. This will also be where all the congregation sit together under the same preaching and teaching of God’s Word, and share the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper with one another.

All this means, however, that the frequency of congregational meetings is fundamentally important.

In some settings, for example in Anglican rural parishes, the ratio of clergy to congregations means that some only meet on a few Sundays of the year. One common approach in the so-called ‘multi-parish benefice’, for example, is for the congregation to ‘rotate’ around villages and buildings. The service may be at the same time, but it is only occasionally in the same place. There are some who swear by this approach as the best way to ensure a gathering of a reasonable size.

My own view, however, is that whilst this may work for the dedicated regulars, it is potentially less accessible to newcomers or enquirers, who will not have the commitment (or perhaps even the information) to be in the right place every week. Establishing a regular and frequent congregational meeting is thus critical, but this also means building up a team of leaders — something which raises its own challenges.

Even when you are holding some kind of ‘service’, however, the thing to remember is that church is not over when the last song is sung or the last prayer prayed. On the contrary, this is only half the work. Indeed, if that is all that happens, then much of the opportunity of meeting together has been wasted. Consider the words of Hebrews:

And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. ²⁵Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:24-25, NIV)

Certainly the writer is keen that people should come to church — ‘Let us not give up meeting together,’ he says. But he does not stop there. We are not to give up meeting together because we are to go on encouraging one another, spurring one another on to love and good deeds as we see the Day of the Lord approaching. Yet is that what happens in many of our congregations? People arrive, they watch, listen, sing and pray, and then they go home. But of how many can we be sure they have been effectively spurred on? And how many have taking any part in encouraging the others? The answer, in both cases, will typically be ‘very few’. And a key reason is that so little of what we do is ‘deliberate’ in its approach to these outcomes.

In general, our approach to church is often weak, even where the building might be full or the concept my be highly esteemed. We rarely make full use of church pastorally. Indeed, sometimes the congregation is peripheral in our theology of mission. Yet in the plans and purposes of God, church is central:

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Pastoring and the Importance of Conversion

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 21 Jul 2013 19:06:00 +0100

The basis of the Church is the gospel, and this means that pastoring must always have in mind the call to conversion. People can only move on with God when they stand in a right relationship with him. Thus the Apostle Paul writes,

... the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. ⁹You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. (Romans 8:7-9, NIV)

There is no spiritual progress without spiritual life and there is no spiritual life without the Spirit of God. But the Spirit of God comes only by hearing and believing the gospel message. As Paul writes elsewhere,

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. ²I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? (Galatians 3:1-2, NIV)

The churches in the area of Galatia were being infiltrated by people preaching a ‘Gospel-plus’ message — that believing in Jesus was good, but not good enough. Paul’s riposte is that it was enough for them to receive the Holy Spirit! But the lesson we can also take from this is that it is also necessary to receive the Holy Spirit. Without faith in the gospel, there is no Holy Spirit in the life of the individual. And so no matter how dedicated they may be to church or how keen they may be on religion, there is no way they can please God.

So pastoral ministry is a converting ministry. But why is this so important? Why does the very presence of the Holy Spirit depend on it? The answer lies in the way our acceptance of the gospel affects our relationship with God.

The gospel is the proclamation of God to the whole universe that Jesus is the Christ who came into the world with the express purpose of saving us from our sins by dying for us on the cross. Now when God proclaims something, what is the right response? The answer is obvious: you must accept and believe it.

So when God proclaims you are a sinner, how do you respond? Being told you’re a sinner is not a nice thing, especially if you’ve got a good opinion of yourself. Your first response is likely to be to deny or downplay the suggestion — unless you’re already well aware of your sinfulness, which is why Jesus observed that the tax-collectors and prostitutes going into the kingdom ahead of the chief priest and elders (cf Matt 21:31). The former knew they had a problem, whereas the latter denied it.

But the person who accepts and believes God’s proclamation that they are a sinner stands in a right relationship with God — the relationship of a sinner with nothing to offer in mitigation. That is why Jesus told this parable:

“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ¹¹The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. ¹²I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

¹³“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

¹⁴“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:10-14, NIV)

Notice how Jesus says the tax-collector was ‘justified’. He stood in a right relationship with God, which is a key sense of the word ‘justification’. To be ‘justified’ is to be put ‘rightwise’ with God. By contrast, the Pharisee was not ‘justified’ because, despite all his good works — or actually, because of them — he did not see himself as a sinner before God in need of mercy.

The gospel, however, does not stop at being a sinner. The gospel is salvation from sin. And so the person who hears the gospel and believes it will also believe in their forgiveness. The trouble is, too many people today believe in God’s forgiveness! Like Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) is alleged to have said on his death bed, they take the view, ‘Of course [God] will forgive me. That’s his business.’

But here again, the gospel makes a challenging difference. We are not forgiven simply because it is God’s business to forgive, but because Christ died for our sins. Now for some people (sadly including some in the church), this idea is unacceptable. But it is what God says. It is central to the gospel proclamation: we are sinners, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures — and ‘according to the Scriptures’ means ‘as a sacrifice to take away sin and bring about reconciliation with God’. As we read in the Law of Moses, God says,

... I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. ¹¹For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life. (Leviticus 17:10-11, NIV)

The law of atonement is ‘life for life’. And it is with this in mind that we read the words of Paul to the Romans:

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! ¹⁰For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (Romans 5:9-10, NIV)

So an essential part of conversion is not just believing that we are sinners, but believing that the death of Jesus is the answer to our sins. Both these beliefs are essential to being put ‘rightwise’ with God. By contrast, if we deny them — if we say we have no sin (cf 1 John 1:10), or reject the need for Jesus’ death in order for us to have eternal life (cf John 6:53) — we make God out to be in the wrong. And we obviously cannot be standing in a right relationship with him, or have a right view of ourselves, when we do that.

The deliberate pastor will therefore always be asking, particularly in a new situation or with new arrivals in the congregation, ‘Am I dealing with the converted?’ And this will mean checking to see whether people have understood things like sin, grace, the cross and so on.

Some people object that this is asking more than is required by the New Testament — that we are thereby erecting ‘hurdles’ for people to jump, or making judgements we are not qualified to impose. They think that the principles of Galatians 2:12, where Peter withdrew from eating with Gentile believers because they were not circumcised, mean we must accept uncritically the genuineness of faith in anyone who is baptized and prepared to say ‘Jesus is Lord’.

But St Paul was really not so sanguine about people’s standing with God. In 1 Corinthians 10, he points out to his hearers that the people of the Old Testament also had their equivalent of baptism and the Lord’s supper:

Nevertheless, as he points out ‘God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert’ (1 Cor 10:5). And he draws this conclusion:

These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfilment of the ages has come. ¹²So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! (1 Corinthians 10:11-12, NIV)

It is thus important for the pastor to be on the alert, listening and checking to see that those under his care actually have ‘received Christ Jesus’ (Col 2:6), that they have ‘come to know Christ’ (Eph 4:20), and that they have ‘first believed’ in him (Rom 13:11). This is not to cast aspersions on fellow believers, but to ensure that the sure foundation has been laid on which a suitable building may be constructed.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Clergy Leadership and Lay Autonomy

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 22:04:00 +0100

(An extract from something I'm working on at the moment.)

Clergy in overall leadership need to retain responsibility for the overall life of the church, even when others are in leadership roles. This is not a matter of adopting a ‘managerial’ approach to ministry, but rather of maintaining a proper approach to pastoral care. Within a given congregation, those who have leadership entrusted to them will often be untrained volunteer members of the laity. It is grossly unfair and irresponsible simply to abandon them once they have taken on this responsibility. Indeed, the work of Malphurs and Mancini would identify it as a form of ‘Abdication’. The overall leader must go on providing pastoral care and support and must maintain an awareness of what is being done, even in areas which have been delegated to others.

All this talk about developing leaders, however, faces one danger, namely that of failing to deploy them. In some situations, people are educated in the faith, they may even go on courses, but they are never really allowed to do anything. Remember how Malphurs and Mancini identify leadership as involving both responsibility and authority. Too often, the local pastor acts like the Anglican bishop, handing over responsibility, but retaining authority. And in some cases they don’t even hand over responsibility.

Sometimes this is out of personal insecurity. Some pastors feel threatened by others taking the initiative, whilst others are not sure they could handle any problems that might develop. More often it is probably because of a failure to think things through. People go on courses because they want to know or do more, but there are no openings created for them in the local setting. Indeed, in many congregations, the opportunities for formal leadership are actually quite few. There may be a scheme of elders or a church council. There may be positions of formal ministry, such as an Anglican Reader. Apart from these roles, and home or Bible study groups, however, most ‘leadership’ is identified with ordination. Anyone who shows serious initiative may find themselves being encouraged in that direction, whether for full-time or part-time ministry. And that being the case, they are often lost to the local congregation.

However, it is the idea of ‘initiative’ that may provide us with a helpful answer to what to do with our leaders.

I [John] have often observed that university Christian Unions provide a model of how church could be, superior in many respects to the way churches often are.. In the CU, there are no ordained clergy, no paid leaders, but there is often a highly effective approach to mission. And much of this is arguably due to the fact that the members are not inhibited from taking initiatives. On the contrary, the average CU member feels they have both the responsibility and the authority to take direction action in the furtherance of the ethos of the institution. And in that sense, they are, of course, acting like leaders even though they are not technically ‘leading’ anything, since authority and responsibility are the essence of leadership.

It is this attitude of ‘initiative taking’ which we need to inculcate in the members of our congregations. Too often, leadership is thought of in terms of being ‘in charge’ of something. So we train up leaders to ‘do a job’. But the outworking of the gospel comes in daily life, and daily life is not a ‘job’ you give someone to do. Rather, it is a series of events in which one is involved and to which one must respond. It is here that initiative-taking can be so vital, and so although the people we are pastoring may not technically be ‘leaders’, giving them ‘leadership skills’ — the ability and conviction to act on their own authority and to take local responsibility — will potentially pay dividends.

What people need is to understand and share to overall ethos of the organization — ‘this is who we are and this is what we do’ — and then to be empowered to ‘take the lead’ in putting that into effect as opportunity arises. To use a word employed by the psychologist Abraham Maslow, such people show ‘autonomy’ — they don’t wait to be told or given permission, or rather in the church context, they have already been told and given permission in general terms and are now applying that as situations arise.

The instructions to believers in the New Testament epistles actually presume a very high level of autonomy. People are not expected to wait for their local pastor to order or cajole them into living as they have been instructed, but to act on the basis of what the apostles have said and their own inner capability in the power of the Spirit. Again, Paul’s letters call directly for the exercise of autonomy: He writes to the Romans,

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. ⁴Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, ⁵so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. ⁶We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. ⁷If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; ⁸if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully. (Romans 12:3-8, NIV)

And to the Galatians he writes,

Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, ⁵for each one should carry his own load. (Galatians 6:4-5, NIV)

Imagine a congregation under effective leadership but with a high degree of autonomy. Instead of having to push people along, the pastor would be responding to the opportunities they created, instead of having to keep the plates spinning, the pastor would be able to devote time to nurturing new believers or exploiting other opportunities.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Confident and Equipped. The 3rd Junior Anglican Evangelical Conference, 9-11 September 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:56:00 +0100

Exploring ordination? Ordinand? Curate? Early years of incumbency? This is for you!

Confident & Equipped

Our task of proclaiming the gospel to our nation faces serious challenges and calls for a renewed Church. This conference will help prepare us to meet those challenges and shape the future of the denomination as conﬁdent and equipped Anglican Evangelicals.

In the Programme:
Bible Readings - ‘Do Not Be Ashamed’ from Lee Gatiss
Simon Austen on Staying in the Church of England
Ben Cooper on Positive Complementarianism
Sam Allberry on Human Sexuality

Workshops on Selection, Curacies, Rural Ministry, Non-Evangelical Parishes, Guarding Your Heart, Engaging in Deanery and Diocese, Urban Ministry, Building Ministry Teams

King's Park Conference Centre, Northamptonshire, Monday 9th-Wednesday 11th September 2013. Full cost £130. Day rates available on enquiry.

Bookstall by '10 of Those'.

JAEC began as an initiative in 2010 to encourage the development of a new generation of denominational leaders. That is why it focuses on those exploring full-time ministry or in the early years. It welcomes Anglican Evangelicals who are committed to the principles of the proclamation of the gospel of Christ for the salvation of the nation and the transformation of the Church of England to be an effective vehicle for that proclamation.

For further information please contact emailJAEC@gmail.com

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend: