Preached 19 May 2013 Glenquarie Anglican Church.

James 2:14-26

Another major endorsement of Rick Smith here in Sydney Diocese,

Director of Evangelism and New Churches, Bruce Hall, who is known for his passion for  multicultural ministry and church planting, says he’d like to see Rick as Archbishop because he’d like to see more of what he’s been doing repeated around the diocese.

Rev Hall, who was rector of one of Sydney’s largest churches, St Paul’s Carlingford, for 29 years,  joins a host of synod representatives from across the diocese, incoming Moore College Principal Mark Thompson, at least 22 members of the Diocesean Standing Committee and the Deans of Sydney, Parramatta and Wollongong Cathedrals in endorsing Mr Smith.

I preached through James 2:1-13 this past Sunday and was struck in my preparation with the repeated use of the theme of the courtroom and the law by James. 4 times, the theme is used and they show the progression of argument that James makes.

James2:3 If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4 have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

Here is James’ basic ethical instruction-  have no favourites (see also 2:1). When we discriminate amongst people we “become judges with evil thoughts”. It is not judging per se that is the issue – we all need to make judgement on all sorts of things all the time – but judgement with evil thoughts that is wrong. The evil thought, of course, is that one man is more deserving of special treatment than another. All of that, of course, is a denial of the grace we have been shown. Besides, there is only one truly deserving of honour; Jesus. And so James deliberately calls him “the glorious Lord Jesus Christ”. He is glorious, but everyone else is a recipient of His grace if they are to be accorded honour.

If we are, indeed, judges with evil thoughts then the great irony is that we will fit in well to the next courtroom that James points us to:

6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?

It’s a brilliant rhetorical flourish. When we side with the rich we end up siding with the very ones who drag us into court. This was, by all accounts, a real problem for the early church. Not just that, the language of the rich exploiting the poor is resonant with a repeated Old Testament theme…

Lev. 19:15  Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly.

Amos 5:12 For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes and deprive the poor of justice in the courts.

James’ charge becomes, essentially, equivalent to that of the Prophets – the people of God are not treating the poor amongst them correctly.

And so we move to another courtroom.

James 2:8    If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.

Now we enter the royal courtroom of God Himself and hear His law read to us. By God’s holy standards, already alluded to and now seen clearly, we can not stand. As James will go on to argue, it is useless saying “but I get so many other areas right, why does this one matter?” The royal law does not wipe away the detail of the Torah but, instead, shows it’s full effect. All the various laws in the OT that regulate our interaction can be summarised in this one pithy but deeply searching demand – Love your neighbour as yourself.

So why are we so busy judging one another with evil thoughts (v4), acting like those who take us unfairly to court (v6) when we ourselves are condemned law breakers?

And so to the last of the four courtrooms.

James 2:12    Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

There is a better way and a better law in a better courtroom. There is a “law that gives freedom”. James has already shown us this law:

James 1:25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.

that law has been previously written about this way:

1:18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth … 21 …humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.

This perfect law is the saving life-giving word to which the royal law points. It is the word that exposes us for who we really are, sinners (James 1:22-24), but also speaks of the life-saving sinner-redeeming mercy found in Jesus.

And it teaches us to therefore act according to that freedom-giving law. We will be judged by that law and found to be righteous, not because we are good or glorious, but because there is mercy. So we ought to treat those we think less glorious in the same way. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Four courtrooms, but one gospel argument that changes the way we treat others.

Here’s a great 20 minute clip of a longer discussion between Andrew Wilson and Rob Bell on the subject of sexual ethics on Premier Radio‘s Unbelievable Program.

It’s a wonderful example of a sustained debate on the topic of homosexuality. But more than that it exposes the paucity of Bell’s argument. Watch carefully how he avoids clear answers, has no comprehensive unitive biblical theology, avoids specific exegesis of the text, appeals to the Lord’s Supper as a “cover-all” unitive act,  and then finally gets angry and swears when he realises he actually doesn’t have an answer that will allow him to maintain his self-description as an orthodox Christian. That last point is key, friends, time and time again liberals get really really frustrated when they get exposed as “giving up an orthodox position” (as Brierly, the show’s presenter, puts it).

On a related note, Where Are Rob Bell’s Glasses?

Preached Sunday 12 May 2013, Glenquarie Anglican Church.

Preached on Sunday 5 May 2013, Glenquarie Anglican.

A while ago I wrote about Seamus and Rachel Macdonald who are working hard for the Lord in Mongolia.

…he and Rachel have decided to get into theological education with Pioneers – specifically Mongolian. And to get the best results in learning the language you have to go native. So they did. Which means a few months ago they got on a plane and flew to Ulan Bator, the capital of Mongolia.

In one of those wonderful works of providence, the church which I have become rector of is a regular supporter of the Macdonalds.

Seamus and Rachel have a blog which is well worth reading and now they’ve made a short video showing some of what they’re involved in.

Keep praying for them. And perhaps some of us should club together and buy that one gutsy young man in the video a kangaroo hat?!

I just noticed a fascinating snippet in an article I was reading. In ““This is Fox 21 News. Can We Come Talk To You?” … Yes”“, McKrae Game speaks about an interview with a TV crew about transgender people. The article itself is quite fascinating and deserves a good read.

But I noticed something really striking in the middle,

As I did the interview with What Jesus Did, which is the wrist band I wear that says WJD…

WWJD?

It’s an obvious play on the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) bracelets that were so popular a while back (and might still be in some places, for all I know). A helpful reminder as we consider our actions, but always prone to end up in some form of moralism if we’re not careful.

I like the concept of WJD – What Jesus Did. What did He do? He gave Himself for us. He did everything.

Gal. 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

WJD puts the emphasis not on Jesus’ loving moral life (as good as it certainly was) but on His loving sacrificial death – there is the great act of grace that saves us. But more than that  - it leads to our own recreation and resurrection. We “die with Christ”, our old sinful self is put to death and we live a new life in Him. The Day after Ascension Day we ought to also have clearly in mind that Christ has ascended to heaven and taken our humanity right into the presence of God where he ever intercedes for us so that we might never fear to approach God. Quite incredible.

And all of this simply due to What Jesus Did.

There is a far better answer to the conundrum of how the Christian does right in the world. Not by simply following Jesus’ example of good works which can all too often turn into a repeat of Sisyphus’s futile work, well beyond our own mortal ability. But by thinking on and being internally renewed by Jesus gracious giving of Himself – His death and subsequent resurrection and ascension – there is a better way.

via cultofmac

Following on from last Friday’s announcement of Glenn Davies’ candidature, another candidate has been presented for the role of Archbishop of Sydney – Rick Smith.

The strategy of the Why Rick campaign is notably different from that of those supporting Glenn Davies. Whereas the Davies website seeks to set out a comprehensive argument as to why Davies ought to be Archbishop, Why Rick has opted for another approach – that of an ongoing conversation.

Rick Smith

As senior minister of Naremburn Cammeray Anglican ChurchRev Canon Rick Smith has proved himself ready to be our Archbishop.

We’d like to send you a series of relevant video emails so you can get to know him better and understand why we are so keen for the synod to elect him. There will be interviews with Rick on a range of topics and commentary from senior church leaders, synod representatives and members of Rick’s staff and church.

Synod members are invited to sign up to receive regular emails containing information about Smith. The strategy is to slowly have a “conversation” with the electorate in this election (i.e. synod members) about Rick Smith and why he is the best choice for Archbishop.

A letter sent to Synod members [pdf] has the personal endorsement of 22 of the members of the Sydney Synod Standing Committee. Standing Committee has  56 persons, of whom 5 are bishops (including Glenn Davies) and a further 3 are Sydney Diocesan Secretariat staff (the equivalent of “civil servants”) and, of course Rick Smith himself. Thus at the very start Rick Smith has the support of 22 out of 47 members who could express an opinion on the subject. I am sure there will be more to follow.

I want to do my best to report to my readers on this campaign so I think it’s also important that I be transparent.

I think Glenn Davies is a good candidate – a candidate that many dioceses in the world would be pleased to have. But I think Rick Smith is an even better candidate. Over the next few weeks I’m looking forward to telling you why that is. In the meantime you could always go and subscribe to the Why Rick updates.

I like this approach, it’s helpfully conversational and seeking to have that conversation with the right people; members of Synod, not simply everyone they can reach on facebook. And I also note a useful transparency on the website about who is running the campaign. Most of all, I like Rick. I’ve got to know him over the past few years and I’ve been impressed. I also know many of the people who work for him and what they say impresses me even more.

I should leave you, however, with the closing paragraph of the introduction letter:

May we suggest that this would be a good time to request our congregations to be  praying for our deliberations.

Indeed.

Bosco Peters’ latest post on his Liturgy website is a great example of a liberal attack on the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), not just for the substance but the manner in which the doctrine is attacked.

At our recent synod meeting, one of the songs was Stuart Townend and Keith Getty’s In Christ alone with the words:

“Till on that cross as Jesus died, The wrath of God was satisfied”

Those words as understood by many (if not most) in that room are heresy. The understanding of those words by many (most) who enthusiastically sing this in services around the planet is heretical.

The understanding is that God (The Father) was angry at us in our sinfulness. And that God took out this rage on Christ instead of on us. And that this now enables God (The Father) to love us.

This understanding is heresy.

Now, at first sight one wants to agree with Bosco. The gross over-simplification that “God took out this rage [His anger at our sinfulness] on Christ instead of on us” is one of the most common of canards thrown at PSA. But as the conversation progresses it becomes clear that Bosco has no real intention of clarifying PSA and defending it against such misrepresentations – rather he gives every impression of being happy to have them repeated and propagated. You see this both in the comments that are left unchallenged and the comments he himself makes. Others describe it as “sadistic theology“, “Divine child abuse“, Bosco claims you need “theological mental gymnastics” to ” [allow] an orthodox interpretation” (i.e. no straightforward thought about those words would lead you to an orthodox reading).

Things get better when Bosco affirms another commentor who refers to those who hold to PSA as “Klingons” and “gory glory seekers” – for Bosco this is “encouragement“.

So it becomes clear where Bosco stands on all this. Rather than simply opening up discussion, he is content to allow commentor after commentor not only deny PSA, but also consistently misrepresent it – making no distinction between the apparent “misunderstanding” of PSA and it’s true position.

I, and a number of others, challenged him on this and the result was quite interesting. You can read the exchange here, following on here. Do note how the argument being made is absolutely clear, and not least at all to the “Melbourne College of Divinity 5 year theology degree after graduating a Bachelor with philosophy & logic, and teaching diploma etc.” Bosco himself.

The New Testament clearly refers to Jesus in specific penal substitutionary language and affirms text that speak in that manner. So, as the example I gave, Peter says this:

1Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” 25 For “you were like sheep going astray,” but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Peter is quite obviously quoting this text:

Isa. 53:4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

and telling us that it refers to Jesus. Of course, that may not be the original referent (although I think it is fairly obvious to any Christian reader that it is) but Peter tells us that it is a “New Testament” way to understand the text. Even in this diluted way of reading Isaiah, the point is utterly obvious – Isaiah 53 is about Jesus. But Bosco, who must surely know the implications of this simple argument for his campaign to undermine PSA, starts wriggling – there is no other word for it:

The identity, David, as I’m sure you know, of the servant in the Servant Poems first isolated by Duhm, is disputed. Israel, Israel under the name of Jacob, the prophet and his disciples, as contemplated by other Israelites or foreigners, or by the foreigner Cyrus

to which I make the following response

except, of course, the NT clearly identifies that one not least as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

1Pet. 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

The Apostle Peter thinks it refers to Jesus. What say you, Bosco?

What does Bosco say? Well it’s really hard to tell….

Yes, David, I’m quite comfortable with the way that 1 Peter uses that text. Blessings.

When I point out to him that he’s plainly avoided answering the difficult question he gets a bit upset. Wrathful, even, one might say. I get accused of “ad hominems” and the rest of it – this, remember, from the man who is quite happy to see people who hold my position referred to as “klingons” and “gory glory seekers”. What’s good for the goose is, apparently, no good for the gander. Or, in more simple language, the double standards are breathtaking.

But this, my friends, is always the way. A liberal puts up an attack on orthodoxy in the form of a “discussion”. They encourage all and sundry to affirm the position they are trying to promote. Then when somebody comes along and very simply shows how the argument won’t stand they dig in and accuse them of all sorts of name-calling etc. without at any time stopping those who agree with them from doing far worse.

And I trust, dear reader, you are also not blind to the fact all of this is interspersed with little throw-away suffixes of “blessings” and “Christ is risen”  - again this is the liberal way: make some “Christian” affirmation as though it will persuade us all that there is nothing but truth being propagated here. But nothing could be further from the truth. The liberal, particularly those in the Anglican Communion we are by now very familiar with, revels in such things – they even provide a supposed authenticity as though their constant repetition is somehow a badge of orthodoxy. That and liturgy. The liberals in the Anglican Communion are big fans of liturgy – again it is seen as authenticating.

And that was where I thought all of this was ended until a late commentor did us all a favour by showing just what sort of genuine “mental gymnastics” are required to sustain a denial of PSA:

God no doubt has very good reasons to be annoyed with most of us – in the ways in which we cripple the Good News of the Gospel by over-emphasising God’s righteous indignation.

However, one of the reasons God sent His Son into the world was to show forth in a human being the possibilities of redemption through loving-kindness – as opposed to that obtainable by adherence to The Law. Saint Paul emphasised this importance aspect of soteriology.

The closing reference to Paul is almost comedic. Why? Well consider these words from Paul:

Eph. 2:3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.

Paul makes is abundantly clear that we were all deserving of the wrath of God. But why? According to Fr Ron Smith it is because we “cripple … the Gospel by overemphasising God’s righteous indignation”. But what does Paul say the reason is? Well, immediately prior to v3 we read this…

Eph. 2:1    As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

We are objects of God’s wrath because of our trangressions and sins, says the Apostle Paul. In other words, quite simply, God is angry at us because of our trangressions and sins. This is no extraordinary statement – it is the single overwhelming crisis laid out in the Scriptures from first page to last. The very first sin ever, in the Garden, leads to God’s anger against the first man and woman – against their sin. And it leads to the punishment of death. Again, that this theme courses through the Scriptures is surely uncontrovertible. You would have thought.

The solution to all this, the Scriptures teach, is that one dies in our place. The entire OT sacrificial system models this and then Jesus Himself comes and does it. He is no “abused child” and there is no “lashing out by God”, rather He chooses Himself to lay down His life (John 10:11, 15, 17-18). Those last two verses are stunning how they tell of the unity of purpose between Father and Son:

John 10:17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

Father and Son act together. The Father does not force the Son, He lays down his life of His own accord with the authority given to Him by the Father and the Father loves Him for it. The atonement is therefore categorically not the Father against the Son but, rather, the Father acting with the Son. The Spirit is also involved,

Heb. 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

The atonement is something that goes on within the Trinity, with it’s effects applied outside the Trinity to those who trust in the Son, by the power of the Spirit. Which makes the Cross the key to it all – no wonder that the Apostle Paul tells us he will speak of nothing else! But all this is laid aside by those like Peters who seek to undermine PSA. With that in mind, this last statement by Fr Ron Smith, as shocking as it is, should not surprise us:

However, one of the reasons God sent His Son into the world was to show forth in a human being the possibilities of redemption through loving-kindness – as opposed to that obtainable by adherence to The Law. Saint Paul emphasised this importance aspect of soteriology.

God the Father did not crucify Jesus. This horrendous task was attributable to sinful human beings – who mistook the redemptive mission of Jesus as being heretical, and contrary to what they perceived to be God’s Law.

It was the loving actions of Jesus towards known sinners that gave rise to his trial and death. He had rescued people from the due penalty of the Law, and for that he was crucified!

Now consider careful what is being argued here. Jesus rescued people from the due penalty of the Law by loving sinners. This love of sinners was seen in “redemption through loving-kindness”. And it was only because of this salvific action that He was crucified!

So, logically, the Cross (in the soteriology put forward by Fr Smith) does not save! Jesus saves people by loving them. And he is crucified for it. And then Smith has the gall to say that this is Pauline soteriology! Pauline! According to Paul it is the Cross that reconciles people to God (Eph. 2:16), reconciles all things by making peace through the blood of Jesus (Col. 1:20),  and cancels the charge of the Law (Col 2:14) – it is the Cross that saves! Something that Smith claims Jesus achieves purely by loving people. Smith’s soteriology is a mile away from Paul’s.

2 final thoughts.

First, to see Anglicans argue this way (especially Anglicans who are so keen to affirm their orthodoxy) is amazing. Here is the official Anglican position on the atonement set out in the Holy Communion prayer of consecration (also mirrored in Article XXXI):

LMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world…

Again, it requires real “mental gymnastics” to read this other than as affirming PSA despite Peters’ protestations.

Second, it is very telling that Isaiah, in the great Servant Song of Isa. 52-53 that we have referred to, has this to say:

Is. 53:1    Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

Indeed, some people just don’t get it and refuse to believe it. Isaiah writes about the great saving work of the Servant and the New Testament affirms to us that Jesus is being spoken of. But some simply will not accept that this is the “arm of the LORD” at work.

Isa. 53:10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

There it is in black and white. It’s about Jesus, the New Testament reminds us. And yet there are men and women out there who fight hard to deny it. They are not by any means passive in their opposition – pastors of the church of God, they seek to deny the work of Christ on the Cross.

The Apostle Paul (he of the soteriology) picks up on the opening “wisdom” language of Isaiah’s song (Isa. 52:13) when he writes,

1Cor. 1:18    For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

You want to know who is truly foolish or wise? Look at how they speak about the Cross and what they teach it does or does not achieve.

Or then again, just accept their simple affirmations that they are “creedal”. But we’ve been there before…

For the last 6 months members of the Diocese of Sydney have been having conversations amongst themselves about who should replace Peter Jensen as Archbishop when he retires in a few months. Several names have been canvassed and considered. Options have been aired and then rejected and a few names have kept cropping up.

This weekend what many have known became official. The first candidate has thrown their hat into the ring. Glenn Davies, current bishop of the Northern Region of Sydney has allowed himself to be nominated for the position of Archbishop. The announcement was made in the form of a brochure sent to many synod reps (being not yet officially appointed I haven’t received my copy but I saw one at another minister’s house this morning). The brochure sets out the argument for Davies and points readers on to a website, glenndavies.info.

Glenn and Di Davies – glenndavies.info

Commending Dr Glenn Davies
For the Office of Archbishop of Sydney

Dear friends,

In August, we will meet to elect the twelfth Bishop of Sydney. Our prayer is that God will raise up a godly and gifted shepherd to pastor and lead us, to engage publicly with our wider society, and to defend, preserve, and strengthen our evangelical Anglican heritage both within and beyond the Diocese.

For this reason, we are writing to commend to you the Rt Rev Dr Glenn Davies, Bishop of North Sydney, for your prayerful consideration as the next Archbishop. We believe that Glenn is the man whom God has raised up and equipped for this difficult task, for the following reasons.

Glenn exemplifies all the qualities of a Bishop, as set out in the Pastoral Epistles. His ministry as Bishop of North Sydney over the past 12 years has demonstrated this, confirming the judgment of our present Archbishop in appointing him.

Glenn has the proven ability to lead and manage an organisation as large and complex as our Diocese. With his experience as a Bishop overseeing 64 parishes, and his long involvement in many key Diocesan entities, there is no one better placed to be able to take on this demanding role. He is a team player who leads collaboratively and effectively.

Glenn has the theological acumen required of the chief pastor-teacher of our Diocese. Glenn is respected, nationally and internationally, as a teacher, preacher and theologian.

Glenn has a pastor’s heart. He engages others with a pastoral sensitivity that is compassionate and engenders trust.

Glenn is an accomplished media spokesperson, with considerable public exposure and media experience that has won respect in the wider community.

Glenn has demonstrated the grace and courage to commend and defend the gospel in Australia, and globally through GAFCON and other international bodies.

We warmly commend Glenn to you.

Rick Smith

There’s no doubt at all that Glenn is a strong candidate and the website seeks to set out exactly why that is the case. It’s no secret that here in Sydney he’s long been considered the default heir of Jensen’s seat, but that’s not the same as saying his election in the upcoming election synod is a foregone conclusion. Precisely because there are many who have their doubts about Davies there’s been talk of other candidates and again it is no secret to tell you that Rick Smith (the current rector of Naremburn/Cammeray) is very likely to be officially nominated in the coming weeks. There will probably be a couple of other names added too but at the moment Davies and Smith are widely acknowledged to be the main candidates.

Which to pick? It’s a dilemma that would be wonderful for pretty much any diocese in the world, but Sydney is particular about it’s Archbishops. We won’t settle for a good choice, we want to make sure we get the best choice. And yes, I’ll be having more to say about that choice in the weeks to come.

Given the importance of Sydney Diocese, particularly within the FCA/GAFON movement, I join with many here in Sydney, no matter who they’re backing, in asking for your prayers for this enormous decision.

From the GAFCON site:

The Second Global Anglican Future Conference will be held in Nairobi, Kenya, 21st-26th October 2013. The focus will be on our shared Anglican future, as we engage with the missionary theme, ‘Making Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.’

The first conference, GAFCON 2008, was held in Jerusalem. GAFCON gave birth to a movement, the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. The aims of the GFCA are to proclaim and defend the apostolic gospel within and beyond the Anglican Communion and to recognise and share fellowship with orthodox Anglicans globally, especially those who have been disaffiliated by false teaching and behaviour.

We continue to face the triple challenge of sceptical secularism, militant religion and compromised Christianity. GAFCON 2013 has been summoned so that GFCA can help both plan for and experience the future of the Communion of which we, with many others, are part.

The invited delegates, laity, clergy and bishops, are united by their commitment to the Jerusalem Declaration and Statement as well as the aims of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. They will assemble to listen to God, to pray, to deliberate, and to plan about the Anglican future, seeing it as a great spiritual and missionary fellowship, energised by the defence and proclamation of the gospel.

The General Secretary of the GFCA, Archbishop Peter Jensen said, ‘God is establishing new churches creating new believers and transforming lives. Our hope for the future is in him. Our aim is to move forward confidently, to plan and experience in fellowship a future for Anglicans in which his Word is honoured and our witness is clear. We are looking forward with great expectation to seeing God at work as we meet in Nairobi.’

Should be a great event. Expect invitations to be issued soon.

Courtesy of my fellow Stand Firm blogger Allan Haley (no mean slouch in the court room himself) comes this brilliant judgement from a judge in the South of Texas. Well worth reading through to the bottom line (every pun intended) for sheer genius. You’ll be abreast of what he’s trying to achieve from the very start.

Enjoy.

Driving through my new neighbourhood I spotted a sign calling for blood donors. While I can’t currently give blood (UK citizens are barred in many countries due to possible exposure to BSE) I would certainly like to. The UK has a great culture of blood donation and I hear that the Red Cross here in Australia are keen for UK Citizens to be able to donate, once the question of testing for BSE has been sorted out.

There’s not doubt about it, blood saves lives. Many of us have family members who would be dead today if people hadn’t donated. It’s possibly one of the most wonderful things you can do for another person – blood is life and so it’s a great gift. I want to encourage as many of you as possible to consider doing it.

But I can’t give blood and save lives.

As much as I want to, I just can’t.

I knew all this as I drove along. I saw the sign, wondered if I might donate and realised that there was nothing I could do as things stood.

And it’s the same in my job as a pastor. I can’t give blood. The Christian deals in matters of spiritual  life and death and the Christian pastor all the more so. The danger is, as we move in a world that is hurting and spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1) that we are deluded into thinking that we are the ones who can save lives. Or, equally damaging, others will think we can save lives. We just can’t  - we’re incapable. The temptation is to want to, because we seek to love people, and so we might very well give of ourselves almost to the point of blood (or it might at least feel like it). But we can’t give blood, at least not blood that will save people.

But, of course, there is someone who can give blood and save a life. More than one life. Jesus is the great blood donor:

Col 1:19 For in [Jesus Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

It is Jesus’ blood that brings life and health and peace, not our own. The Christian and the Christian pastor should always remember. There already is one that gave blood and saved lives and we do better to point others to his saving work, not try and do it ourselves.

It’s been a while since I last posted. We’ve arrived back in Australia and moved ourselves to Macquarie Fields where I’ve just begun my new role as Rector (Senior Minister) of Glenquarie Anglican Church and Chair of Break the Cycle.

Macquarie Fields [wiki] is obviously a very different place to Neutral Bay [wiki] where we’ve moved from and yet it’s still the same. While there may be vast differences in wealth and opportunities, some things don’t change. The cracks in the walls of people’s lives can be much the same, but in some places the wallpaper covering the crack is much nicer.

The basic task of bringing the gospel to people in both word and accompanying deed remains the same. I covet your prayers as I set about leading people in it. There’s some wonderful work going on around us as people strive to meet the immediate and deeper needs of what is, in parts, a struggling place. We’re immensely privileged to be a part of it.

Over the coming months I’ll be working hard at understanding the place and sharing some of that here with you.

Repin, Christ and Nicodemus

Good Friday is full of reflections from different people about different aspects of the Crucifixion narrative. There’s always much to say but perhaps this is one you’ve not heard much of before. As I was reading John’s gospel this morning I was reminded of one of the examples given in that gospel of God drawing someone irrevocably to Jesus and the lessons we learn from it. In this case, in the person of Nicodemus.

Nicodemus gets three mentions in John’s gospel. The first is the most famous:

John 3:1   Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9   Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

It’s a famous encounter and space restricts how much we can comment upon here. Nicodemus is curious and acknowledges that Jesus has some form of divine mission. However, he comes in the dark and is very much still in the dark when the meeting is over. He just doesn’t get it. And, of course, why would he? The words Jesus speak to him tell him why he will never get it without divine intervention. To truly understand who Jesus is he must be born again – there must be an external and deliberate act of the Spirit in bringing him to new life. Then, and only then, will he “see the kingdom of God” and it’s King.

But that is not to say that the divine work of conversion comes on it’s own. Jesus goes on to explain that everything he has been speaking about is something that Nicodemus, as a “teacher of Israel” should already know. It’s all in the Old Testament (and, as just one example, the language of being born again, of water and spirit and the breath of the Spirit is all from Ezekiel). More than that, Jesus has brought with him more testimony in His own words (v11-12) but Nicodemus does not understand.

And not only Nicodemus. The “you’s” in verses 11& 12 are all plural – it is not only Nicodemus who is included in this indictment. Who else does Jesus have in mind here? Well the obvious first answer must be all those who are a “teacher of Israel” which must mean the leadership of Israel and not least the Sanhedrin to which Nicodemus belongs.

And it is amongst these “teachers of Israel” that we next find Nicodemus.

John 7:45   The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why did you not bring [Jesus]?” 46 The officers answered, “No one ever spoke like this man!” 47 The Pharisees answered them, “Have you also been deceived? 48 Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? 49 But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed.” 50 Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, 51 “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?”

Opposition to Jesus has grown rapidly, not least amongst Israel’s teachers. As they challenge the temple guards over their failure to arrest Jesus they make the observation that not one of the “teachers” believes in him – as though this ought to be enough to settle the matter. Of course, we already know that it does settle the matter – but Jesus has already settled for us why they do not accept Jesus.

In their statements they reveal more of their failure to act as Israel’s true teachers. They accuse the crowd of not knowing the Law of Moses and therefore being accursed in their following of Jesus (v49). But we have already seen that a proper knowledge of the Law leads one to respond properly to Jesus:

John 1:45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

…

John 7:19 ”Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?”

And so Nicodemus speaks up,

50 Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, 51 “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?”

He is one of them, ie a teacher of Israel, and yet perhaps he is finally teaching properly – by turning to the Law, to the Scriptures. And he calls them to do exactly what Jesus has appealed to them to do (and the implicit challenge to the reader that runs throughout John’s gospel) – to judge him by his divine words and his divine actions; words and actions which are in harmony with the Law and the Prophets they claim to teach to Israel.

We meet Nicodemus one last time, close to the end of the gospel.

John 19:38   After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. 39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight.

Joseph’s request to Pilate was secret, but his subsequent action would not have been – how could it be? He very publicly takes the body down. And he is joined by Nicodemus. Again John reminds us that Nicodemus first came to Jesus by night. But it is no longer night, although it is a dark, dark day. John has already told us that there was a desire  to get everything finished before the Sabbath which would have started at sunset (v31). So Nicodemus, who once came by night, now helps bury Jesus in broad daylight. He has gone from a scared questioner, then calling for an open and honest assessment of Jesus’ claims through to now standing publicly as one of those who trusts Him. He is truly Israel’s teacher, following the one to whom the Law and the Prophets and Jesus’ words and actions all testified.

And why? Well we already saw Jesus explain. The Spirit moves as He will (3:8) and so He moved in the life of Nicodemus, bringing the divine testimony of Scripture and Jesus’ words and actions to illumine Nicodemus’ heart so that he would see and enter the Kingdom of God.

May that same Spirit quicken your heart this Good Friday.

Took the family to York today to see the excellent Jorvik Viking Centre and then on to York Minster, the seat of the Archbishop of York.

I absolutely love church buildings all the way from the beautiful protestant “meeting house” buildings we saw in colonial Boston through to the almost grotesque Roman Catholic cathedrals we also visited in the States. Some fill me with great joy (along with sadness at the thought of the heretical nonsense being preached in some of the US’s finest church buildings) and others repulse me with the overt Mariolatry but all of them fascinate and draw me in. Love it all.

York Minster is no different. Full of wonderful objects like the stunning windows, the awesome quire etc. I spent a merry hour educating my kids (well, at least merry for me) on the symbolism of crossed keys and kneeling lambs, the position of the King of Kings over and above the Kings of England at the entry to the quire, the reason why the pulpit is an octagonal shape etc. etc.

But there were also some, well, curiosities.

For example look at this, the “high altar” in the Quire.

High Altar at York Minster

Now take a look at that. In particular note the red curtain covering 3 sides of the “altar”.

Now read this from the Communion Service of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the standard for worship in the Church of England:

The Table at the Communion time having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the Church, or in the Chancel, where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said. And the Priest standing at the north side of the Table shall say the Lord’s Prayer with the Collect following, the people kneeling.

The north side of the table (note, a “table” is where you have a meal as opposed to an “altar” where you sacrifice something) is the short edge on the let hand side as you look at it. The priest starts there and stays there. The point, of course, is that the priest stands neither in front of the table so as to mediate between the sacraments and the people nor behind the table so as to mediate between God and the sacrament. He stands on the side since he is a partaker in the meal, not the one upon whom it hinges.

But in York Minster there is literally no place for him to do so.

As you exit the quire on the south side you come to the Zouche Chapel with this charming notice on the door.

Read that, then consider this from the 39 Articles, still the official standard of doctrine for the Church of England:

XXVIII. OF THE LORD’S SUPPER

…

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

And all of this in one of our greatest cathedrals.

Here’s hoping Good Friday will be much better.