Gig em

Total Depravity

2012-02-02T10:16:00.000-08:00

Total Depravity

A 19^th-century American joke about the woman who, when asked what she thought of the doctrine of total depravity, replied that it was a very good doctrine if people would only live up to it.

It doesn’t go without saying that we are sinners, under God’s condemnation and in need of his forgiveness.

The same God who commands that the good news of salvation be shouted with a loud voice from the top of a mountain (Isa 40.9) also commands that the bad news of his people’s sins be preached and preached out loud with a voice ‘like a trumpet’ (Isa 58.1)

Isaiah 58:1 (ESV)

“Cry aloud; do not hold back; lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression, to the house of Jacob their sins.

The doctrine of sin needs to be preached, not presupposed.

“Although traditional Christianity is true, its truth saws against the grain of much in contemporary culture and therefore needs constant sharpening. Christianity’s major doctrines need regular restatement so that people may believe them, or believe them anew. Its classic awareness’s need to be evoked so that people may have them, or have them again. Recalling and confessing our sin is like taking out the garbage: once is not enough.” Cornelius Plantinga

Genesis 6:5 (ESV)

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 6:11 (ESV)
Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence.

Isaiah 1:4-6 (ESV)
⁴Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, of spring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged. ⁵Why will you still be struck down? Why will you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. ⁶From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil.

Jeremiah 17:1 (ESV)
“The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron; with a point of diamond it is engraved on the tablet of their heart, and on the horns of their altars,

Psalms 51:5 (ESV)
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Mark 7:21-23 (ESV)
²¹For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, ²²coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. ²³All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

Romans 3:10-12 (ESV)
¹⁰as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; ¹¹no one understands; no one seeks for God. ¹²All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Doesn’t mean we are as sinful as they could possibly be or that there is no such thing as virtuous action apart from the saving work of God’s Spirit, or that fallen humanity is bereft of all conscience

Calvin argued that Adam’s fall had such a devastating effect on the image of God in humanity that ‘nothing remains after the ruin except what is confused, mutilated, and disease-ridden.’

A Very Practical Doctrine

1. Depravity and watchfulness:
Reign of sin is broken, nevertheless we are utterly dependent upon God for both our fotgiveness and our sanctification.

In the Lord's Prayer we ask for forgiveness every day.

And even though we have ‘crucified the flesh with its passions and desires (Gal 5.24) there remains for us the urgent, ongoing command to ‘put to death therefore what is earthly in you.” (Col 3.5; Romans 8.13)

2. Depravity and compassion:
We too are but dust (Psalm 103.14). We are by nature companions in a miserable, helpless condition;

3. Depravity and culture
Fallen culture is capable of great works – of beauty, truth and wisdom, it does remind us that on all these works of human hands – even the most magnificent – there will be the stains and smudges of human sin.

4. Depravity and Evangelism
All conversion is a miracle. John 3.1-8 – plus against distortion of message – 2 Cor 4.2-6

Depravity and doxology
Humbling doctrine. That our salvation depends on grace, not works.

Brilliant Analysis from DG Hart

2012-01-21T12:42:00.000-08:00

Can We Get a Little Moral Clarity Here?

from Old Life Theological Society by D. G. Hart

In the light of Newt Gingrich’s recent surge in the polls, let’s see how the fortunes of the Religious Right are developing:

A ~~weak~~ week ago Mitt Romney was leading in the polls and some even talked about his sowing up the nomination after South Carolina and Florida.

Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife did an interview this week in which details of Newt’s infidelities were in full view.

South Carolina may be the most evangelical state in the union, prompting some to call for Christians to migrateto the Palmetto State.

Today, pundits are calling the South Carolina Republican primary a toss-up between Gingrich and Romney, despite Romney’s obvious practice of family values and Gingrich’s marital past.

So where does this lead? First, evangelicals rally behind Tim Tebow who disregards the fourth commandment. Second, evangelical leaders tried to identify Rick Santorum, a Roman Catholic who doesn’t even number the Ten Commandments (let alone interpret them) as evangelicals do (or used to). Now, apparently some evangelicals are willing to overlook the seventh commandment in favor of a conservative Republican.

I personally don’t care how evangelicals vote. Voting is not an act of devotion and is a matter of Christian liberty. But I do grow weary of the constant refrain of faith’s importance for politics when it is so obviously untrue, when a paucity of political ideas forces believers to wrap politics in Christian language. All of us are hypocrites. But not all of us make such a big deal of calling attention to our hypocrisy. If the Religious Right wants the rest of America to take them seriously, they need to acknowledge and explain their selectivity. I have advice — adopt 2k theology which means that you recognize the fallenness of the world and its politicians and so make the best of a bad situation. But if you’re going to insist that religion forms the only adequate basis for morality, and if you’re going to demand political candidates who have a faith that produces the kind of character needed for holding public office, then you better have a ready explanation for your vote for candidates who openly violate the Ten Commandments.

And it would also be good to explain how your identification of political acts with Christian devotion is not a violation of the First Commandment. Admittedly, Karl Barth had his problems as an interpreter of the Reformed tradition. But he certainly recognized the damnable error of investing political parties with religious significance (beyond the indefinite meanings supplied by providence).

Right With God

2011-09-26T16:11:00.000-07:00

We will be welcoming Bishops Larry Robertson and Terry Buckle (retired) later this month for Bishop Buckle’s episcopal visitation and also to meet the new bishop of the Anglican Diocese of the Yukon (Church of Canada), Bishop Robertson.

They will participate in a Revival on October 21-22 at All Saints and then will lead the Confirmation Service on Sunday, October 23 at the 10.45 service.

The Revival Theme will be: Right With God. J.I. Packer has called the teaching of Justification by Faith (Right With God) the central teaching of the church. He said it is like Atlas. “It bears a whole world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of God the Savior.” When Atlas “loses his footing, everything that rested on his shoulders collapses too.”

Justification by works – that is the belief that we can in some way contribute to our being Right With God, is, according to Packer, “the natural religion of mankind, and has been since the Fall.” Further, to believe that we can contribute in even some small way to our salvation is to be an enemy of the gospel of grace.

We will meet on Thursday and Friday evenings (October 20 and 21) at 5.30 for dinner, then from 7-8.30 for a teaching, testimony and hymn singing. It should be a great time – and I hope many of will come and bring a friend.

Last year I attended a Revival held at St. Thomas Episcopal Church in Point Hope, AK. It was a great time, and so we are modeling our 2 gatherings after that time of teaching, testimony and hymn singing.

Unity, Diversity and Liberality

2011-06-06T17:58:00.000-07:00

I Am Tired of All the Options

Jeffrey Bingham, the chair of the theology department at Dallas Theological Seminary, has a phrase he uses when people advocate something that is not a part of the historic Christian faith: “It’s something, but it’s not Christian.” More and more lately I have been asking this question: When do we, in our zeal to remove possible stumbling blocks to the Gospel, offer a form of Christianity that is no longer Christian?

The last few months, in keeping up with my weekly reading of “what is happening now” in theology, I have begun to experience theological nausea. My spirit is sick and it is about to hurl. I don’t know what that looks like, but it does not feel right. There are simply too many “opt outs” being offered – we are beginning to look more like a cafeteria than a church.

In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty . . . right? Let me try to briefly state the issue that I have, today, at 5:24pm CST. I am getting the feeling that Christian apologists and theologians, in order to make our faith more palatable to the outside world, are attempting to move all difficulties of our faith into the “non-essential” category in order to create “opt outs.” This is where just about everything outside of the person and work of Christ becomes negotiable. When does the form of Christianity we offer become something different than the historic Christian faith?

Some examples are in order here (please forgive the snarky spirit of the following):

1. Problem with the doctrine of eternal punishment? No problem. We have these two less common options: universalism or annihilationism. You can believe that all people will eventually be saved or that all the damned will cease to exist.

2. Problem with the truthfulness of Scripture? No issue at all. There is no need to believe that the Scripture is true in everything it says, only the “big parts” like Christ’s resurrection.

3. Problem with a donkey talking and other crazy things? Let me point you to an important word: “metaphor.” Yep, just about any portion of Scripture can be turned into a metaphor, myth, parable, symbol, or any number of things. Point being, you don’t have to accept it.

4. Problem with creation account in Genesis? No need to get down. We have lots of options here, including our latest, theistic evolution. The point is that whatever modern science proposes, you can accept. (See number 3 for the means of acceptance.)

5. Problem with God’s allowing for evil? Easy. We have an option that says God, in order to preserve freedom and true love, cannot know about (much less intervene) in the free-will evil choices that people make. Therefore, he is off the hook. Its called “open theism.” Have fun.

6. Problem with the doctrine of election? I understand. This is a particularly nasty one. However, no need to fear. You don’t have to believe this. There is a modified form of divine election which says God’s choice is based on your choice. There . . . the sting is gone.

7. Problem with the exclusivity of Christ? Again, we have the answer. Nowadays, we have this idea called “inclusivism.” With this fancy option, we say that people can be covered by the blood of Christ without actually accepting the Gospel. Awesome.

Next…

8. Speaking of the “blood” of Christ, some of you might have a problem with the idea that the Father sacrificed his son (and that he was actually happy about it). You know all that archaic stuff about sacrifices and the shedding of blood? You don’t have to accept that either. There are some who believe that Christ was an example rather than the subject of “divine child abuse.” God’s forgiveness is based on his love, not blood.

9. Problem with homosexuality being a sin? Don’t let that hold you back. Many of our most astute theologians have been able to rework this issue so that there is an option on the table which proposes that homosexuality was not universally condemned in the Scripture. Though the ranks of those who advocate this may be few, it is enough to create a loophole to get out of this one. There are even many “gay churches” that you can attend.

Next…

10. Problem with male headship in the church and family? This is one of the easier ones. We have tons of representatives in the church (even denominations) which disagree here. You are free to reject any idea of male headship based upon “cultural context.”

Okay. I am done with the examples…

Here is the problem I have. While I hold to pretty traditional beliefs in these areas, many (not all) of these listed I agree with. In other words, I do believe there are some legitimate alternatives, most notably on the issue of election. While I am a Calvinist, being very committed to unconditional divine election, I understand there are alternative options here that are viable. In short, I don’t believe that a rejection of unconditional election amounts to a rejection of Christianity.

However, when does our removal of intellectual and emotional stumbling blocks create an aberration of Christianity that is Christian only in name? When does our theology get manipulated enough to where it is no longer Christian theology? When do we offer so many choices on the Christian smörgåsbord that the cafeteria’s name needs to change? When does our theology cross the line to where it is “something, but not Christian”?

While writing this, I was talking to a friend who said that she knows a person whom she is trying to evangelize, but that this person has some “issues” with the Christian faith. She wants to bring the friend to the Credo House to discuss them with me. I said in jest, “No problem. Whatever issue the person has, we have multiple alternatives! I can get out of anything.” In other words, whatever their problem is, so long as it is not about the resurrection of Christ, “we know a guy” that can take care of it, if you know what I mean.

I am suspicious of any mindset that is compelled to produce all of these “opt-outs” in order to make Christianity more palatable. Who said that was our job? When did palatability become a test for veracity? Sometimes we believe things that are not palatable, don’t we? Is our desire to be intellectually and culturally viable causing our witness to misrepresent “the faith once for all handed over to the saints”? When do we lose the “fellowship of the saints” due to our minimalization of the Christian faith? Just because something is hard to believe, does this give us the right to scavenger hunt for other options? When have we pulled up so many anchors that we are adrift in a different sea? When is it “something, but not Christian”?

I am tired of all the options. Can we just preach our convictions in the church and not the cafeteria?

The gospel and obedience to the word of God

2011-06-04T16:02:00.001-07:00

Last Sunday, we looked at this verse: ^{16}yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Gal 2.16).

The basis of our standing before God is not by anything we do but by faith in Jesus Christ. For Christ’s death for our sins has removed the enmity between God and ourselves, and his righteousness, imputed (declared) to us, means that we are God’s children, and heirs of eternal life. Paul goes on to say that the way we enter and maintain this relationship with God is by faith – that is faith in the person of Jesus Christ.

This is the gospel. However, as important as these central truths are, there is more to say. We need, for instance to understand that with faith goes repentance. And further, genuine faith leads to obedience - obedience to God which means obedience to his word.

Obedience to the Lord, while not the ground of our justification, is the proper response to the love of God in Christ. In many matters, the word of God is very clear; in others, it is not. Where the word of God is silent, so must we be. But, where it is clear, we must be clear.

The Bible is very clear that sexual relations, gifts from God, are intended for a man and a woman in marriage. The Episcopal Church has upheld this for most of its history – until the last 10 years or so. For a number of reasons, our denomination, contrary to biblical teaching, has now altered this teaching.

We now learn that Bishop Lattime will ordain a non-celibate homosexual woman to the diaconate this Saturday. We have let him know that we believe this to be contrary to God’s revealed will further splintering an already divided denomination. We urge him to follow the word of God and encourage all people, and especially ordained men and women, to live godly lives, and to repent of their sinful behavior - as we all must do.

We read this in Titus 1.9: He (the presbyter/bishop) must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

The Solas

2011-02-03T10:36:00.001-08:00

Keeping the solas together

from The Sola Panel

1 person liked this

By Lionel Windsor

One of the aims of the Sola Panel is to go back to basics, to remind ourselves of the importance of the ‘solas’ (i.e. scripture alone, faith alone, Christ alone, grace alone, glory to God alone). This post will look at one way in which these solas all fit together.

I'm currently reading through Timothy Ward's very helpful book Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God (Inter-Varsity Press, Nottingham, 2009). It's a good and highly accessible exposition of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture, which avoids many of the petty caricatures that are sometimes thrown about, and deals well with a number of modern objections. I highly recommend it as a book to put near the top of your reading list this year.

Early on in the book, Ward seeks to ground our doctrine of Scripture in the even more fundamental doctrine of the ‘word of God’ (or the ‘speech of God’). Ward points out that God's speech is, and always has been, exceedingly powerful. This is seen especially when it comes to God's justification of the ungodly. In this very significant case, God's speech doesn't just inform us about God's salvation; it actually brings salvation to us:

God establishes, by his own declaration, a fundamental change in our standing before him, before he brings about, by the sending of the Holy Spirit, a real change to our sinful state… he spoke, making us by that declaration to be justified in our relationship with him… Thus a fundamental aspect of God's redemptive work occurs when he chooses to speak, and in so doing unilaterally brings us to share here and now in the right standing with him that Jesus Christ has. (pp. 27-28)

This is a pretty good exposition of some of the important connections between God's word/speech and our salvation. But it's important to remember that God's ‘speech-act’ of justification is only one part of the story of salvation.¹

We must always remember that when the Bible talks about God justifying us, it never talks about this justification as a mere declaration that occurs all by itself. It's not the case that God simply says to us out of the blue, “I deem you to be justified”, and that act of speech alone brings about our salvation. Of course, God's speech is mightily powerful. But when it comes to our salvation, God's justifying speech-act is connected to other highly significant powerful actions of God.

The first aspect of God's saving work that we must always remember when we think about justification is the atonement. God's justification of sinners is based squarely on the death of Jesus Christ for our sins—that one supreme act of love and grace whereby Jesus paid for our sins and satisfied the wrath of God. Paul, who of all the biblical authors spells out the idea of justification most fully, never talks about justification in a vacuum. Paul brings the concepts of justification and atonement together. He tells us that we “are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24). The purpose of Jesus' atoning work (Rom 3:25) is to enable God to be ‘just’ and to be the “justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom 3:26). Without the atonement, God could not remain true to his own just standards as creator and judge, and therefore could not justify us. You see the same thing in Galatians—Paul's strong defence in Galatians is that God's justification of sinners doesn't stand alone, but it is based on the fact that Jesus “gave himself for our sins” (Gal 1:4). Justification and the atonement go together; justification without atonement would be nothing and would mean nothing.

The second thing that must not be forgotten when it comes to justification is that those who are justified are united to Christ through faith. This isn't to say that our own faith is itself some wonderful meritorious action that secures a reward from God. What it means is that when God justifies us he's not issuing some arbitrary declaration that makes no sense of the reality of our own personal sin. It's not the case that God one day decides to say to us, “You are righteous”, when patently we are, in fact, miserable sinners. No, God's declaration of us as ‘righteous’ is based on the fact that he, by his Holy Spirit acting through his word which brings about faith, has actually united us to his righteous Son. This means that our own sins are truly cancelled by Jesus' death, and that we truly share in the righteousness that by rights only belongs to Christ. For example, Paul speaks about being “found in him [i.e. Christ], not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil 3:9).

In other words, the Reformation ‘solas’ all go together. God, through the supreme authority of Scripture alone, addresses us, speaks the gospel to us, declares that we are justified, and so brings salvation to us sinners. But this can only be true because Christ alone has performed that once-for-all atoning sacrifice for sins. By faith alone, the sacrifice of Christ is applied to our own reality. All of this is an act of God's grace alone—to the glory of God alone. You can only go so far talking about one or the other of the solas in isolation. They really are a package deal.

¹ I'm not disagreeing with Timothy Ward here, just clarifying a possible misunderstanding. I'm pretty sure that he would agree with what I have to say here, since in the passage I've quoted, he cites Romans 5:8 (about Jesus' death), and goes on to discuss the “effectual calling” whereby God's word creates saving faith.

Moore Stuff from Mark Thompson

2011-02-03T10:13:00.000-08:00

I have long wanted to write a serious piece on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Recently I was given the opportunity to do so through an invitation to contribute to a volume essays, The Bible and the Academy: Critical Scholarship and the Evangelical Understanding of Scripture in the 21st Century, edited by James Hoffmeier and Dennis Magary and to be published by Crossway in 2011. I do not intend to reproduce the article here but instead simply to outline its argument.

My goal was not to present a comprehensive exposition of the doctrine (which would have required about three times the space) but to explore the strictly theological dimensions of the doctrine. While critically biblical inerrancy is a doctrine about the Christian Bible (and not first and foremost about the biblical authors), it has profound connections with the doctrine of God and his involvement in the world he has made.

Here is the outline:

1. Introduction

An acknowledgement of current difficulties with the doctrine and the need for a theological account.

2. A doctrine both theologically robust and exegetically defensible

A response to the charge that the doctrine is itself unbiblical, a brief exploration of how the doctrine raises acutely the question of theological method, and an examination of some classic definitions (Warfield, The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, and Paul Feinberg) alongside Michael Horton's brief but decidedly theological definition.

3. The five theological pillars of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy

These are: (a) God's personal veracity; (b) God's concursive involvement in the created order; (c) God's willingness to accommodate himself for our sake; (d) God's creation and use of human speech and writing; and (e) God's gift of Scripture.

4. A perspective on the difficulties

A concluding comment that reflects on the way critiques of the doctrine routinely deal in caricature, the need to take difficulties with the text seriously without imposing a predetermined solution and recognising that we may not expect all answers to be known in the present, and a plea for maintaining perspective — inerrancy is not the only or perhaps even the most important characteristic of Scripture.

Here is an extract from the conclusion:

As we acknowledged at the beginning, there is much more that could be said. However, it is evident that the theological anchorage of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is both broad and deep. Our understanding of Scripture cannot be isolated from the person and character of the God who gave it to us, just as it may not bypass the genuine freedom and conscious involvement of the human authors of each particular text. What it means for this collection of texts to be the written word of God and what it means for it to be 'genuinely human' must be determined first and foremost with reference to God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Yet what is involved is much more than a theological syllogism or a hasty and unqualified appeal to the hypostatic union of divine and human natures in Christ. Larger theological themes are integrated with Scripture's self-attestation and with a sensitivity to the textures of what we have in fact been given in Scripture.

Biblical inerrancy has more often been engaged by critics in caricature than with serious attention to the best and most serious expositions of the doctrine. Contemporary assessments of the phenomena of Scripture have too often been given priority over the express biblical affirmations or the broader theological framework sketched above. On the one hand, a preoccupation with incidental details has not often been disciplined by sustained attention to the purposes for which Scripture has been given, while on the other, too little attention has been given to the way in which the central message of Scripture is inextricably bound to matters of history and observations about the world in which we live ...

I hope that the full article, when it is published, will answer any questions which might arise from this bare outline and quote from its conclusion. Suffice to say that my research and the process of writing the article strengthened rather than diminished my commitment to this important doctrine, though I remain opposed to using it as a Shibboleth.

Reformation of Anglican Communion

2011-02-02T14:56:00.000-08:00

If the Anglican Communion is to be reformed again it needs to be hear and heed these crucial truths:

It is impossible to take Jesus seriously without taking the teaching of Scripture seriously. Faith in Christ entails acknowledging Christ's Lordship. Submitting to Christ as Lord means being willing to conform our thinking and our behaviour to the words he has given us. Since he endorsed the Hebrew Old Testament (Lk 24:44) and appointed those whose mission produced the New Testament (Mtt 28:18–20; Acts 1:8), we cannot avoid the reality that faith in Christ manifests itself in obedience to the teaching of Scripture (Mtt. 7:24; Jms 1:22).
The Spirit of God never leads people in ways contrary to the teaching of Scripture, which he has been instrumental in producing. Jesus' promise of the Spirit to his disciples was not that the Spirit will lead the churches on from Scripture into truth which somehow supersedes it, but that he will ensure that Jesus' words are heard until the end of the age (Jn 16:13–14). To pit the Spirit against the Scriptures is to fail to understand either.
The most urgent and important need of every human being is to be reconciled to God. We are all naturally God's enemies (Rms 5:10) with the result that we stand under the wrath of the God who loves us (Rms 1:18; Eph. 2:1–3). Our natural disposition is to insist on our own autonomy, to repeat the folly of the Garden of Eden where the goal was to determine right and wrong without reference to God and the word he had given (Gen. 3:4–6). If we are to be reconciled to God, then the cconsequences of our rebellion against him — our guilt, corruption, enslavement to sinful thinking and behaviour, and death — must all be dealt with in their entirety. A gospel which does not explain this most basic need is no gospel at all.
The gospel which the Christian church proclaims is that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3–8). Christ was delivered up for our transgressions and was raised for our justification (Rms 4:25). This is the provision of the triune God whose determined love for the men and women he has made causes him to bear all the consequences of their sin and exhaust them (Eph. 2:4–7).
The embrace of this salvation is only possible by the work of the Spirit transforming human hearts, bringing new life and creating faith (Jn 3:5–6; Rms 8:9–17; 1 Cor 12:3). Without such a work we all remain lost. No human effort will bring us within the orbit of Christ's salvation, it is entirely a gift of grace to undeserving sinners (Eph. 2:8–9). We are justified by faith alone and this faith which is the instrument of our justification is produced in us by the Spirit (Rms 5:1; Gal. 5:5).
To be forgiven, and so incorporated into the family of God, transforms the entirety of our lives. The gospel of Jesus Christ determines an entirely new set of priorities which shape life in the public square, in the workplace, in places of recreation and in our homes. There is no facet of life which stands beyond the claims of Christ's lordship (Phil. 1:27; Col. 2:6–4:6; Eph. 4:1–6:9).
While each of us continues to struggle with various forms of temptation, the continuing dynamic of the Christian life is one of repentance and faith (Mk 1:15; Acts 20:21; Heb. 6:1). Our orientation to sin, in whichever form it is expressed in each of us, is not what defines us and should not be given expression in our thoughts, words or actions. Once again it is the Spirit who has been given to us who enables us in this struggle: 'the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do' (Gal. 5:17).
We are not saved to a life of individualism, self-realisation, independence or autonomy. God has always been about saving a people for himself (Gen 12:2–3; Ex. 19:3–6; Jn 12:32; Rev. 5:9–10). Following Christ means serving others just as he has served us. This is why the local congregation is at the centre of God's purposes. Here the life of service and love is lived out in relationship with others who have been saved by Christ and reaching out to those who are still lost. After all, it is the church — and not just individual Christians — which Christ presents to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish' (Eph. 5:27).
This is not to deny important responsibilities beyond the local congregation, responsibilities modelled at points even in the New Testament (e.g. Acts 15:1–35; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 1 Thess. 1:6–8). Over the centuries, various institutional structures have been developed in order to support, resource and assist the faithful life and witness of the gathered people of God. Yet these must never become the focus of loyalty themselves nor must the unity of the Spirit be confused with a common institutional structure. The unity the Spirit brings is neither created nor preserved by institutional regulation. It arises out of a fellowship in the gospel (Phil. 1:5) which is maintained 'in the bond of peace' (Eph. 4:3). It is a unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph. 4:13) which cannot be separated from a unity of mind (Phil. 2:2; 1 Pet. 3:8). Denominations need to concerned with faithfulness to the gospel of Christ above any consideration of structural cohesion.
Leadership amongst God's people is first and foremost about fidelity to the gospel and a transparent, humble submission to the teaching of Scripture. There should be a mutual accountability of those set apart to serve the churches and those who follow their lead in the churches (Mtt. 23:8). Leaders who abandon the biblical gospel in teaching or lifestyle (ie a lifestyle either lived by them or endorsed by them and contrary to the teaching of Scripture), should be held to account and if they will not repent, be removed for the sake of the people they are meant to be serving in truth and faithfulness (Acts 20:29–31; 1 Tim. 1:18–20; Jude 3).
The mission of Christ is the priority of Christ's people. Amidst the myriad of demands made upon the resources of individual Christians, churches or denominations, those being conformed to the image of God's Son share his concern to save the lost. Preeminently concerned to see lost men and women come to faith in Christ and grow to maturity in him, they will not let evangelism and discipleship be overshadowed by other worthwhile activity.
A longstanding temptation facing the churches has been a longing for acceptance, a sense of respectability, and an acknowledgement by those with power or influence that they have a legitimate place in contemporary society. Such a temptation has often led to an accommodation to elements of the contemporary secular agenda. In all of this the words of Jesus are easily forgotten: '... because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you' (Jn 15:19; 17:14). The church will always be a despised minority in a world arraigned against God. Nevertheless, despite such opposition, even the power of death will not prevail against the church that Christ is building (Mtt. 16:18). Though we ought not to seek the animosity of the world, or indeed provoke it by our own arrogance or folly, we need to remember that vindication and legitimization will only come on the day we are invited to 'enter the joy of our master' (Mtt. 25:21, 23).

When is enough Enough

2011-01-21T17:56:00.000-08:00

Michael Ovey, principal of Oak Hill College (Anglican Seminary) in London, responds to a question regarding error in the church:

Question: What are some of the consequences of a church, seminary or denomination tolerating false teachers?

Answer: This is a hard one to answer. Any church, seminary or denomination will have a range of views. Some of those views will be wrong. Nevertheless there are some views which are so wrong that tolerating them takes the church, seminary or denomination beyond a critical mass, so to speak. When that happens, I think it's clear that error multiplies and will not be confined simply to the original mistake, and at a more fundamental level the tendency is for the organization in question to stop seeking truth and answers but to rest content with the existence of conflicting opinions. In that way the search for truth is a casualty and I feel that that leads to an exponential growth in problems.

Question: Hilary of Poitiers said that 'Heresy lies in the sense assigned, not in the word written. The guilt is that of the expositor, not of the text.' What are the danger signs of this very thing happening in a minister's ministry?

Answer: I think the Hilary quote is brilliant. He also makes the point that a heretic uses the texts of Scripture but connects them in a way that the Scripture does not. Heretics do have an order, says Hilary (in respect of the Arian heresy), but the order is one that is imposed and is the heretic's own...."

p 180, 181 Risking the Truth by Martin Downes, 2009

What is the ACNA?

2011-01-17T14:07:00.000-08:00

ANGLICAN CHURCH

IN NORTH AMERICA

Reaching North America with the Transforming Love of Jesus Christ

Our Genesis

Globally, regionally and locally, Anglicanism is in the process of reformation. Within the last decades, the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada have increasingly accommodated and incorporated un-Biblical, un-Anglican practices and teaching.

In the context of this widening theological gap, the existing geography-based organizational model of the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada became problematic for orthodox Anglicans. Orthodox parishes, clergy and dioceses that upheld Biblical authority and historic Anglican practice became isolated within their existing structures.

Distressed churches and entire dioceses began to disaffiliate from the established provinces in North America and seek episcopal oversight and spiritual care from Anglican Provinces and leaders in other parts of the world, including the primates and churches of Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, South America and Uganda. Beginning in 2000 with the Church of Rwanda, these leaders have responded by accepting orthodox Anglican parishes and dioceses in North America into their care.

In February 2005, leading orthodox bishops and ministries representing a number of different Anglican jurisdictions in North America launched the Common Cause Partnership. In September 2007, the bishops of the partnership gathered to begin shaping a unified and orthodox Anglican church in Canada and the United States. The inaugural meeting of the governing council, held on 17 December 2007, elected the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan as the moderator of the Common Cause Partnership.

Then in June 2008, Anglican leaders from around the world gathered at the Global Anglican Future conference and, among other decisions, determined that the North American Anglican groups under their care and united in the Common Cause Partnership should form a united Anglican body and seek recognition as a province in the Anglican Communion.

Following significant formational work by the Common Cause Partners, these same Anglican leaders have now recognized the resulting ecclesial structure – the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) – as authentically Anglican and have commended formal recognition of ACNA to the other leaders in the Communion. During this period of transition, bishops within ACNA will retain membership in the House of Bishops of the province in which they were members prior to the formation of ACNA.

In bringing together so many faithful Anglicans and Anglican Churches, the ACNA has demonstrated its commitment to unity within the bounds of truth. It represents the reuniting of orthodox Anglicans who have been squeezed out of the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada by successive changes to historic Christian teaching and Anglican practice. Unique among the members of ACNA, the Reformed Episcopal Church was founded in 1873. It has remained faithful to the unchanging Gospel of Jesus Christ for its 135 year history and is now reuniting with others who share the same commitment to the Word of God.

Founding members of the Common Cause Partnership

The ecclesial and non-ecclesial organizations which have worked together to form the 28 dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America are:

Under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone
Diocese of Fort Worth
Diocese of Pittsburgh
Diocese of Quincy
Diocese of San Joaquin
Anglican Network in Canada -
Various missionary initiatives in the United States

Under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of Nigeria
Convocation of Anglicans in North America

Under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of Rwanda
Anglican Mission in the Americas (including the Anglican Coalition in Canada)

Under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of Kenya
Various missionary initiatives in the United States

Under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Province of Uganda
Various missionary initiatives in the United States

Independent Anglican Church
Reformed Episcopal Church

Non-ecclesial founding members of the Common Cause Partnership
American Anglican Council
Forward in Faith North America
Anglican Communion Network

800 Maplewood Avenue ▪ Ambridge PA 15003 ▪ Phone 724-266-9400 ▪ www.anglicanchurch.net

Jerusalem Statement

2011-01-17T14:04:00.000-08:00

The Jerusalem Declaration

In the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit:

We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, have met in the land of Jesus’ birth. We express our loyalty as disciples to the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. We joyfully embrace his command to proclaim the reality of his kingdom which he first announced in this land. The gospel of the kingdom is the good news of salvation, liberation and transformation for all. In light of the above, we agree to chart a way forward together that promotes and protects the biblical gospel and mission to the world, solemnly declaring the following tenets of orthodoxy which underpin our Anglican identity.

1. We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things.

2. We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.

3. We uphold the four Ecumenical Councils and the three historic Creeds as expressing the rule of faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

5. We gladly proclaim and submit to the unique and universal Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, humanity’s only Savior from sin, judgment and hell, who lived the life we could not live and died the death that we deserve. By his atoning death and glorious resurrection, he secured the redemption of all who come to him in repentance and faith.

6. We rejoice in our Anglican sacramental and liturgical heritage as an expression of the gospel, and we uphold the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as a true and authoritative standard of worship and prayer, to be translated and locally adapted for each culture.

7. We recognize that God has called and gifted bishops, priests and deacons in historic succession to equip all the people of God for their ministry in the world. We uphold the classic Anglican Ordinal as an authoritative standard of clerical orders.

8. We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.

9. We gladly accept the Great Commission of the risen Lord to make disciples of all nations, to seek those who do not know Christ and to baptize, teach and bring new believers to maturity.

10. We are mindful of our responsibility to be good stewards of God’s creation, to uphold and advocate justice in society, and to seek relief and empowerment of the poor and needy.

11. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognize the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.

12. We celebrate the God-given diversity among us which enriches our global fellowship, and we acknowledge freedom in secondary matters. We pledge to work together to seek the mind of Christ on issues that divide us.

13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord.

14. We rejoice at the prospect of Jesus’ coming again in glory, and while we await this final event of history, we praise him for the way he builds up his church through his Spirit by miraculously changing lives.

Wisdom from J.I. Packer

2009-12-03T21:32:00.000-08:00

Three keys to real estate: Location, location, location.

Three keys to ministry: "You have three priorities: teach, teach, and teach. Evangelical churches are weaker than we realize because we don't teach the confessions and doctrine. Set new standards in teaching. Understand the word catechesis, and practice that art." - J.I. Packer

The Necessity of the Articles of Religion - Mark Thompson

2009-11-24T14:30:00.000-08:00

The Thirty-nine Articles provide the only secure anchor for an authentic Anglican identity. This is after all the foundational doctrinal statement of the reformed church of England, drafted by the reforming bishops, endorsed by the lay members of the church in parliament, and situated as the touchstone of Anglican theology and practice ever since. Whatever other categories, principles or documents may be presented as integral to the heart of Anglicanism, the simple fact is that the Articles tell Anglicans who they are.

The Articles were never intended to be exhaustive. They are not a comprehensive systematic theology, an Anglican answer to Calvin's Institutes or Melanchthon's Loci Communes. Nevertheless, they do provide the contours of Anglican polity, Anglican practice, and the Anglican commitment to biblical doctrine. They do not claim to be the final authority — that final authority was and is Scripture itself, the word of God written (Article 20) — but they do have a subsidiary authority. Insofar as they are in fact a faithful expression of biblical truth, they rightfully test all contemporary claims to the Anglican inheritance.

One of the freshest and most exciting developments in recent Anglican theology is a return to a serious and respectful study of the Articles. A number of studies have been published in the past few years and are about to be published over the next year or so, all of which seek to expound the doctrine of the Articles as a powerful force in the renewal of Anglican identity worldwide. The Articles do not present us with a moribund theology, one bound irretrievably to discredited epistemological and ontological commitments. Here is a lively confession of trust in Christ which still has the capacity to challenge us to greater fidelity to God's self-revelation in Christ and through the inspired Scriptures. Here is an antidote to fearful, sloppy thinking. The failure of courage that has characterised so much Anglican theology in the last two centuries — as one conviction after another has been surrendered in the doomed attempt to win favour with the world around us — need not determine the future. The 39 Articles are once again the cutting edge!

However, not all references to the 39 Articles today take them seriously on their own terms. Current attempts to revive Newman's interpretation of the Articles lack integrity today just as they did in Newman's time (even he could not sustain it in the long run). Attempts to read an Arminian theology into them, when plainly this is at best anachronistic and at worst a reading of them that is determinedly 'against the grain', must also fail. The suggestion that they are an historical document locked into the debates and concerns of the sixteenth century but without any real relevance to the twenty-first, fails to account for (1) the express intent of the authors; (2) the reaffirmation of the Articles in 1662, one hundred and ten years after they were drafted, when very different circumstances prevailed. The current Archbishop of Canterbury, who at one time assented to the Articles at his own ordination, has recently stated that the differences between Rome and the Anglican Communion — even the controversial ones such women's ordination and the acceptance of homosexuality — are merely secondary matters that ought not delay continued ecumenical advance, simply reaffirms his highly intelligent muddle-headedness.

Are the Articles open to revision? In principle the answer must be 'yes', since they claim to be completely dependent for their authority on the teaching of Scripture. If it can be shown that at one point or other they contradict the teaching of Scripture, then the Articles must give way to Scripture. But the Articles must not be bent to any contemporary ecclesiastical, political or social agenda. They stand over against contemporary theologizing as a check on our hubris and idiosyncracies and as a challenge to our own blind spots. It would need an extraordinary consensus, and a clear demonstration that the changes were drawing us closer to the teaching of Scripture and not further from it, if there was any any substantial revision today.

What is more, as legal argument in the nineteenth century established beyond doubt, the Articles interpret the Book of Common Prayer and not the other way around. Liturgical practice must flow out of theological conviction, not vice versa. Some of the official pronouncements from such bodies as the highly politicised Anglican Communion Office continue to peddle the argument that our theology is derived from the Book of Common Prayer or from the Ordinal. Of course these too are our foundational documents, alongside the 39 Articles. But each of these has a particular function, and the doctrinal standard is the 39 Articles. A failure to recognise this has brought in its wake a host of problems.

The need of the moment is for the obfuscation of the establishment to be replaced by the clarity, boldness and rich edification of Anglicanism's foundational doctrinal statement. This can only result in the future health of this ailing denomination, as Christ crucified, risen and regnant takes his proper place amongst us, which will always be demonstrated by a thoroughgoing submission to the word by which he rules.

The New 'Gospel' - by Kevin DeYoung

2009-11-24T14:27:00.000-08:00

The Gospel Old and New

Have you heard the New Gospel? It’s not been codified. It’s not owned by any one person or movement. But it is increasingly common.

The New Gospel generally has four parts to it.

It usually starts with an apology: “I’m sorry for my fellow Christians. I understand why you hate Christianity. It’s like that thing Ghandi said, ‘why can’t the Christians be more like their Christ?’ Christians are hypocritical, judgmental, and self-righteous. I know we screwed up with the Crusades, slavery, and the Witch Trials. All I can say is: I apologize. We’ve not give you a reason to believe.”

Then there is an appeal to God as love: “I know you’ve seen the preachers with the sandwich boards and bullhorns saying ‘Repent or Die.’ But I’m here to tell you God is love. Look at Jesus. He hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors. He loved unconditionally. There is so much brokenness in the world, but the good news of the Bible is that God came to live right in the middle of our brokenness. He’s a messy God and his mission is love. ‘I did not come into the world to condemn the world,’ that’s what Jesus said (John 3:17). He loved everyone, no matter who you were or what you had done. That’s what got him killed.”

The third part of the New Gospel is an invitation to join God on his mission in the world: “It’s a shame that Christians haven’t shown the world this God. But that’s what we are called to do. God’s kingdom is being established on earth. On earth! Not in some distant heaven after we die, but right here, right now. Even though we all mess up, we are God’s agents to show his love and bring this kingdom. And we don’t do that by scaring people with religious language or by forcing them into some religious mold. We do it by love. That’s the way of Jesus. That’s what it means to follow him. We love our neighbor and work for peace and justice. God wants us to become the good news for a troubled planet.”

And finally, there is a studied ambivalence about eternity: “Don’t get me wrong, I still believe in life after death. But our focus should be on what kind of life we can live right now. Will some people go to hell when they die? Who am I to say? Does God really require the right prayer or the right statement of faith to get into heaven? I don’t know, but I guess I can leave that in his hands. My job is not to judge people, but to bless. In the end, God’s amazing grace may surprise us all. That’s certainly what I hope for.”

Why So Hot?
This way of telling the good news of Christianity is very chic. It’s popular for several reasons.

1. It is partially true. God is love. The kingdom has come. Christians can be stupid. The particulars of the New Gospel are often justifiable.

2. It deals with strawmen. The bad guys are apocalyptic street preachers, Crusaders, and caricatures of an evangelical view of salvation.

3. The New Gospel leads people to believe wrong things without explicitly stating those wrong things. That is, Christians who espouse the New Gospel feel safe from criticism because they never actually said belief is unimportant, or there is no hell, or that Jesus isn’t the only way, or that God has no wrath, or that there is no need for repentance. These distortions are not explicitly stated, but the New Gospel is presented in such a way that non-believers could, and by design should, come to these conclusions. In other words, the New Gospel allows the non-Christian to hear what he wants, while still providing an out against criticism from other Christians. The preacher of the New Gospel can always say when challenged, “But I never said I don’t believe those things.”

4. It is manageable. The New Gospel meets people where they are and leaves them there. It appeals to love and helping our neighbors. And it makes the appeal in a way that repudiates any hint of judgmentalism, intolerance, or religiosity. This is bound to be popular. It tells us what we want to hear and gives us something we can do.

5. The New Gospel is inspirational. This is what makes the message so appealing to young people in particular. They get the thrill and purpose of being part of a big cause, without all the baggage of the Church’s history, doctrine, and hard edges. Who wouldn’t want to join a revolution of love?

6. The New Gospel has no offense to it. This is why the message is so attractive. The bad guys are all “out there.” This can be a problem for any of us. We are all prone to soft-pedaling the gospel, only presenting the attractive parts and failing to mention where Christ does not just comfort but also confronts. And it must confront more than the sins of others. It is far too easy to use the New Gospel as a way to differentiate yourself from all the bad Christians. This makes you look good and confirms to the non-Christians that the obstacle to their commitment lies with the hypocrisy and failure of others. There is no talk of repentance or judgment. There is no hint that Jesus was killed, not so much for his inclusive love as his outrageous Godlike claims (Matt. 26:63-66; 27:39-43). The New Gospel only talks of salvation in strictly cosmic terms. In fact, the door is left wide open to imagine that hell, if it even exists, is probably not a big threat for most people.

Why So Wrong?
It shouldn’t be hard to see what is missing in the new gospel. What’s missing is the old gospel, the one preached by the Apostles, the one defined in 1 Corinthians 15, the one summarized later in The Apostles’ Creed.

“But what you call the New Gospel is not a substitute for the old gospel. We still believe all that stuff.”

Ok, but why don’t you say it? And not just privately to your friends or on a statement of faith somewhere, but in public? You don’t have to be meaner, but you do have to be clearer. You don’t have to unload the whole truck of systematic theology on someone, but to leave the impression that hell is no big deal is so un-Jesus like (Matt. 10:26-33). And when you don’t talk about the need for faith and repentance you are very un-apostolic (Acts 2:38; 16:31).

“But we are just building bridges. We are relating to the culture first, speaking in a language they can understand, presenting the parts of the gospel that make the most sense to them. Once we have their trust and attention, then we can disciple and teach them about sin, repentance, faith and all the rest. This is only pre-evangelism.”

Yes, it’s true, we don’t have to start our conversations where we want to end up. But does the New Gospel really prime the pump for evangelism or just mislead the non-Christian into a false assurance? It’s one thing to open a door for further conversation. It’s another to make Christianity so palatable that it sounds like something the non-Christian already does. And this is assuming the best about the New Gospel, that underneath there really is a desire to get the old gospel out.

Paul’s approach with non-Christians in Athens is instructive for us (Acts 17:16-34). First, Paul is provoked that the city is so full of idols (16). His preaching is not guided by his disappointment with other Christians, but by his anger over unbelief. Next, he gets permission to speak (19-20). Paul did not berate people. He spoke to those who were willing to listen. But then look at what he does. He makes some cultural connection (22-23, 28), but from there he shows the contrast between the Athenian understanding of God and the way God really is (24-29). His message is not about a way of life, but about worshiping the true God in the right way. After that, he urges repentance (30), warns of judgment (31), and talks about Jesus’ resurrection (31).

The result is that some mocked (32). Who in the world mocks the New Gospel? There is nothing not to like. There is no scandal in a message about lame Christians, a loving God, changing the world, and how most of us are most likely not going to hell. This message will never be mocked, but Paul’s Mars Hill sermon was. And keep in mind, this teaching in Athens was only an entre into the Christian message. This was just the beginning, after which some wanted to hear him again (32). Paul said more in his opening salvo than some Christians ever dare to say. We may not be able to say everything Paul said at Athens all at once, but we certainly must not give the impression in our “pre-evangelism” that repentance, judgment, the necessity of faith, the importance of right belief, the centrality of the cross and the resurrection, the sinfulness of sin and the fallenness of man–the stuff that some suggest will be our actual evangelism–are outdated relics of a mean-spirited, hurtful Christianity.

A Final Plea
Please, please, please, if you are enamored with the New Gospel or anything like it, consider if you are really being fair with your fellow Christians in always throwing them under the bus. Consider if you are preaching like Jesus did, who called people, not first of all to a way of life, but to repent and believe (Mark 1:15). And as me and my friends consider if we lack the necessary patience and humility to speak tenderly with non-Christians, consider if your God is a lopsided cartoon God who never takes offense at sin (because sin is more than just un-neighborliness) and never pours out wrath (except for the occasional judgment against the judgmental). Consider if you are giving due attention to the cross and the Lamb of God who died there to take away the sin of the world. Consider if your explanation of the Christian message sounds anything like what we hear from the Apostles in the book of Acts when they engage the world.

This is no small issue. And it is not just a matter of emphasis. The New Gospel will not sustain the church. It cannot change the heart. And it does not save. It is crucial, therefore, that our evangelical schools, camps, conferences, publishing houses, and churches can discern the new gospel from the old.

Fullness of Knowledge

2009-10-27T17:07:00.001-07:00

After reading a book review, I decided that I really wanted to order that book. Before I ordered it, I thought, “I think I might have that book already.” After looking around, I found it. There it was. Now, I had a greater appreciation for what I had purchased some time ago, and I began to read it.

As we have been learning from the book of Colossians, the Christians were being urged to look for something that they already had, but were overlooking. The false teachers were suggesting that the ordinary church members were spiritually deficient and needed a spiritual filling. Years ago, a member of my congregation suggested to me that I needed to move beyond the Bible and preach something else! I’m not sure what he had in mind.

Paul reminds his readers that in Christ, they had already “been filled in him.” Colossians 2:10 (ESV). Further, he added that it had pleased God for all his fullness to dwell in his Son, Jesus Christ. (Col 2.9) What they were being urged to get, they already had – that is, reconciliation with God through faith in Jesus Christ which enabled them to “delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,” (Col 1.13). You can’t get more than that!

The troublemakers were not denying that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but they were implying that a satisfactory spiritual life required more than a relationship with God through Christ. But, what was really needed in their lives was a greater realization of what they had already been given when they heard and responded to the gospel of grace concerning the reconciling love of Jesus Christ.

That is why Paul prays for the Christians there that they would “filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, ^{10}so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.” (Col 1.10)

I doubt there is anyone in our church that doesn’t have bible around. Dust it off (if you need to), for you will find more treasure there than you could discover anywhere else in the universe. And each of us can pray. Just start talking to God and begin asking that you may know him better.

But you must be willing to ask, and seek and to knock that the Lord may fill you will knowledge of his will, and we also learn that the will of God corresponds exactly with the joy and happiness which God desires for all his children.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they...

2009-09-30T10:27:00.001-07:00

The Peacemaking God

We live in a troubled world. Just yesterday, Indonesia's Sumatra Island suffered a devastating earthquake. Fighting continues in Iraq and Iraq. Our mayor, Dan Sullivan, has pledged to curb the violent crime in Anchorage. The waste of human life is enormous. Some of us behave appallingly. Yet we believe in a good God who as the Creator has never lost interest in the world. He loves the world (John 3.16). And he has a project. God seeks to restore the world to the glory for which he created it. Central to this strategy is Christ, his coming and his cross.

The cross was and remains a great scandal to the unbelieving mind. How could peace come through such a violent event? Yet, the Bible teaches, and Christian experience confirms that peace comes through the crucified Jesus. The word, 'atonement', first used in William Tyndale's Bible, written in the 16th century, describes how we are made one with God - through the sin bearing death of our savior.

Paul explains this in Colossians 1.19-23. Peace in the Bible is not simply the absence of of strife or a psychological state of mind. "The biblical concept of peace is one in which God's authority and power over his created order are seen to dominate his relations with the world, including both the material and human spheres." (Graham Cole) In other words, peace is to be found in relationship with God through his peacemaking son, Jesus Christ.

Therefore, peacemaking is to be one of signs of all his children as well: Matthew 5:9
^{9} "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." God has made peace with us through his son at great cost to himself, and we, as his children, are called to actively cultivate peace in all of our relationships, and that often means putting the interests of others ahead of our own.

The concept of peace is also found in the Hebrew word, Shalom. It means 'to enjoy living before God, to enjoy living in one's physical surroundings, to enjoy living with one's fellows, and to enjoy life with oneself." (Nicholas Wolterstorff)

What is an Evangelical?

2009-08-27T08:12:00.001-07:00

by John Richardson

A Lack of Definition?

The first topic I’m going to consider in our three talks is ‘What is an evangelical?’

This is actually a question which has been around for a remarkably long time. It was considered, for example, by John Stott at the end of the second National Evangelical Anglican Congress in 1977.

But before that, Dr Martin Lloyd Jones asked the same question in a 1971 book of that title.

And more recently, in the mid-1990s, Mark Thompson, of Moore Theological College, has addressed the issue in a series of articles in The Briefing, and in a book titled, Saving the Heart, subtitle, ‘What is an evangelical?’

The sheer fact that the question has been asked so often, and that answers by such erudite contributors have apparently failed to settle the issue, forces us to acknowledge that evangelicalism is not a set of commonly-held, narrowly-defined, doctrines.

On the contrary, there are evangelicals who hold quite different doctrinal views, and who belong to entirely different denominations.

A Common Identity

Yet at the same time, there is clearly an evangelical ‘identity’. Evangelicals are able —almost intuitively —to recognize and acknowledge one another, even across denominational divides.

There are evangelical Calvinists and evangelical Arminians, evangelical Anglicans and evangelical Baptists, independent evangelicals and evangelicals who are paid-up members of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches.

It is this common identity which makes it worth attempting to achieve a definition of evangelicalism, not least to try to clarify what it is that evangelicals share together.

It is also the case that the sense of shared identity also leads to an ability to work together. It is important to understand why this is so, but it is important also to understand the points at which this shared ‘evangelical’ identity may be in tension with important denominationally-expressed doctrinal differences.

Thus I have found myself, in the past, happily working alongside individual Seventh Day Adventists on the basis of what could rightly be called a shared evangelical identity. Yet I would have to disagree with, and indeed oppose, some of the distinctive doctrines of Adventism.

A false identity

But there is, unfortunately, another reason why we must make the effort to identify evangelicalism, and that is because there are situations where the evangelical label has ceased to have any real meaning.

An obvious example would be the way that the term ‘evangelical’ is used on the Continent — where it comes much closer to meaning simply ‘Protestant’.

Again, it would certainly be a mistake to assume that everyone in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, wherever it was found, was an evangelical. But closer to home, there are painful divisions in the evangelical movement, particularly between those who use the term ‘open’ evangelical to describe themselves, and those who, in response to this, now tend to call themselves ‘conservative’ evangelicals, or by some such similar name.

There are those, and certainly they would include many open evangelicals, who argue that evangelicalism is a broader-based movement than has hitherto been assumed, and that it should embrace consciously a diversity of views, including some which previous generations might have regarded as not particularly evangelical — or even, when it comes to matters of sexuality, Christian.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that evangelicalism is more narrowly defined, and that many of those calling themselves ‘evangelical’ are not actually evangelical at all, but rather are post-evangelical liberals who just don’t realize, or admit it, yet.

A Definition

It is all very confusing, and it points us in the direction of the talks coming up, where I will try to address what is wrong with evangelicalism and what is the future for evangelicals.

But first, we ought to try to identify the nature of evangelicalism, bearing in mind the historical importance of evangelicalism.

We might remind, ourselves, for example, of the huge impact of the Inter-Varsity Fellowship in the twentieth century, both in these islands, and abroad, bearing in mind that its full and proper title was the Inter-Varsity Fellowship of Evangelical Unions.

Self-confessed evangelical Christianity is a distinct, and therefore a distinguishable, movement. What, then, distinguishes it?

The Priority of Evangelism

I have hinted that the answer does not lie in doctrinal definitions — these come later, rather as the historic creeds appear later in the life of the church.

Rather, evangelicalism must be understood first by praxis — by action — and the defining action of evangelicalism is, crucially, evangelism.

But since evangelism is itself a somewhat-debased word, I would define what I mean by this as follows:

Evangelicals are those who have as a first priority, in their own lives and in the life of their churches and organizations, the desire and aim to see other people become Christians.

Notice, it is not their sole priority, nor is it necessarily their top priority. Some would say their top priority is to worship God or to live for him. Many would add that serving others or changing the world are also crucial to their understanding of the Christian life.

However, insofar as they are evangelicals, all would agree that the most important thing they can achieve for another person is to see that person become a Christian. And that shapes the evangelical understanding of the Christian life.

Thus God is served —or ‘worshipped’ in the proper sense —by our engaging in the work we see exemplified in Jesus himself, of seeking and saving the lost. We live for God when, like the first disciples, we become ‘fishers of men’. We serve others when we bring them the good news of salvation. We change the world when people are brought to know Christ as Saviour and to serve him as Lord.

This is the heart of evangelicalism, and it precedes any more specific confessional statements we might want to make.

The Individual and Evangelicalism

A very important feature of evangelicalism, however, is that salvation is an individual matter. The crowd may ask, “Brethren, what must we do to be saved?” The evangelistic response, however, is addressed to the individual: “Repent and be baptized, each one of you.”

The ‘we’, here, may all be repenting at the same time, we may all get baptized together. But for this to happen, each one must repent individually, each one must get baptized, and each one must certainly live for Christ.

Indeed, it is this focus on the individual which is one of the outstanding features of Christianity which features in the evangelical understanding.

Jesus’ question, “Who do you say I am?” is addressed to the disciples collectively. But Peter’s answer, “You are the Christ,” is given by him individually, and it has been revealed to him personally by the Father.

In this, of course, the New Testament is only picking up an Old Testament emphasis. “The soul who sins shall die,” says Ezekiel (18:20), and similarly the sinner who turns from his wickedness shall live.

We are not condemned for the sins of another, but by the same token, we are not saved by the faith of another — whether it be our friends, our family or our community. Salvation, the evangelical believes, comes in personal doses, and so the evangelical cannot rest until the individual is saved.

Sticking to the knitting

It is this understanding of salvation and the Christian life which determines whether a person or a church or an organization can properly be called ‘evangelical’.

To the extent that it is a priority, to that extent we have evangelicalism. To the extent that other things begin to take priority, to that extent we have a decline from evangelicalism.

The first lesson of understanding what it means to be evangelical is that we must ‘stick to the knitting’. It is also important to see that we do not remain evangelical by adhering to evangelical doctrines. Being evangelical is about what you are and how you live on that basis.

Evangelical ‘spirituality’

In that sense, then, evangelicalism is a ‘spirituality’, but the evangelical would immediately want to say that it is a spirituality which arises from without, not from within.

The evangelical has not arrived at evangelicalism by searching out or trying out different approaches to God. Paradoxically, people do not become evangelicals by deciding to become evangelicals. Nor do evangelicals preach ‘evangelicalism’ to others.

Rather, it is the common experience of evangelicals that they are what they are as a result of becoming Christians. They do not look back to the point at which they received a set of evangelical doctrines, but to the point at which they received Christ as Saviour and Lord.

And where there are those who are not conscious of a particular moment of conversion, nevertheless, they will also be conscious that it is their relationship with God, in and through Christ as Saviour and Lord, which gives shape to their spiritual life and which is something they wish to share with others.

When the evangelical is able to articulate this, then, they will say that it is the work of the Holy Spirit which has given them their spirituality, by his operation within them. The words of Isaiah, quoted in Romans 10:20 would very much fit their experience: “I was found by those who did not seek me.”

The evangelical message

We see the nature of evangelical spirituality also in the way that evangelicals seek to bring others into their own evangelical experience —for what they do not do is preach the experience.

They may well be driven by the experience, they may well speak about the experience, they may even tell others they may have the same experience, but the message is not “This is how to have this experience,” but rather, “Repent and believe, and you shall be saved.”

Incidentally, we may say that where the message does become, “Do this to have this experience,” here too we have a departure from evangelicalism, which will show up subsequently in the life of the individual or the organization or movement.

The evangelical message to the non-Christian is not “You are missing out on life,” but, “You are facing judgement and damnation.”

Evangelical theology

And it is here that we begin to see that evangelicalism does, indeed, have a systematic theological heart, even though it is not itself a full-blown system of theology.

Indeed, the message of evangelism is a microcosm of a consistent systematic theology, even though it may be expressed in a number of ways.

In Norman Warren’s classic tract, Journey into Life, for example, first published in 1964, we read this summary of what it takes to become a Christian:

Something to admit
That you have sinned in the sight of God. [...]

Something to believe
That Jesus Christ died on the cross bearing all the guilt and penalty of your sin.

Something to consider
[...] Every part of your life, work, friendships, time, money must all come under [Jesus’] control.

Something to do
Accept Jesus Christ into your life to be your Lord to control you, your Saviour to cleanse you, your Friend to guide and be with you.

But then compare this with the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians (written about ad 54),

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. ²By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. ³For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures ...

There are differences in the detail, yet clearly we are in the same theological territory. And the key features are these: sin, from which we need to be saved, Christ, who saves us from our sins through his death, a new life, exemplified by Christ being raised from the dead, and faith as a resolve to believe in and live by the truth of what has been said about sin, Christ and salvation.

In fact, it would be fair to say that evangelical theology is an expansion of these key points, as Paul puts it ‘according to the Scriptures’.

‘Fellow’ Evangelicals

Thus, when we say we believe that Christ died for our sins ‘according to the Scriptures’ we mean that we look to the Bible, to tell us what sin is, to explain why Jesus needed to die for it, and indeed to tell us who Jesus was and is, why his death was both necessary and effective, and what exactly it achieved for us.

Evangelical theology thus has a position on Scripture. Notice, however, that being an evangelical does equate to a view on Scripture. That is why we sometimes get confused over the issue of evangelical fellowship.

To be a scriptural conservative does not make you an evangelical.

At the same time, however, merely wanting to ‘spread the faith’ does not make you an evangelical —otherwise we would have to say that Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘fellow evangelicals’, since they, too, want to see people converted so that they can be saved.

We are not evangelicals just because we want to see other people come round to our point of view. There is some content to the notion of becoming a Christian, specifically as regards who Christ is and what his death has achieved, which is defined for us, not by us.

Nevertheless, where we find that the desire to proclaim Christ so that others may believe in him and be saved is given priority in engagement with the world and with those who do not know Christ, there we find fellow evangelicals and evangelical fellowship.

Problems

And yet, at the same time it is true that evangelical fellowship is always fragile. Historically, evangelical unity easily, and it has to be said, repeatedly, gives way to evangelical disunity.

This is enough to tell us that there is also something amiss with evangelicalism. And in my second talk I intend to examine what that is and to make some suggestions as to how it may be put right.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

More on Ministry

2009-08-13T17:11:00.000-07:00

What ministry is about 3

from The Sola Panel

By Tony Payne

The story so far: Col Marshall and I are just about to publish a book called The Trellis and the Vine. The final chapter contains ten propositions about church life and ministry that summarize the general argument of the book. I'm running a version of these ten propositions up the flagpole to see what the Sola Panel community makes of them.

So far, we've had:

Proposition 3 is about the heart of disciple-making.

3. The heart of disciple-making is prayerful speaking of God's word.

The word ‘disciple’ means above all else ‘learner’ or ‘pupil’. And this is how one becomes a disciple and grows as one—by hearing and learning the word of Christ, the gospel, and having its truth applied to our hearts by the Holy Spirit. The essence of ‘vine work’ is the prayerful, Spirit-backed speaking of the message of the Bible by one person to another (or to more than one). Various structures, activities, events and programmes can provide a context in which this prayerful speaking can take place, but without the speaking and the prayer, it is all trellis and no vine.

This prayerful, Spirit-dependent speaking is not limited to preaching sermons or sharing the gospel with non-Christian friends (which are the two contexts that often spring most readily to mind). Nor does it always take place with a Bible open (although it often does). It happens whenever we direct someone (Christian or not-yet-Christian) to the truth about God in Jesus Christ, as it is revealed in the Scriptures. It can take place in casual conversation, or in reading a Bible passage one-to-one. It can be in the short note we write to encourage a flagging Christian or in the phone call we make to a grieving friend. In whatever context or by whatever means it happens, the goal is to help someone become a disciple of Jesus Christ, or to grow as one.

An Excellent Series on Theology

2009-08-11T07:42:00.001-07:00

Lionel Windsor

Today we're continuing the series on biblical word power. This time we will seek to use what we have learned about the meaning of some important biblical words, so that we can come to grips with a very significant story told by Jesus.

Definitions

To recap our key biblical definitions:

Righteousness = being in line with a standard.

Righteousness of a defendant = being in line with a legal and/or moral standard.

To justify = to declare that a person is indeed righteous (usually in a forensic context, i.e. a law court).

Atonement = dealing with any obstacle to a relationship, especially between God and human beings.

Two kinds of prayer in the temple

We'll get to Jesus' parable in a moment. But first let's go back to Solomon, the man who built the temple in Jerusalem about 1,000 years before Jesus. Solomon prayed a very significant prayer at the dedication of the temple (2 Chronicles 6:14-42, see also 1 Kings 8:22-53).

Solomon begins by acknowledging that God truly dwells in heaven. Yet God has graciously put his presence in this particular temple and particularly listens to people who pray in that place (2 Chronicles 6:18-21).

What kinds of prayers does Solomon envisage will be prayed in the temple?

The first kind of prayer is a prayer for justification of individuals. The temple acts as God's heavenly law court on earth. At the temple, people can pray to God in heaven and ask for justification. Because God is a righteous judge, he justifies the righteous, and condemns wicked sinners (2 Chronicles 6:22-23).

The second kind of prayer is a prayer for atonement. The temple is the key place where the obstacles to the relationship between people and God (i.e. the people's sin and God's wrath) are dealt with. When sinful people pray and ask for atonement, God grants atonement. Atonement can take place both for Israel as a whole (2 Chronicles 6:24-40) and for individuals (e.g. 2 Chronicles 6:29).

Two men who go up to the temple to pray

Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) is a parable about two men who go up to the temple to pray (Luke 18:10)—clearly Jesus wants us to remember the two kinds of prayer that Solomon spoke about at the dedication of the temple (see above).

One of the men, the Pharisee, prays a prayer for justification (Luke 18:10-12). The Pharisee states that he, unlike others, is in line with certain moral and legal standards (Luke 18:11-12). That is, he states the case for his own righteousness before the heavenly court. Clearly, he is expecting that God in heaven will justify him (i.e. acknowledge that he is indeed righteous).

The other man, the tax collector, prays the other kind of temple-prayer—a prayer for atonement. It is a simple, humble prayer:

God, be merciful to me, a sinner! (Luke 18:13b)

(NB The word he uses is the technical word for atonement, often used in the temple-context in the Old Testament).

Yet there is a surprising twist. The Pharisee, who pleads his case for his own righteousness, is not justified—i.e. God does not declare that he is righteous. But the tax-collector, the sinner, who simply asks for atonement, is justified. The man who is expecting justification on the basis of his righteousness, doesn't get it. But the man who asks for atonement receives both atonement and justification before God!

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted. (Luke 18:14)

What's happening here? If we look back at the start of the parable, we get a clue. The issue Jesus is dealing with is “self-righteousness”. Jesus is telling the parable to people who were confident that they were righteous on the basis of themselves (Luke 18:9).

The implication is that there is another basis for justification, other than our own moral or legal righteousness! Somehow, God, in his heavenly lawcourt, can look at a sinner who has asked for atonement, and declare that this sinner is indeed righteous. But that same God in that same heavenly lawcourt can look at another man who claims to be righteous (i.e. in line with legal and moral standards), and yet not make the declaration that he is righteous at all!

Justification and atonement

What is happening? It is a radical concept. Jesus in this parable brings together the two activities of the temple: justification and atonement. Indeed, Jesus is claiming that justification happens through atonement!

This teaching about justification isn't unique to Jesus. We can see the same idea in other parts of the Bible. For example, in Isaiah's prophecy, the sin-bearing atoning sacrifice of the Servant brings justification to many (Isaiah 53:11). The apostle Paul also brings justification and atonement together, claiming that a person is justified because Jesus Christ was presented as an atonement (Romans 3:25-26).

Plumbing the depths

How can this be? How can God declare that a sinner, who is clearly not in line with God's moral standards, is in indeed in line with his standards? Next time we'll explore this idea in more depth, seeing how this question is wonderfully resolved.

Tony Payne on Ministry

2009-08-09T18:52:00.001-07:00

Proposition 2 is about the inevitable drift of churches towards institutionalism.

2. Churches tend towards institutionalism as sparks fly upward.

Churches inevitably drift towards institutionalism and secularization. The focus shifts from the vine (the making of disciples through the prayerful ministry of the Word) to the trellis (the programmes and structures that support and enable that work). There is a gradual change of emphasis from seeing people grow as disciples towards organizing and maintaining activities and programmes. Pastors easily start to think about their congregation mostly in structural and corporate terms. They fret about getting people into groups, building numbers at various programmes, putting on events for people to come to, and so on. They stop thinking and praying about people and where each one is up to in gospel growth, and focus instead on driving a range of group activities attendance at which (we assume) will equal growth in discipleship. The congregation likewise come to equate ‘involvement’ and ‘ministry’ with participation in the various structures and events of church life.

But going to groups and activities doesn't generate growth in discipleship any more than going to hear the Sermon on the Mount made you a disciple of Jesus. A ‘trellis’ of appropriate size and quality is necessary for the growth of any ‘vine’. But managing, maintaining and improving the trellis easily takes over from vine work.

Goals of Ministry by Tony Payne

2009-08-04T17:25:00.001-07:00

So here's the first of ten propositions about Christian ministry:

1. The goal is to make disciples, not church members.

The measure of how ministry is progressing in your church or fellowship, and the way to evaluate whether you are making progress, is not attendance on Sunday, signed up members, people in small groups, or the size of our budget (as important and valuable as all these things are!). The real test is how successfully you are making disciples who make other disciples. Are we seeing people converted from being dead in their transgressions to being alive in Christ? And once converted, are we seeing them followed-up and established as mature disciples of Jesus? And as they become established, are we training them in knowledge, godliness and skills so that they will in turn make disciples of others?

This is the Great Commission—the making of disciples who obey all that Christ has taught, including the command to make disciples. And this is the touchstone of our faithfulness to Christ's mission in the world, and the sign of a healthy church: whether or not it is making genuine disciple-making disciples of Jesus Christ.

Richard Kew on Recent Convention

2009-07-25T11:40:00.000-07:00

We have been back in the States for the last three weeks but will be returning to our ministry in Cambridge, England tomorrow. This means we have been around for the razzmatazz that went with the launch of the Anglican Church of North America, and now for the spectacle of the General Convention. Having been present at most General Conventions since the last Anaheim convention in 1985, I am glad I am not there. I have to say that what looks to be happening is a sad, sad spectacle, and from the deluge of words coming out of Anaheim it is evident that the Convention is in little mood to take seriously historic Christianity, or to honor the worldwide Anglican Communion.

As a bishop friend said to me in a personal email from Anaheim a day or two ago, the trend seems to be for TEC to become a stand-alone American denomination rather than part of the worldwide church. Clearly, the presence and advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury for a few days meant little or nothing to the majority of the House of Deputies. As the same episcopal friend also said, those who are for inclusion do not seem to realize that for a large chunk of us that means exclusion -- although we certainly have no desire to be excluded from catholic Christianity through the Communion.

This whole exercise is not about sexuality or sexual behavior, but is fundamentally about what we believe the Christian faith to mean and be about. When it comes down to it, it is about our attitude toward Jesus as God's Son, the nature of the Trinity, divine revelation, Christian obedience, and holiness of life. The cavalier attitude of the Presiding Bishop to the creeds and their recitation is evidence that she considers the likes of me as pedantic has-beens rather than those who are on the cutting edge -- but the cutting edge of what?

Yet the truth really is, as you look around the world, that those who are pushing this worn out postmodern melange and calling it Christian are increasingly the has-beens. They seem to have tied themselves to the coat tails of the last dribblings of the least attractive side of the Enlightenment, and it is entirely likely that they will disappear down the drain with them. I say this as an Episcopalian who lives in England and now functions as part of the church under great pressure.

The church in England is wrestling to adapt to an altogether more secular and hostile climate than exists in most of the USA, and what is interesting, I don't see postmodern Christianity standing up very well in such an environment. It is a limp and aging rag. The creative scholarship, for example, is coming from a far more theologically orthodox direction (as can be seen from the recent awarding of the Michael Ramsey Prize for theological writing to Richard Bauckham for his extraordinary challenge to scholarship in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). Healthy progressive liberal and theologically to-the-left congregations are few and far between, while it the theologically more conservative who are creatively evangelistic that have become the majority of stronger centers of the faith.

This isn't to say that the English church doesn't have a belly-load of problems and challenges, some of which it is refusing to address; but it is illustrative that so-called progressive faith is not flourishing well in an environment which affirms and celebrates many of the values and attitudes it endorses. Picking over concrete evidence from Britain and asking what this might mean for the Episcopal Church of the USA, one can only confess that it does not auger well on this side of the ocean. Looking at the hard statistics about the health of the Episcopal Church that have been coming out of Anaheim, the best interpretation of them is that the church is in serious decline -- if not free fall, and those who say otherwise are clearly in denial with their ostrich necks firmly stuck down holes.

All this is happening in the midst of the deepest recession in living memory, and one that promises to impact us for a very long time to come. Looking at the dire financial state of the Episcopal Church after the Great Depression might be a valuable exercise to help us grasp what the circumstances of denomination, dioceses, and congregations could well be like when the world eventually pulls out of this dive. Money is the mother's milk of ministry, and there are huge problems if there is none, or little or none.

The churches in England that are healthiest are those who approach their Christian witness in a missional manner: which means trying to ask and answer how we take the gospel message and enable it to speak in an environment where the church a bit of a joke -- or worse. Some of them are making whopping mistakes, but at least they are trying! The intelligensia in Britain will generally take every opportunity to denigrate religious people of all flavors, the Church of England in particular. There is little or no social or intellectual kudos to be gained from being a believer in England, and the bulk of the general population doesn't have the vaguest notion of what the Christian faith is all about. There are too many uncanny parallels to the 1st Century.

Yet, there are Anglican churches (and varieties of others) that are packed to the doors. There are some fascinatingly creative experiments being undertaken. The theologically orthodox seminaries are the ones enrolling the majority of new students. The House of Bishops is becoming increasingly orthodox (although they may not want to label themselves that way), and so on, and so on. The end product will ultimately be a church that looks very different from the one we have now, and it is likely to be one that the older folks (like myself) will have our struggles with. But what is more important: our understanding of the right way to express the faith and decline, or a whole new generation being renewed and revived by God to take the message to their lost and floundering contemporaries?

As a priest of the Episcopal Church I honor my ordination vows and I stand with those who stand with the historic, catholic, and evangelical formularies of the faith. I recite the creeds with conviction, I believe Scripture is God's Word written, and I cannot and will not walk away from what is happening.

At the beginning of this decade I was part of the 2020 Task Force that posited ideas and plans for the doubling of the Episcopal Church in the first two decades of the 21st Century. The reverse has happened because that agenda was dumped by 2003 in favor of what Paul might describe as 'another gospel.' I suspect that if the Episcopal Church is half the size it was in 2000 by 2020 it will be a miracle if the present course continues to be followed.

This is a tragedy of monumental proportions, but it does not prevent us from standing firm alongside Augustine, Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooker, Janani Luwum, Festo Kivengere and many other selfless women and men who have gone before us in the faith. Error disrupts and does damage, but in the economy of a God who is truth it does not ultimately win the day.

Katherine Jefferts-Schori and the Apostle Paul

2009-07-23T11:14:00.001-07:00

From Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Shori:

‘The crisis of this moment has several parts… The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being.’

‘because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.’

(Romans 10:9-10)

From Neal Michell

2009-07-22T22:59:00.000-07:00

As many in the Episcopal/Anglican world know, The Episcopal Church just completed its 76th General Convention in Anaheim, California. So, what are the medium-term prospects for the Episcopal Church in light of the decisions recently make by that General Convention?

Okay, let’s take a deep breath. Inhale deeply. . . exhale deeply. . . Here’s my take. First, the positives, and then the negatives.

1. Missions. First, on a positive note, it was evident that The Episcopal Church as a whole and as a sum of its parts is involved in lots of missionary endeavors throughout the world. All the resolutions concerning World Mission were considered with deep respect and generally found easy passage. This church has come a long way from the 1980’s and 1990’s when the World Mission Department of the Presiding Bishop’s office was in such disarray and serious attempts were made to cease sending missionaries from TEC to other parts of the world. Similarly, it is clear that those present at this General Convention value TEC’s membership and participation in the life of the Anglican Communion.

2. Diversity is a Value. The decisions of General Convention also evidence that TEC wants to be a church of more than the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant of the last two centuries in which men dominated the leadership ranks of the church. Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, homosexual persons, and women obviously played prominent roles at various levels of the church. On the positive side, it is a good thing to be in a church that attracts gay and lesbian persons. TEC is attempting to be more inclusive of people who formerly felt alienated from the church. (The downside of this is that as a whole, TEC churches offer acceptance only and not any sense of healing or deeper wholeness. A further downside of this desire to include in positions of leadership people from these formerly marginalized groups is that in several elections, candidates who were more experienced and had a more proven record of service to the church were cast aside in favor of these formerly marginalized people with less experience.)

3. Strategic Plan for Hispanic and Latino Ministries. One glance at the Strategic plan put forward by the Hispanic and Latino Ministries shows that they get it.

Well, that’s about it for the positives. The rest looks pretty grim—and, by the way, it’s not all about sex. Let’s get sex out of the way first, because TEC has more problems than just the conflict over sexuality.

1. Widening Gap Between TEC and the Anglican Communion. The most commented on actions coming out of the Anaheim General Convention has to do with the declarations that discernment for all levels of ordained ministry is open to gay and lesbian persons. Although many have and will argue—specifically, the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies—that the moratorium on consenting to the election of a bishop in a same sex union has not been repealed, both the rationale given for the proposed legislation, and the floor debate accompanying said legislation (“D025”) reveals that the intent of the General Convention legislation was to hold the self-restraint as called for in 2006 (“B033”) as no longer binding on the bishops. It must be added that the abrogation of B033 was stated gently, respectfully, and graciously, but the intent of both houses of Deputies and Bishops was to abrogate B033. To interpret D025 otherwise stretches the bounds of credulity. The result at the Communion level will be that the rift between TEC and the vast majority of the Anglican Communion (save for Canada and a number of individual dioceses) has now widened even more considerably, and the likelihood of some form of Communion discipline of TEC is increased.

The Episcopal Church through General Convention also authorized the development of liturgical resources for the blessing of same sex unions to be presented to the 2012 General Convention (C061). Those who want TEC to remain a “constituent member of the Anglican Communion” will argue that no official rites were thereby authorized; it is equally clear through the floor debate on C061 as well as the statement in C056 that “bishops, particularly those in dioceses within civil jurisdictions where same-gender marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships are legal, may provide generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church.” Again, signal that TEC would move forward on the blessing of same sex unions wase given gently, respectfully, and graciously, but the intent was to move TEC beyond the constraints of the second moratorium requested by the primates in the Windsor Report family of requests. (There is one other problem facing TEC that comes from the sexuality decisions of General Convention in Anaheim. We will deal with that issue later in section 5 below.

However, the problems in TEC expressed through the decisions of General Convention in Anaheim run deeper than the sexuality issues.

2. Financial Shortfall. It was obvious to all those in attendance at the General Convention in Anaheim that The Episcopal Church as an organization is facing tremendous financial difficulties. Although the economy in general was publicly cited as the reason for the financial problems, it was clear through a review of the contributing dioceses the printed materials that the departure of four dioceses and the disaffection of a number of dioceses also contributed significantly to the shortfall. According to notes distributed to the Bishops and deputies, at least 68 out of 109 dioceses failed in 2008 to pay to TEC the amount requested for the support of the program and structure of TEC. Many good and positive ministries are being given less support or provided no support at all. When the budget was passed, it was also announced that some thirty jobs at “815” would be eliminated within the year.

3. Fair Cuts versus Strategic Cuts. The cuts proposed in the budget for TEC were intended to be “fair” and “across the board.” Sounds fair and reasonable, right? Ah, but that’s the problem. They were not strategic. Any organization experiencing decline should be strategic in its budget allocation. There was no talk of strategy—except a proposal to take money from the strategic planning line item and use it to provide a second part-time assistant for the President of the House of Deputies.

4. Lack of Overall Strategic Direction. Even apart from the lack of strategic allocation of resources in the triennial budget, it is clear that TEC also lacks strategic direction at the highest levels of leadership in TEC. Cuts in Communications were made without consultation of either the Standing Commission on Communications or the Board of Episcopal Life. In addition, the staff and organization of the Presiding Bishop has been in disarray for the past three years and continues to this day. Positions have been eliminated, some staff members have been reassigned, with the result that areas of responsibility have fallen through the cracks in a seemingly disorganized reorganization. Seemingly strategic staff positions of three years ago and even one year ago were eliminated with little dissent.

Clearly, a denominational structure that served 3.6 million members that now serves 2.2 million members has to be reorganized. However, the decisions made at General Convention fails to show whether the leadership is really acknowledging that changed reality.

5. Impact of Liberal vs. Conservative Balance of Power. Most votes concerning issues of sexuality generally passed by similar margins: 70% to 30% in favor of what would be labeled the liberal position. (The one exception was the resolution calling on people in The Episcopal Church to work for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act: it passed by only 55% to 45% in the House of Deputies and was defeated in the House of Bishops). TEC has lost 10% of its average Sunday attendance since 2003 (the year when the bishop of New Hampshire was consecrated). At a time when TEC is in significant decline due to conservatives leaving the denomination, the decisions to allow partnered gays to serve as bishops and to bless same sex unions—while it may bring some people into Episcopal churches—the overall effect will be to cause more theologically and culturally conservative people to leave TEC and will make TEC an even less attractive church for other theologically and culturally conservative people to consider joining.

General Convention 09

2009-07-21T17:00:00.000-07:00

Thoughts About the General Convention:

The recently completed General Convention provided neither shock nor surprise to those who have been following developments in recent years. However, after this convention, the die has been cast. The restraints that were acknowledged and practiced (not by all) in the Episcopal Church in the selection of bishops (no partnered same-sex bishops) and the blessing of same-sex unions (not permitted) after GC 2006, have been effectively removed. All baptized of whatever sexual orientation or practice (so long, of course, as their relationships are faithful and monogamous), have access to ordination in all orders of the church.

Further, the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music was charged with collecting and developing “theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships…”

This all flies in the face of the teaching of the Bible, 2000 years of catholic understanding and practice, the pleas of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the present and acknowledged teaching of the Anglican Communion on the nature of marriage between one man and one woman.

Amazingly, the teaching of the now forgotten Resolution 1.10 of Lambeth 1998 which states, (The Lambeth Conference) “in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage” is not mentioned at all!

As one friend commented to his congregation, the Episcopal Church is no longer “limping with two different opinions.” (see 1 Kings 18.21)

Since 2003 All Saints' has distanced itself from the National Church and from the diocese of Alaska by receiving pastoral oversight from Bishop Terry Buckle of the Yukon (Canada), and by redirecting giving away from the diocese and National Church to other Christian ministries. We also linked with the Anglican Communion Network (now, a part of the ACNA – Anglican Church in North America), and most recently we signed the Jerusalem Statement and have identified with the Fellowship Of Confessing Anglicans, a very exciting development which was launched in London several weeks ago.

I think it is important that while we have rightly protested the approval of immoral behavior in our church, that we also make it known that all are welcome to our church. “Come unto me all who labor and are heaven laden,” are words we need to be reminded of. And as people hear of Christ, and learn of the salvation he has purchased through his death on the cross, turn to him as their Savior and Lord, and receive pardon and power to live as Christ’s servants, lives will change, and the standards that God has set will become the very way we will want to live our lives.

From Reform on Fellowship of Confessing Evangelicals

2009-07-21T16:06:00.000-07:00

How will the newly-launched Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) help us in the work of the gospel? At one level not at all. It is up to us and those with whom we share ministry in our congregations to evangelise locally, to pray for friends and neighbours, to think creatively about how to impact our communities, to open up the Bible to others and to show God’s love by the way we live. But at another level its influence could be substantial. It provides a means of support between partners in the gospel so that faithful Anglicans who are struggling to hold firm, whether it be in Scotland, Canada, or the USA, can know they have prayerful companions over here. It can articulate the mission of the church in clear terms. It may be able to help with problems of episcopal oversight - particularly if the Church of England has difficulties accommodating new church plants. Most importantly, it presents the Jerusalem Declaration to the Church of England – as to others in the British Isles – as a renewing reminder of the gospel to which we adhere...More here.

From the Anglican Communion Institute

2009-07-18T10:08:00.001-07:00

Written by: The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc.
Friday, July 17th, 2009

In a joint letter sent today to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church and the President of its House of Deputies, the presiding officers of General Convention acknowledged that that body cannot speak for the whole church in crucial matters affecting the life of the Anglican Communion:

Some are concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033. That is not the case. This General Convention has not repealed Resolution B033. It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025. Some within our Church may understand Resolution D025 to give Standing Committees (made up of elected clergy and laity) and Bishops with jurisdiction more latitude in consenting to Episcopal elections. Others, in light of Resolution B033, will not. (Emphasis added.)

This letter thus makes it clear that Resolution D025 releases bishops and standing committees from any commitment and assurances previously given to observe the moratorium on episcopal elections that has been endorsed by all four of the Communion’s Instruments and now implemented in the Communion by vote of the Anglican Consultative Council. Indeed, the official “Explanation” to the final text of D025, which states that it “provides clarification in light of the Windsor Report,” removes any doubt concerning this fact:

Our relationships in the Anglican Communion have been tested by the question of the ordination to the episcopate of individuals living in a same-sex partnership. Resolution D-039 of the 73rd General Convention, in 2000, acknowledged that the membership of the Episcopal Church includes persons living in same-sex relationships; established an expectation that “such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God”; and further denounced “promiscuity, exploitation, and abusiveness in the relationships of any of our members.” Three years later, the 74th General Convention reaffirmed this expectation. These standards thus provide guidance for access to the discernment process for ordination to the episcopate. (Emphasis added.)

http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=986&type=Final

This is a categorical repudiation of the communion-wide moratorium on the election to the episcopate of anyone living in a same sex partnership. Bishops and dioceses are neither asked nor expected to observe such a moratorium. They are encouraged instead to observe “standards” recognizing same-sex partnerships as reflecting “holy love.” As conceded by today’s letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, some bishops and dioceses will respect the moratorium; others will not. And those that do respect the Communion teaching will do so only because they reject the “guidance” provided by General Convention “standards.”

This explicit recognition that some bishops and dioceses will conform to Communion teaching while others will not requires that the Communion now look to individual dioceses and parishes for communion commitments. The General Convention has decided it cannot speak with one voice in committing to the Communion’s moratoria. The Communion has no choice but to acknowledge those who are ready, willing and able to make these commitments.

A note to Michael Burke, the head of the Alaska delegation to GC 09

2009-07-17T15:36:00.000-07:00

Michael:

We appreciate your enthusiasm, your hard work and your reports while at the GC.

However, this comment stood out.

"There will, of course, be those at the extremes who cannot abide by any compromise or comprehension that permits legitimacy for those viewpoints they disagree with ...and we hold them in our love and prayers as well, as they seek a different path to be faithful to the Lord as they understand his will and Word."

It seems that those who continue to hold the faith 'once for all delivered to the saints' are now relegated to the status of 'extreme.' Further, while I do not deny the "legitimacy" of other view points, such points of view can be very wrong, both theologically and pastorally - which I judge to be the case.

The PB's opening address concerning the 'heresy' of individual salvation was uninformed and frankly embarrassing, and this wasn't lost on even some sympathetic observers.

I can only speak for myself; however, I find myself more alienated from TEC than ever before.

Jim Basinger

Slip Sliding Away

2009-07-17T15:12:00.000-07:00

A Letter to Rowan: Slip Sliding Away ...

from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue

So Bonnie Anderson and Katharine Jefferts Schori have written a letter explaining things to Rowan Williams, which is quite contrary to what was actually said in debates on the floor of both the House of Deputies and House of Bishops.

Let's just recall what D025 actually says:

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God" (2000-D039); and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.

What Schori and Anderson attempt to maintain - despite the rejoicing going on in the progressive quarters of this church here at General Convention - that they are just acknowledging "certain realities of our common life." Then they assert "Nothing in the Resolution goes beyond what has already been provided under our Constitution and Canons for many years." Well, that's a stretch because the Constitution and Canons call for affirmation of the following by all ordained persons:

I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal Church. Declaration." (Article III)

Earlier, the Constitution declares that the Episcopal Church is committed to "upholding
and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. " (Preamble of the Constitution of The Episcopal Church).

Resolution D025 (as does C056) do not conform with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church which recognize the authority and teaching on scripture which is quite clear about what is considered holy living. The Faith and Order set forth in the Book of Common Prayer only recognizes matrimony between a man and woman as being holy living.

The Windsor Report recognized that and those facts on the ground have not changed. That The Episcopal Church is now not only admitting that this type of behavior has been welcomed, it has promoted it as a tool for bringing new members into the church (with disastrous results). The Spirit is doing a new thing, they say - either that is true or it is not. The Episcopal Church is rejoicing that it is true and they are no longer to pretend otherwise.

The word-smithing in this letter reflects the duplicity of the doublethink of the leadership of this General Convention. On one hand they want to explain to Rowan Williams the "complex and deliberative nature of our legislative process" and then on the other hand wants to explain that B033 is not repealed, it's just now read in light of D025 (and D056 which is on its way) - which in fact, repeals B033 as deputy after deputy after deputy after bishop after bishop after bishop said! Who do they think they are fooling? The Archbishop of Canterbury? Do they think he's that stupid?

They write this letter even before the passage of C056 which makes it abundantly clear that B033 is done, finished - as deputy after deputy after deputy attested. Nice timing, there, ladies.

Did Bonnie Anderson ever say anything to the House of Deputies to clarify their thinking - no, a thousand times no. She sat in silence as deputy after deputy after deputy repudiated B033.

Did the Presiding Bishop ever say anything in the public sessions to clarify the resolutions from what bishop after bishop after bishop said it was, both B025 and D056, did she ever say anything that even hints at what she attempts to say in this letter to Rowan? No. No, no, no.

The letter is sanctimonious and self-congratulatory and never quotes the Windsor Report or Lambeth 1.10 or the Dar es Salaam Communique or even B033 not even once. They attempt to pull the wool over Canterbury's eyes by saying, well, it's not what it really looks like because, well, we just hope (wink wink) that the Episcopal leadership will "continue to exercise prayerful discernment in making such decisions, mindful and appreciative of our relationships in the Anglican Communion." No, no, no, no - a thousand times no. Bishop after bishop after bishop after deputy after deputy after deputy saw this resolution and the one that follows it as liberation from B033 and the Windsor Report and Lambeth 1.10 (except for the bits they like and quote). They changed the wording in Title IV so that the word "Communion" now means "the Episcopal Church" - not the Communion, not the Anglican Communion.

Make no mistake about it - the intent here is to dare the Rowan Williams to say anything - for if he does, if he dares, the Episcopal Church stands ready to declare itself a victim, even as it slashes $24 million from its budget and sends staffers packing. There's nothing wrong, no, really.

If that's no enough, we have Bishop Schori writing to the "Anglican Primates" attaching a copy of the letter to Rowan Williams, writing:

TO THE PRIMATES OF THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION:

15 July 2009

Dear Brothers in Christ,

My heart was filled with joy at seeing so many of you here last week at the 76th General Convention of The Episcopal Church meeting in Anaheim, California. It is important to me that we continue to find ways to communicate with one another directly about our different cultural and ecclesial contexts, and thereby prevent any misunderstandings.

For this reason, I am sending you a copy of a letter addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and co-signed by myself and the President of our House of Deputies. It outlines in some detail Resolution D025, which was adopted at this Convention, explaining both what this resolution means and what it does not mean. With so much misinformation circulating through the press and other sources, it is crucial to me that I provide the Archbishop and all of you with accurate information. To this end, I am also attaching a copy of Resolution D025, so that you may read it in its entirety for yourself.

As the attached letter notes, some people have been concerned that the adoption of D025 has effectively repealed the 2006 General Convention Resolution B033. Let me stress that this is not the case. Rather, we understand D025 to be more descriptive than prescriptive in nature, acknowledging the realities we face in various parts of our own Church while reaffirming our ongoing commitment on all levels to our relationships within the Anglican Communion.

I would welcome any questions or feedback you might have, and reiterate yet again my profound appreciation and joy at having so many of you with us as we gathered as a Church to worship, fellowship, and deliberate together. May God continue to bless your ministries and strengthen our bonds of affection.

Your servant in Christ,

KJS

One again, she attempts to take the victim platform - stating "With so much misinformation circulating through the press and other sources, it is crucial to me that I provide the Archbishop and all of you with accurate information." She and Bonnie Anderson did not dare to say what's written in these letters publicly here at General Convention for they must have anticipated the (understandable) outrage from the Integrity-aligned folks that would have been deafening. This is a bald face lie and she couldn't say it publicly, writing these letters to the leadership as though they will believe her. In fact, during the key points of debating D025, not one Anglican leader was sitting at the three tables set aside for them in the House of Bishop. Not one. They were gone, gone, gone.

They are now playing showtunes on the floor of the House of Deputies as we await the announcement followed by "Slip Sliding Away."

Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
You know the nearer your destination,
the more you slip sliding away
Oh God only knows, God makes his plan
The information's unavailable to the mortal man
Were workin' our jobs, collect our pay
Believe were gliding down the highway,
when in fact were slip sliding away
Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
You know the nearer your destination,
the more you slip sliding away

Rowan Williams said he didn't speak on coded language when he was here. But these resolutions are filled with coded language and it's clear that if Katharine Jefferts Schori and Bonnie Anderson are writing three-page-letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury they are severely worried. That they couldn't say their own worries to their own houses says more about the duplicity of their actions - and clarifies to all that The Episcopal Church has set its sights on slip sliding away into the sunset.

Fulcrum on Episcopal Tribulation

2009-07-14T16:38:00.001-07:00

The decision, by a 2-to-1 majority, of the House of Bishops of TEC to pass D025 represents a further determined walking apart by the American Church and must have significant consequences for the relationship of TEC to the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.

Their decision to support, with a minor amendment, the resolution previously passed by the House of Deputies:

Ignored the repeated requests by all the Instruments of Communion, most recently the Anglican Consultative Council, to uphold the Windsor moratoria

Disregarded the explicit request of the Archbishop of Canterbury during his visit to General Convention when he stated “Along with many in the Communion, I hope and pray that there won't be decisions in the coming days that will push us further apart”.

Failed to heed the Archbishop of Canterbury's warning at General Synod that “it remains to be seen I think whether the vote of the House of Deputies will be endorsed by the House of Bishops.
If the House of Bishops chooses to block then the moratorium remains. I regret the fact that there is not the will to observe the moratorium in such a significant part of the Church in North America but I can’t say more about that as I have no details”.

Overturned the recommendation of the bishops serving on the World Mission committee who asked the House not to support the resolution, explicitly citing such reasons as that passing the resolution amounted to a rejection of the process commended by Windsor and jeopardizes the covenant, would not reflect hearing the concerns of the Communion and disregards Lambeth I.10

Withdrew the assurances given by the House of Bishops to the wider Communion in September 2007 in response to the Dar Primates' Meeting.

1 It is important to recognise the multiple levels at which the resolution disregards the mind of the Communion both in relation to human sexuality and the nature of life together in Communion as expressed in the Windsor Report and the Anglican Covenant.

It:

selectively quotes from Lambeth I.10 and affirms only the Listening Process but not the teaching and practice of the Communion consistently reaffirmed by the Instruments since 1998 which is the framework within which the Listening Process should occur.

contradicts the teaching of Scripture and the Communion by reaffirming that same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect and careful, honest communication display “holy love”.

recognizes that “gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst” despite the clear statement of Lambeth I.10 rejecting ordination of those in same-sex unions.

reaffirms they were right to consent to the election of Gene Robinson and proceed to his consecration by affirming “that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church” despite Windsor's request for a statement of regret for that action.

asserts their right autonomously to determine the suitability of candidates for ordination “through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church” without reference to the discernment of the wider church or the requested moratorium.

In relation to the Anglican Communion and the Windsor and Covenant Processes, the Windsor Continuation Group stated that “A deliberate decision to act in a way which damages Communion of necessity carries consequences. This is quite distinct from the language of sanction or punishment, but acknowledges that the expression and experience of our Communion in Christ cannot be sustained so fully in such circumstances. A formal expression of the distance experienced would therefore seem to be appropriate” (Para 45). General Convention's actions clearly reject the Windsor Process and are incompatible with the affirmations and commitments agreed by ACC in the proposed covenant. A formal expression of distance, with consequent limiting of involvement in Communion counsels, must now follow if the Windsor and covenant processes are to retain credibility in the wider Communion.

In relation to the Church of England, it has recently been reaffirmed, with regard to the Church of Sweden, that “the teaching and discipline of the Church of England, like that of the Anglican Communion as a whole as expressed in the Lambeth Conference of 1998, is that it is not right either to bless same-sex sexual relationships or to ordain those who are involved in them” and that “changes in the understanding of human sexuality and marriage” will lead to impairment of relationships and limit the inter-changeability of ordained ministry.

2 These consequences must now logically follow in relation to those bishops within TEC who have voted to support D025. They could be expressed by such means as actions under the Overseas Clergy Measure and a decision that the Church of England not be represented at future TEC consecrations.

Over coming weeks, in discerning a proportionate response to this latest development it is important that

a clear differentiation is made between the majority in TEC who voted for the resolution and those – centred on the Communion Partners – who upheld the mind of the Communion within TEC. We hope that many Church of England bishops will clearly reaffirm their continued full communion with those TEC bishops who voted against the resolution.

similar disregard for the moratoria in a significant number of dioceses in the Anglican Church of Canada are not ignored

critical attention also be given to the relationship of both the Communion and the Church of England with the Anglican Church in North America.

As that discernment occurs and General Convention continues to meet and discuss other resolutions that would represent a further tearing of the fabric of the Communion we pray the words of this week's collect

Almighty and everlasting God,
by whose Spirit the whole body of the Church
is governed and sanctified:
hear our prayer which we offer for all your faithful people,
that in their vocation and ministry
they may serve you in holiness and truth
to the glory of your name;
through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.

Latest on FCA

2009-06-29T09:17:00.001-07:00

ANGLO CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL BISHOPS BACK UK LAUNCH OF FELLOWSHIP OF CONFESSING ANGLICANS (FCA)

FIVE English Bishops are to take part in the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in London on July 6, expressing the breadth of support the fellowship, which had its roots in the Gafcon conference in Jerusalem last year, is experiencing.

Organisers, who booked Westminster Central Hall for the day-long event, have seen registrations from church leaders flooding in since the launch was announced just two months ago.

In addition to video and personal greetings from international guests including Archbishop Nicholas Okoh, Bishop of Asaba and Archbishop of Bendel, Nigeria, and Archbishop Henri Orombi from Uganda, delegates will also learn of the depth of support and good wishes from English bishops, leaders of both the evangelical and Anglo Catholic wings of Anglicanism.

English Bishops John Broadhurst (Fulham), Wallace Benn (Lewes), John Hind (Chichester) and Michael Nazir-Ali (Rochester) are all billed to speak to the gathering, and Peter Forster (Chester) has sent greetings.

Two other diocesan bishops will attend the event. Leading Anglo Catholic Bishop, Keith Ackerman, will lead a main session on how FCA is a catalyst for united mission, ministry and focus for both orthodox Anglicans, be they evangelical or Anglo Catholic.

Bishop Ackerman, who is President of Forward in Faith in the USA, said: “One of the reasons I am really looking forward to being with my friends in England is so that I might be able to share with them the anointing of the Holy Spirit that has occurred at this gathering (of the installation of Archbishop Bob Duncan as Primate of the Anglican Church in North America at Christ Church Plano on June 24) here in Texas.

“Some people say that they really like to stand in line and have a little bit of food from here and there – a smorgasbord – other people like casseroles. At this event the Holy Spirit has brought this meal forward, he has blended together those unique contributions that each of the strains brought and while not losing its integrity is able to put forth that which is well pleasing in his sight and to God be the glory.

“The time is right for us right now not to lose sight of what he is calling his entire Church to. The entire Anglican Communion is being called to stand up and Be Faithful! at this very time. Luke-warmness has gone and we are now ready to talk about the light of the world, Jesus Christ who is ready to ignite the work he has placed before us at this time. I cannot wait to see everyone.”

Event spokesman, the Revd Paul Perkin, a vicar from London, added: “Some are staying in the Church, but failing to stand for Christian truth and practice; others are standing firm for Christian truth and practice, but are not staying. We are standing, and we are staying.”

The gathering will also hear from a personal video message from veteran evangelical and Anglican statesman, Dr. Jim Packer, before Archbishop Peter Jensen from Australia will give a 30 minute presentation on Why the Jerusalem Statement, agreed at Gafcon in 2008 is central to the fellowship’s development across the globe, and in the UK.

Click here for press release

(Source: GAFCON website, 28/06/09)

Impressive Procession

2009-06-25T16:20:00.001-07:00

I could do without the water!

So What's the ACNA?

2009-06-25T16:17:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Chris Sugden!

From Mark Thompson (Moore College, Sydney)

2009-05-25T11:26:00.001-07:00

Opinion, from Dr. Mark Thompson:

Last night the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (operating as its Supreme Court) voted 326 to 267 to confirm the call of a practicing and openly gay man to be the minister of the congregation of Queen’s Cross in Aberdeen.

The decision comes at a time when the same issue has critically divided the Anglican Communion. A non-celibate gay man is Bishop of New Hampshire in the United States, his appointment confirmed by all but a small minority in The Episcopal Church. His presence at the inauguration of President Obama was nothing less than a presidential imprimatur. The Canadian churches are pushing ahead with the liturgical blessing of same-sex unions. Powerful gay lobbies are operating in many Anglican provinces around the world, including here in Australia. Meanwhile the Archbishop of Canterbury, caught between his published private opinions and the official position of his church, keeps trying to hold everyone together.

Other denominations both in Australia and beyond have also been dealing with various levels of gay activism within their membership.

The statement released by the Fellowship of Confessing Churches states the issue with unusual succinctness: this vote ‘sends a clear signal to the world that our denomination has departed from the teaching of the Christian Scriptures, upon which its very existence depends’. This statement resonates with the stated concerns of orthodox Christians around the world and in various denominations. The written word of God states repeatedly and unambiguously that homosexuality is a contradiction of God’s creational design for human sexual expression; to use the words of the Fellowship’s statement again, ‘the clear Scriptural pattern that recognises the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman as the only proper place for sexual intimacy’.

To acknowledge the Bible’s teaching on this matter as the true expression of God’s mind is not in any way to condone violence against homosexual persons. Such violence is itself a failure to take seriously the teaching of Scripture. Christians completely repudiate any such violence against anyone with whom we might disagree and where violence has been perpetrated in the name of Christ or of his people we need to acknowledge it and genuinely repent of it. What is more, homosexual persons are entitled to certain protections under the law (e.g. the right to live free of a fear of violence, the right to own property, and the right to be paid the same salary for the same work). However, these protections should not extend to insisting that all must agree with their decisions or behaviour. It is not an act of violence to say that something is wrong or morally repugnant.

Nor is this a sign of some psychological weakness, a ‘homophobia’ which is little more than giving way to our own fears and insecurities. This psychologising of dissent or opposition is a common enough tactic in modern debates. In the popular media and in liberal circles, it is used to suggest that there is something seriously deficient in those who disagree with the consensus they are promoting. It can also be a way of avoiding serious engagement with the arguments of your opponents. After all, if their opposition is borne out of pure irrational bigotry then surely it is appropriate just to marginalise and ignore them. However, the Christian opposition to homosexual behaviour over the past two thousand years has not arisen out of fear or ignorance. It arises from God’s clear expression of his mind and purposes for human beings. It is carefully reasoned and grounded firmly in God’s revelation.

The advocates of the right of actively homosexual persons to be recognised as faithful Christians and entrusted with Christian leadership of various kinds have also sometimes argued that their opponents are all captive to naïve and fundamentalist readings of Scripture which cannot be taken seriously in the twenty-first century. They point to other practices condemned in Scripture (almost invariably the Old Testament) which Christians do not take seriously and in fact have not taken seriously for a very long time. The food and clothing laws of Leviticus are often cited in this regard. So too is the insistence in the same Old Testament book that adultery should be punishable by death. Christians once justified slavery on the basis of biblical teaching, so the argument goes, and excluded women from leadership in the Christian congregation.

However, even a basic understanding of biblical theology demonstrates the difference between most of these cases and the issue of homosexual behaviour. The food and clothing laws of the Old Testament relate to the distinct national identity of Israel as God’s chosen people. With the advent of Jesus the situation is quite different. Indeed, it is Jesus himself who declares all foods clean. Adultery, however, is very different, as the repeated denunciations of it in the New Testament testify. It is no less serious an affront to God as it was in the Old Testament, since it still involves the repudiation of God’s intention for a faithful life-long union between a man and woman. Yet the Old Testament demand for judicial execution is replaced by congregational discipline: a call to repent and temporary exclusion with the goal of full restoration. Here is an appropriate analogy with the New Testament perspective on homosexual behaviour.

The appeal to the Christian attitude towards slavery as a precedent is to a certain degree disingenuous. After all, it was evangelical Christianity, motivated by obedience to the Scriptures rather than a desire to set them aside in favour of a contemporary public consensus, which overturned the slave trade in Britain. That abominable trade in human misery had been wrongly equated with the slavery found in Israel under the Old Covenant. Furthermore, the bonds of brotherhood in Christ took precedence over all social station and effectively undermined the practice of slavery as it existed in the first century Mediterranean world (as Paul more than hints to the slave-owner Philemon).

The case of women and Christian leadership is nowhere near as straightforward. It is certainly a matter of demonstrable fact that there is no universal Christian consensus on what kinds of leadership are appropriately exercised by women and what are not. There are many who insist that women are to be considered in every way equal to men and yet that this equality is not at all compromised by recognising men and women as complements of one another rather than duplicates. Yet others prefer an undifferentiated egalitarianism. The New Testament clearly considers gender an important issue when it comes to how we should behave within the Christian congregation. Yet debate continues as to how giftedness and opportunity are related to the very few restrictions on the appropriate ministry of women in the apostolic writings.

The push for what is euphemistically called ‘homosexual inclusion’ is sometimes portrayed as the next chapter in the history of enlightenment and emancipation. The prejudices of the past and the morally bankrupt practices which arose from them have one by one been overturned as knowledge replaced ignorance and freedom overcame oppression. The mistreatment of those who were different in race or gender to those with power was rightly exposed and action was rightly taken to eliminate it. Now, we are told, there is one further kind of discrimination which needs to be overcome: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet such a picture cloaks a raft of differences.

Most important of these is the simple fact that the Christian objection focuses on behaviour rather than the inward struggle with temptation. Each of us is tempted to seek fulfilment, pleasure or meaning apart from God and his good word to us. We could rightly speak about our orientation or attraction to selfishness, pride, greed, anger, promiscuity and so forth, and of our responsibility to seek God’s help to resist that orientation. Those troubled with homosexual temptation need support and care rather than repudiation. And part of that support may well be to help such people avoid circumstances which would provide opportunity to surrender to that temptation.

Nevertheless, the issue in New Hampshire, Canada, Scotland and elsewhere is homosexual activity, indeed the embrace of an actively homosexual lifestyle while claiming to submit to the Lordship of Christ.

The sad but unavoidable truth is that any Christianity which endorses homosexual activity is not authentic Christianity. It cannot appeal to the universal teaching of the Christian churches over the past two thousand years. It can lay no claim to the mandate of Scripture. It cannot legitimately suggest that Jesus overturned the teaching of the Old Testament on this issue. Indeed, when speaking to the Pharisees about divorce he explicitly reiterated God’s creational intention: ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’ (Matt. 19:4–6)

It is important for Christians to be vocal in their opposition to moves such as that just made in Aberdeen. We need to insist that this is an aberration which is inauthentic. The lobbyists will certainly try to use it as evidence that there is no Christian consensus on this issue. This will no doubt be part of the debate in the House of Lords this week as activists try to wind back religious exemptions to the laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet we continue to say ‘no’ and to argue that homosexual practice is morally repugnant because God has made this clear in the Scriptures. And the good word of the good God who made us all is always worth living by.

Problems in Church of Scotland

2009-05-25T11:23:00.000-07:00

General Assembly 2009 — Statement

Statement regarding the ruling of the General Assembly to support Aberdeen Presbytery’s decision that living an openly homosexual lifestyle is no barrier to ordained ministry in the Church:

We deeply regret the decision of the General Assembly, which has brought great shame on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Church by publicly proclaiming as holy what God, the Bible, and orthodox Christianity all down the ages, and all over the world, unambiguously call sin.

This is about far more than just sexuality. The very nature of the Christian gospel is at stake. The true gospel is not about self-fulfilment and self-expression, but a command to take up our cross in a life of self-denial, regardless of our own personal inclinations, desires or past history. Jesus’ call is one of compassion, but of compassionate truth: ‘I forgive you; go and leave your life of sin’. That is why the world rejected Jesus personally, and rejects his message today.

But the Church’s task is to proclaim the truth of God to the world nonetheless. Our own congregations, which include a number of homosexual people, are united in opposing this decision. We stand in complete solidarity with congregations in Aberdeen who stood for the truth of God, and we affirm our Christian fellowship with them, and trust many others will do likewise.

This crisis has galvanised many living churches within the Church of Scotland to seek to work together in a new way through the Confessing Churches movement. In fellowship together, and sharing resources for real gospel mission, we will embrace with renewed vigour the commission of Jesus to make true disciples, calling people to repentance and faith in his gospel, and teaching them obedience to all that he has commanded through his apostles. True Christianity cannot be silenced.

We fear that the General Assembly is seriously out of touch with the grass roots in the churches. But it should remember that these are the people who have—hitherto at least—kept a creaking denomination afloat financially. We suspect there will be a great deal less willingness to do that from now on.

Calvin on Faith

2009-05-06T15:48:00.000-07:00

"Now, therefore, we hold faith to be a knowledge of God's will toward us, perceived from his Word. But the foundation of this is a preconceived conviction of God's truth. As for its certainty, so long as your mind is at war with itself, the Word will be of doubtful and weak authority, or rather of none. And it is not even enough to believe that God is trustworthy (cf. Rom 3.3), who can neither deceive nor lie (cf Titus 1.2), unless you hold to be beyond doubt that whatever proceeds from him is sacred and inviolable truth."

Book III, Chapter 3, paragraph 6

Thinking about the Second Coming

2009-04-30T11:34:00.000-07:00

From Gary Burge's commentary on 1 John 2.18 regarding the 'last time.'

"History runs not towards the end, but along it, and on the brink of it; and is at all times near that great event, which, did it run towards it, it would at once run into it. Christ then is ever at our doors." from John Henry Newman (Cardinal)

More on Johnny Can't Preach

2009-03-14T10:24:00.000-07:00

Thanks to blog of Kevin DeYoung at Reformed Forum.

Gordon gives several pieces of evidence for his negative conclusion.

1) Anecdotally, he estimates that only 15% of the sermons he’s heard in the past 25 years had a discernible point. And of those 15%, less than 10% had a point based on the text of Scripture.

2) Most churchgoers wants shorter sermons, not because they have short attention spans, but because their preacher, God bless him, can’t preach very well.

3) Gordon looks at Robert Dabney’s Lectures on Rhetoric from the 19th century and concludes that Dabney's “seven cardinal requisites of preaching” are missing from most of our pulpits: textual fidelity, unity, evangelical tone (is the minister eager to bless the congregation or scold them?), instructiveness, movement, point, and order. These are not subjective measures, mind you. These are basic fundamentals. No one in the history of homiletics has encouraged disunity in the sermon. These are things we can all agree on. And yet, they aren't there.

Why Johnny Can't Preach

2009-03-13T16:03:00.001-07:00

David Gordon talks about his book, Why Johnny Can't Preach.

Challenging and excellent stuff!

Theological Word of the Day

2009-03-02T20:52:00.001-08:00

Theological Word of the Daygreat free widgetsWidgetbox

Taking Care of our Voice

2009-02-07T22:46:00.000-08:00

Mike Mellor has written a simple, yet most helpful, and so far the only book I have seen on exercising the minister's voice. He explains voice physiology and then gives exercises a minister can do to help preserve and use his voice.

I'm going to try and put his exercises in practice, beginning tomorrow. So it will be, Mum, I'm home, mum, I'm home - to help get the voice in gear. (The author is from Wales.)

Alaska Discernment Committee

2009-01-30T12:10:00.000-08:00

The Standing Committee is pleased to announce the appointment of the following persons to the Bishop Discernment Committee:

· Mr. Dan Hall, Southeast, Chair

· Ms. Deatrea Marciel, Southeast

· The Reverend Wilfred Lane, Arctic Coast

· Mr. Martin Oktollik, Arctic Coast

· Mr. Clarence Bolden, Interior

· Ms. Linda Demientieff, Interior

· The Reverend Ann Whitney, Southcentral

· Ms. Stacy Thorpe, Southcentral

The Great Divide

2009-01-28T12:14:00.000-08:00

"For to some the Bible is absolutely unique and from above - God given; while to others it is only outstanding and from beneath - man-wrought. To some it is, and makes ours, an indispensable revelation without which men cannot see the truth about God; it provides a final standard or court of appeal by which all claims to have found the truth can and must be judged. To others it is rather the product of the spiritual discernment of men of old, a discernment which by the same Spirit men today may not only equal but even superseded; so that a man enlightened by the divine Spirit may so discern fresh or fuller truth as to be able rightly to criticize and even to discard parts of Scripture...These different views cannot both be right. They are not merely complementary aspects of a larger whole just waiting to be united. Rather, as experience has proved, they will not mix. Nor is there hope of vital unity among us until we are afresh agreed in the conviction that the Bible, which is history, is like the Incarnation absolutely unique history, because it is also and first of all special God-given revelation."

From "Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor" - by D.A. Carson

2009-01-26T12:46:00.001-08:00

There is always more pastoral work to be done, so remember that we serve under a gospel of grace.
As Marg Carson said, “Work hard and play hard, but never confuse the two.”
When other ministers in your sphere are working effectively and fruitfully, learn what you can, but keep envy at bay with rejoicing.
If you have a tender conscience, rejoice because that is a great gift. But be sure to combine that gift with a deep understanding of the limitless dimensions of the love of God.
No matter what is going on, never ignore your wife and children.
When change is necessary, pray and plan carefully, and act.
Be serious in working out what it means to be content in your busy ministry life.
Know yourself, and play to your strengths.
Fill your life regularly and deeply with the knowledge and love of God so that when the dark times come, the call to God is one of a cry for help rather than a judgemental curse.

Reform England Chairman Speaks

2009-01-23T10:47:00.000-08:00

REFORM is an Evangelical network in the Church of England, the aim of which is to preserve and foster gospel ministry. It’s as simple as that. I suppose we’re stuck with the title of “conservative”, but our concern is not with labels — our concern is with gospel ministry. We think the country should have the opportunity to hear the gospel of the Lord Jesus as it is in the Bible, and so the authority of the Bible should be paramount. Undermining the authority of the Bible undermines the gospel. If you can’t trust one bit, how can you trust the rest?

Critical reading of the Bible is good, if it means seriously to engage with the text. If it means to put it to one side in favour of other authorities, it does undermine its authority.

We don’t do major membership campaigns. But we have about 1600 members, about 500 of whom are clergy. We estimate that two or three times that number of clergy are sympathetic to our aims, if not to every aspect of our covenant — that’s the essential statement of what we believe, and I think it’s the best expressed statement of Evangelical faith at the moment.

Homosexuality is not at all the main issue — we want to welcome everybody, irrespective of their sexuality. But where the authority of the Bible is undermined, we will stand up for it. We’re not a single-issue group — we’re fighting the battle wherever the battle is.

There should be male headship of the local church because it’s a visual aid of Christ’s relationship with his people. Reform believes that there needs to be a valued ministry of women in the church as there needs to be a valued ministry of men; it’s a difference of function. The way we order ourselves is a visual aid of how we relate to God. But there are gradations between us on this issue.

We intend to remain faithful, and to be part of the Church of England. An important part of that is respecting the biblical basis of the Church. Canon A5 is based on the teaching of scripture. If people move away from that, we’ll find a way round those obstacles — for example, if a bishop of a diocese started to teach something which seems against what the Bible says, we’d remain part of the diocesan structures, but look for spiritual oversight elsewhere.

The Anglican Church isn’t an organisation which welcomes a range of beliefs. It has core beliefs which stand at the heart of its identity. You can’t ignore the formularies of the Church — that’s not Anglican. Having said that, it does have a reputation for tolerance and allowing space for people to disagree over secondary issues, and that’s something I prize enormously. It’s a genuinely national Church.

I alternate between admiration for Dr Williams, and despair. I don’t think there’s anyone who doesn’t admire his courtesy, huge thoughtfulness, and desire to keep people together; but what makes me sometimes despair is the lack of any clear action to support the confessional basis of our identity as Anglicans. It’s one thing that prompted

GAFCON.

The Bible became significant to me slightly later in my life. I became a Christian from the age of seven, and grew up in a Christian family — Plymouth Brethren and then Baptist. In early adulthood I fell away from Christ. I came back, partly as result of getting married and thinking about the fundamental things I wanted to base my life on, and partly on discovering a Church of England church where the Bible was taught in a way I’d never heard before. It opened God’s revelation to me.

I went into the Civil Service, but despite being fast-streamed, I decided to move out when Margaret Thatcher came into power, and worked in various business organisations. I finished as Director of Employment and Environmental Affairs at the CBI.

My most embarrassing moment was when I had to carry the can for a real mess-up in a visit of a senior Japanese trade delegation. At one point, the entire delegation walked out — something nobody had heard of before.

When I was a young child, I wanted to be a farmer. When I grew up, I wanted to go into politics. But the polarisation of views among political parties at the time I finished university left me feeling unhappy about committing myself fully to one party.

The ordination process started with the reconciling of my faith with understanding the Bible as being the living word of God. And I was given increasing numbers of opportunities to teach the Bible, which I hugely enjoyed — and found very challenging. Professionally, I’d reached a point where I needed to move on, but I wasn’t attracted to any of the options available to me. It was a long process of discernment with fellow-Christians, and also with my wife.

I’m married and have three children, who are very much moving into adulthood now: the youngest is 17. I’ve loved seeing them develop. You give them exactly the same opportunities, but they all turn out different.

I was brought up in the most exclusive version of the Plymouth Brethren. Leaving it opened up life in a way it hadn’t been opened before. I came out with the rest of my family, except my father. He was later excluded — probably for not being able to control his family. When you see these things happening, you know it has nothing to do with Christian love, nothing to do with standing firm in the faith.

I hope the first impression of my church is that it’s joyful and friendly. People say that. Emphasis on the Bible’s teaching is at the centre, and we’re in the process of change. We were a small church, now we’re a medium-sized church, and I’m hopeful that we’ll continue to change and grow.

Being in the Exclusive Brethren and seeing the destructive effect it has on families has given me a lifelong love of the tolerance you find in the Church of England. Leaving was an important choice. So was marriage, and finding a church which taught me the Bible. And, of course, becoming ordained.

I gave my life to Christ at the age of seven as result of reading The Treasures of the Snow by Patricia St John. I’d be hard put to choose between the books of John Stott — they’ve all been hugely influential. I’ve just finished Sea of Poppies by Amitav Ghosh. I loved it.

When I was relatively young, Billy Graham had quite a strong influence on me — his story and what he did. I read his biography and went to the Earls Court mission, and was selling song books there for one or two weeks. I remember dashing out to get his autograph and being disappointed that he refused — on the grounds that he’d have to give everyone else one. I looked around and there wasn’t anyone else there. . . But I still admire him enormously.

My biggest regret is selling my house in London at the bottom of the last recession.

I do remember a sermon by Dick Lucas which explained to me for the first time how the Church is at the centre of God’s purposes for the whole of history. I heard it on a Walkman as I walked round a supermarket and was utterly gripped. I don’t know what happened to my shopping.

Fairtrade coffee tastes delicious. Yes, I do support Fairtrade — and we sell it regularly at our church.

Leisure time is any time spent with my family, particularly as the youngsters are now becoming adults. Spending time in conversation with them is wonderful. Living in Plymouth, I enjoy going out in a boat. I built a sailing boat when I was 16, after reading Swallows and Amazons, and that love has remained with me all my life.

I might have said the PA system at the Reform conference was the last thing that made me angry, but the National Evangelical Anglican Conference in November. . ! That dreadful inability to vote about the doctrine that lies at the heart of Anglicanism astonished and angered me.

One of the things which makes me really happy is seeing the changes in people’s faces after a Christianity Explored course. I run them regularly, and as people discover Christianity for themselves, one of the wonderful things is to see their whole manner change.

There are innumerable people in the epochs of history I would like to get locked in a church with — and yet I think I could only understand someone within reach of my own generation. I once heard Tony Benn say that he felt in some way he was accountable for his life. I’d love to pick that conversation up with him.

Why the Gospel Needs the Law

2009-01-10T10:51:00.000-08:00

Why the gospel needs the law

About The Way of the Master, a ministry which encourages evangelism

My friend Andrew sounded excited on the phone. But using the Ten Commandments in evangelism?! Sounded like legalism to me. He gave me the website address of The Way of the Master — I said I would take a look. But as soon as I saw the material, I was gripped.

In a reality TV show style, the interviewer used the Ten Commandments to bring knowledge of sin and conviction of sin, and then offered the gospel. Over the course of about a month, enjoying soup lunches in my study that spring, I searched out episodes of The Way of the Master TV programme that some bright spark had posted on YouTube and watched them on my laptop. I slowly became convinced about the theological basis of using the Law in evangelism, based on such texts as Mark 10.17ff, Romans 3.20; Romans 7.7, Galatians 3.24, James 2.10, 1 Timothy 1.8-11, etc. It truly was a revelation — something so simple yet powerful which I had never come across or heard about before.

Still cautious

But still I was cautious about releasing the material on the church — something so completely unknown, and which did not pull its punches.

One day, a thought came to me. Ten years before, while on the Cornhill Training Course, Dick Lucas was giving away a lot of his old books. I had picked up a few of them, including The Christian Ministry by Charles Bridges, regarded by many as a spiritual Reformed classic on the ministry. I searched my shelves, pulled it down, and began to flick through it, wondering if there was anything in this old volume. I was speechless to discover that there was a whole section on use of the Law in evangelism, listing quotation after quotation after quotation from people as widespread as Augustine, Calvin, Whitefield, Matthew Henry, Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Stott, saying the same thing. For example:

John Wesley: ‘The very first end of the Law [is], namely, convicting men of sin; awakening those who are still asleep on the brink of hell … The ordinary method of God is to convict sinners by the Law and that only. The gospel is not the means which God hath ordained, or which our Lord himself used, for this end.’

Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones: ‘A gospel which merely says, “Come to Jesus”, and offers him as a friend, and offers a marvelous new life, without convincing of sin, is not New Testament evangelism. (The essence of evangelism is to start by preaching the Law; and it is because the Law has not been preached that we have had so much superficial evangelism.) True evangelism... must always start by preaching the law.’

‘The trouble with people who are not seeking for a Saviour, and for salvation, is that they do not understand the nature of sin. It is the peculiar function of the Law to bring such an understanding to a man’s mind and conscience. That is why great evangelical preachers 300 years ago in the time of the Puritans, and 200 years ago in the time of Whitefield and others, always engaged in what they called a preliminary law work.’

Nothing new

Aside from the biblical texts, here also was historical proof. This was not a new fangled method dreamt up by Americans, but, in fact, one the ancients swore by, to bring deep conviction of sin and repentance — Spurgeon even called the Law ‘our greatest auxiliary’ (our greatest weapon).

I ordered the material from The Way of the Master and began to advertise the training course. In our small country village church, 20 signed up for the eight-week course, including the churchwardens. Many were fearful, some did drop out, but, with those who did continue, we had some extraordinary bold adventures in evangelism, culminating in witnessing on Eastbourne seafront as a group one Saturday afternoon, giving out tracts and engaging with people. To this day I remember the district nurse, who, when, after a very good dialogue supper conversation, a friend turned to her and said, ‘I wish there was a warning of Judgment Day’, replied, cool as a cucumber, ‘This is your warning. You may not get another’. And that wasn’t even part of the script of the course! That is the kind of boldness we are talking about.

Baptism visits

A few weeks into the course, I was still concerned that it would be dismissed as ‘dreadfully American’. I was determined that we had to get some British footage. Andrew Baughen kindly agreed to film us. ‘What about Covent Garden?’ he asked. I nearly died; I had not reckoned on being a street evangelist in quite such a public place! But with much prayer and the Lord’s help, I managed myself to get two contrasting interviews on camera, which have been a great asset in demonstrating that British people can use this material.

One of the most interesting venues for using the material has been on baptism visits. In my baptism visits for parents wanting their children ‘done’, I have traditionally used a spiritual questionnaire to find out where they stood, and then used the Two Ways to Live material. It has been faithful, solid stuff, but often not had much effect. People have still very much had the attitude ‘take it or leave it’ really.

I began to show one of the video clips also as part of the preparation, and the effect has always been profound. People are intrigued and amused to begin with. Then, as the interviews progress, the implications of what they are viewing begins to hit — that they also have broken God’s laws, and they also are in the same spiritual predicament of standing under his judgment. They are awakened to their sin, and to various degrees also alarmed at the consequences of it. During the last baptism visit I did, we spent a good half hour discussing sin, righteousness and judgment. The fathers particularly were very thoughtful.

Our standing with God

The perfect example of this in Sussex was a father who was a successful newspaper man. Before the clip his questions were about science and suffering, fairly academic and casual questions. As soon as he saw the clip, his questions were completely different. He commented that he always believed that Christianity was how you measured up with other people. Now he saw that it was where you stood with God. I said. ‘You got it in one’. I lent him a book, met up with him, answered lots of his questions. He started coming regularly to church, to the Men’s Breakfast, reading Christian books, praying in the car, reading his Bible, and wanting (his words) to ‘become a committed Christian’. Which he did. All through the trigger of coming under conviction of sin through use of the Law.

Rabbit in the headlights

I saw the same effect on children in family services. You can teach children the Ten Commandments in a fun way, using pictures associated with that particular commandment. You then test them. You then go on to talk about the commandments and the gospel. And every time, whether in assemblies or in family services, I saw what you might call ‘the rabbit in the headlights’ look. You can see the cogs in the head turning just the same as with adults: ‘I have broken God’s laws — I’m a sinner — God is not going to let me off because he is a good God — he’s going to call me to account — I’m in trouble — help!’

Most modern methods of evangelism in the UK swing on getting people to examine the claims of Jesus. You get someone to come on an Alpha course, or a Christianity Explored course. But what if someone is just not interested in looking at the claims of Jesus? (which many people you encounter just aren’t). What if they won’t commit to a six, eight, ten week course? What then? That often means they don’t get even to hear the gospel: we are pretty much stuck.

‘Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink’, perhaps we say, with a shrug. That’s right. But you can salt his oats. What I mean by that is, if you put salt into a horse’s oats, that salt will give him a great thirst. It will cause him to want to drink; to run to the water, and drink in deeply. Well, what can we do similarly for sinners, that will make them thirst for righteousness? What will make someone cry out, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ as they cried out in the times of Wesley and Whitefield. The answer is the Law of God.

Pressing need

Which is, of course, what Wesley and Whitefield preached much of, before they ever got on to the gospel of grace. Perhaps it is time we returned to that. Listen to Gresham Machen: ‘A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law.’

If you are serious about wanting to see sinners saved, to turn them in the Way, in my experience these last 12 months, there ain’t nothing quite like the Law for doing it. But it is hardly my discovery - our Reformed forebears knew that all along. It is just that we have forgotten it. No wonder the appropriately named Ray Comfort of The Way of the Master has called it ‘Hell’s Best Kept Secret’.

James Paice,
St. Luke's Church, Wimbledon Park, London

Thinking about the DIocese of Florida Resolution 12

2008-12-29T11:08:00.000-08:00

From the Diocese of C. Fl resolution 12 re. disaffiliation from ACN,

"Some are called to walk apart in witness to the one unchanging Gospel while others are called to continue that witness within TEC. It is our prayer that this separation is temporary and will result in real and lasting reformation and renewal of TEC and, indeed, the whole Anglican Communion, to the end that one day we may truly manifest the unity for which our Lord prayed."

"Some are called - others are called." I want to know the reasons why the Diocese of C Fl believes or better 'thinks' it is called to do whatever. Or is in the realm of subjective feelings only? I find this talk empty and unhelpful. Perhaps it is an attempt to smooth over what might prove to be contentious. The Diocese of Central Florida, if this resolution passes, chooses to disaffiliate with ACN. Fair enough. The reason given is that after prayer and thought, they believe they can provide a more effective witness within TEC.

It seems to me that in the revelation of God's will there could be more than just one way to respond to TEC apostasy. However, I would say that God calls all of us to 'separate' ourselves from fellowship with false teachers - which includes, among others, our Presiding Bishop. That principle is found in the Bible, therefore it must be God's will. How we implement that is a bit trickier - admittedly. I think it means we should not break bread with false teachers or have fellowship with them - i.e. in the context of a worship service, for instance.

Is Rowan Williams in the Right Job (I don't think so)

2008-12-16T09:27:00.000-08:00

Gerald Bray's fascinating editorial in the Churchman - not online at the
moment - begins this way:  "Rowan Williams is in the wrong job.  The events
of the past few months must have made that fairly obvious to most
people...The truth, however, is that having done his utmost to hold the
Anglican Communion together, Dr. Williams has managed to drive it further
apart, not so much by the creation of GAFCON, of which he is the true
founder and patron, as by his encouragement he has given to the Americans
and others to carry on as they always have, regardless of what anyone else
says or thinks..."

Could not one unintended consequence of the Communion Partners be to give
encouragement to TEC to carry on as they always have?

New Province is Coming!

2008-12-04T11:43:00.001-08:00

Prayer for New Province!

There have been many attempts to summ...

2008-12-02T22:13:00.001-08:00

There have been many attempts to summarize the Bible: Here is one:

God has given us a book full of stories,
Which he made for his people of old,
It begins with a tale of a garden,
And ends with a city of gold.

That's not a bad summary. Another way is to understand the Bible as revealing the God who comes to us. In the Garden of Eden, after the Adam and Eve sinned and hid from God, God came to search for them. Similarly, in the parable of the Good Shepherd, Jesus teaches us that God comes to those who are lost, in the person of his Son, to rescue us. At the right time, Galatians tells us, God "sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law." (Gal 4.5)

The Old Testament promises that God will come to us as a prophet to declare his authoritative word, and he will come as the priest to atone for our sins, and he will come to proclaim peace to the nations as the king whose rule will extend from sea to sea. In the New Testament, the one who will be prophet, priest and king is summed up as Immanuel, 'God with us.' The God who is coming is the one who has come.

So, it is not surprising that the God who has come promises one day to return. Rather than a an obscure piece of biblical trivia, the second coming of Christ the 'end game' of the Bible. This is where everything is headed. The Greek word, eskatos, from which we get 'eschatology' means the final things. The Bible is eschatological from beginning to end.

At Christmas, we remember Jesus' coming into the world at a point and time in history. However, we should also remember that this coming of the Lord which was for 'us men and our salvation' through his death and resurrection will be completed at his second coming. His coming again will be physical, visible, sudden and triumphant. As we rejoice over his coming into the world as a baby, we look forwad to the time that he will come again in his glorious majesty to usher in the new heavens and the new earth where righteousness dwells.

The Invitation System

2008-10-27T12:43:00.001-07:00

clipped from www.christianitytoday.com

Walk the Aisle

The pastor closes his sermon: "The Holy Spirit bids you come. The congregation, praying, hoping, expectant, bids you come. On the first note of the first stanza, come down one of these stairways, down one of these aisles. May angels attend you. May the Holy Spirit of God encourage you. May the presence of Jesus walk by your side as you come, while we stand and while we sing." And come they do. Week after week, in churches all across the America—and other parts of the world—scenes like this play out at the end of thousands of sermons. The congregation stands and sings "Just As I Am" or "Come Just as You Are." Sinners walk the aisle and pray for salvation.

Reform England

2008-07-24T10:06:00.001-07:00

Reform in England has a great summary of the GAFCON conference and solid suggestions for parishes in implementing reform while remaining a part of the C of E - which is roughly equivalent to those of us who are 'part' of TEC, while distancing ourselves from its teaching (or lack thereof) and its practice.

Camp Challenge - Wasilla, Alaska Camp 08

2008-06-11T23:27:00.000-07:00

The Disaster of Indifference to Doctrine

2008-05-06T09:50:00.000-07:00

From Martin Downes' Blog on Against Heresies

"My Christian life, for the past thirteen years, has involved inhabiting a small circle within a larger circle. The small circle is that of Reformed theology and church life, the larger circle that of UK evangelicalism. The world of the smaller circle is far from perfect. Yet one thing that it does not suffer from is indifference toward doctrine.

In the larger world of evangelicalism one cannot assume that doctrine is valued. The reverse is often the case. One has, at times, to present an apologetic for the necessity, vitality and importance of doctrine. One can assume that the "d" word is associated in your audience with intellectualism, and the kind of Christian life and experience that is "academic," dry and dusty. Of course these things aren't necessarily so, but prejudice is a powerful thing, and a stress on doctrine can lead to listeners switching off.

Evangelicals who are indifferent to doctrine are a danger to Christianity. Church leaders who do not "hold firmly to the trustworthy word as taught" will never be able to bring God's people to mature godliness (which requires instruction in sound doctrine), nor will they be able to ward off infiltrators who teach another gospel (Titus 1:9). Somehow they know better than Paul what is best for the health of the church.

But it is not only leaders who are held to account for their attitude to sound doctrine. The epistle to the Galatians is directed to churches who are departing from the apostolic gospel. If we are indifferent to sound doctrine, and neglect its intrinsic importance, we are guilty of treating the precious truth that we have been entrusted with as worthless. We take care of the things we love. When God entrusts us with the pattern of sound words he tests our love toward him by how we use, abuse, treasure or neglect his revealed truth.

When you cut through the forest of rhetoric surrounding doctrine, what becomes clear is that indifference toward doctrine is often a cover for indifference toward particular doctrines. Personal experience is not a sufficient or appropriate source from which truth for life can be derived. At the end of the day resistance to true doctrine is empowered by a non-negotiable commitment to other doctrines."

Spring is almost Here

2008-04-27T15:05:00.000-07:00

Semper Reformanda

2008-01-16T11:07:00.000-08:00

For those of you who like to write in your bibles - here is some handy advice
- use pigment ink pins - Such as Micron or Staedtler pigment liners- 
they are acid free & don't bleed through pages. 
Also, at the ESV Blog http://www.esv.org/blog
- an interesting how to on putting together a Bible
(ESV in this case) with blank pages in between for note taking.

Common Cause or Uncommon Confusion

2008-01-10T13:29:00.000-08:00

David Phillips of England's Church Society expresses some of the angst I feel as I think about the various groupings of orthodox US Episcopalians.

We have the Anglican Communion Network which our church belongs to. It consists mainly of those churches and 10 dioceses which are still a part of TEC (The Episcopal Church). Of course even that is changing with San Joaquin now a part of the Southern Cone. Ft. Worth is soon to follow. ACN also embraces about 100 congregations no longer a part of TEC.

Then we have newly ordained bishops, Bill Atwood and Bill Murdoch who represent the Province of Kenya, and John Guernsey who is a bishop for the Province of Uganda. The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) numbers 60,000 including three of the largest TEC parishes. Martyn Minns was consecrated in Nigheria as a missionary bishop and another TEC retired bishop, David Bena, is now a part of CANA.

There are 3 Canadian groups, the Anglican Coalition in Canada, the Anglican Essentials Canada and the Anglican Network in Canada.

Then there is AMiA, The Anglican Mission in the Americas which began in 2000 sponsored by the Province of Rwanda. There are about 125 affiliated congregations in the US and Canada. There are 4 existing bishops and one retired bishop. Three more men will be consecrated this month.

Another group called the Anglican Province of America (APA) was formed by a merger in 1991 though its roots go back to the late 1960's. It is a traditionalist body since the merger has been more Anglo-Catholic in outlook. Then, there is the Reformed Episcopal Church which dates to the 19th century seem now to be a bit uncomfortable with being reformed and now are talking about a merger with APA.

All of the above are now part of yet another grouping called The Common Cause Network which covers these 10 organizations.

Here is the problem. This is a very mixed group, and few are clearly protestant and reformed. Some are ritualistic, some favor women's ordination while others reject it. Some are charismatic, and some use watered down modern liturgy, while others insist on traditional language.

Here is the problem for reformed evangelicals who hang their hat squarely on the 39 Articles and also the need of a reformed Book of Common Prayer (which we do not have). There is still no clear evangelical, reformed and protestant grouping; not even in the Reformed Episcopal Church.

TEC is moribund; but the alternatives are disappointing. Maybe Fitz Allison's advice is prophetic: Stay, Pray and Don't Pay.

Ok, Ok Let's Get Real

2008-01-04T13:35:00.000-08:00

No, I'm not memorizing all those wonderful verses that appeared on the blog. But how about one verse a week.

Go here.

It's a lot easier.

A Great Quote

2007-12-29T15:51:00.000-08:00

From the late Alan Stibbs, a wonderfully clear writer, and an astute expounder of the Bible. "This one event of the cross of Christ is a final revelation of both the character and consequences of human sin and the wonder and sacrifice of divine love."

Helpful Encouragement from J.I. Packer

2007-11-28T10:41:00.001-08:00

So, who are we today, and where do we stand at this moment in relation to all that is happening in the storm-tossed Anglican Communion? In light of what I have said so far, I put it to you that there are four things we can and must now say. They are as follows.

To start with, we are a community of conscience, - committed to the Anglican convictions - those defined, I mean, in our foundation documents and expressed in our Prayer Book. The historic Anglican conviction about the authority of the Bible matches that which Luther expressed at the Diet of Worms: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe” - that is, it imperils the soul. As for the historic Anglican conviction about homosexual behaviour, it contains three points:

First, it violates the order of creation. God made the two sexes to mate and procreate, with pleasure and bonding; but homosexual intercourse, apart from being, at least among men, awkward and unhealthy, is barren.

Second, it defies the gospel call to repent of it and abstain from it, as from sin. This call is most clearly perhaps expressed in 1Cor. 6: 9-11, where the power of the Holy Spirit to keep believers clear of this and other lapses is celebrated.

Third, the heart of true pastoral care for homosexual persons is helping them in friendship not to yield to their besetting temptation. We are to love the sinner, though we do not love the sin.

We must hold to these positions, whatever the culture around us may say and do. So a biblically educated conscience requires.

Second, we are a community of church people, committed to the Anglican Communion.

We rejoice to know that the more than 90% of worshipping Anglicans worldwide outside the Old West are solidly loyal to the Christian heritage as Anglicanism has received it, and we see our realignment as among other things, an enhancing of our solidarity with them. As I said earlier, what we are doing is precisely not leaving Anglicanism behind.

Third, we are a community of consecration, committed to the Anglican calling of worship and mission, doxology and discipling. Right from the start church planting will be central to our vision of what we are being called to do.

Fourth, I think we may soberly say of ourselves that we are a community of courage, heading out into unknown waters but committed to the Anglican confidence that God is faithful to those who are faithful to him.

Anglicanism in twilight

2007-11-16T11:51:00.000-08:00

Chris Sudgen writes in Evangelicals Now about the bleak prospects for us TECies.

Great Conference

2007-11-08T11:08:00.000-08:00

Phillip Jensen, Mark Dever and Tony Payne led a wonderful conference last week at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.

One tidbit: Phillip said we should scrap the word, "membership," and use the word "partnership." A member is passive; a partner is active and involved in ministry. Further, 'membership' is not a biblical word, whereas 'partnership' is. In the NT, one is a member of a political or religious association; but a 'member' of Christ is another Greek word altogether. It is word for a part of the physical body.

Peter Jensen on New Orleans

2007-10-23T10:09:00.001-07:00

Peter Jensen is not fooled by American obfuscation.

The Briefing on the Web

2007-10-21T19:23:00.000-07:00

Terrific resource for Christians.

Praise God for African Christians

2007-10-18T16:32:00.000-07:00

What is Textual Criticism?

2007-10-18T16:30:00.000-07:00

I found this very helpful.

Getting the Gospel Right, Getting the Gospel Out!

2007-10-05T20:37:00.000-07:00

Are we getting the gospel right? What if we don't? Does it matter? And if we are getting it right, how do we get it out? These are some of the questions our guest speaker, Dr. Cornelis Venema will be addressing when he visits us October 12-14 at All Saints' Anchorage, and Church in the Wildwood in Eagle River, AK.

The first session will be Friday at All Saints' (corner of 8th and F in Anchorage, 907-279-3924) from 7-9 pm (babysitting available).

The second session will be Saturday at Church in the Wildwood, 16832 Hansen Drive, Eagle River (907-694-2089) from 9-11 am.

Toon On International Standing Committee

2007-10-03T17:28:00.000-07:00

A virtually clean bill of health for The Episcopal Church!

An International Committee finds TEC is in compliance with requests made of it.

Dr Peter Toon

On October 2nd, the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council submitted its Report on The Episcopal Church to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who then sent it on to the Primates of the Global Communion. The Report is nineteen pages in length, is clearly written, and is unlikely to be misunderstood in terms of its findings by anyone who reads it carefully.

In order to appreciate its major findings or recommendations, we need to bear in mind the following context concerning the work of the Joint Committee:

1. It had a limited brief which concerned the relation of The Episcopal Church, more specifically its House of Bishops, to The Windsor Report and to the recent Communique from The Primates Meeting in Tanzania. Further, it met only with Bishops at the Bishops’ Meeting and apparently had no prolonged conversation there with the Bishops of the Anglican Communion Network, who are closely allied with the Provinces of the Global South.

2. It made no study of either (a) “the practical theology” of much of TEC, which theology is closely related to a radical reading of the much-vaunted “Baptismal Covenant,” or (b) what goes on in dioceses without the Bishops’ formal permission and as he or she turns “a blind eye.” Thus it only studied the words of Bishops when they were on their best behavior and engaged in crafting forms of words in order to be seen as genuine members of the Global Anglican Communion. Further, it relied on the lady Presiding Bishop for information and interpretation, where perhaps the use of other sources may have been better (e.g., on how many parishes have left TEC recently and their size).

3. It is composed of persons who, while being admirably committed to the unity of the Global Anglican Family, belong in the main to what we may call “the centrist” position and apparently are neither too perturbed by “the practical theology” of the TEC nor too supportive of the “enthusiasm and zeal” of some in the Global South.

Obviously these three factors profoundly affected the tone, if not the facts in this Report, in which are three major findings or recommendations.

First of all, the Joint Committee finds—after a long tour of the documentary evidence on sexuality in recent discussion— that the House of Bishops (and thus TEC) has met the requests and demands made by both The Windsor Report of 2004 and of The Communique of the Primates from Dar es Salaam. That is, the Committee accepts as trustworthy the words of the resolutions of the recent House of Bishops’ Meeting in New Orleans, wherein the House committed not to bless the unions of same-sex couples, not to ordain active homosexual persons and not to vote for any such for the office of bishop. The Report thus states:

"By their answers…, we believe that the Episcopal Church has clarified
all outstanding questions relating to their response to the questions directed explicitly to them in the Windsor Report, and on which clarifications were sought by 30th September 2007, and given the necessary assurances sought of them.”

We note that the Committee was able to come to this conclusion because—and it really had little option—it had to take the words of the Bishops’ resolutions in their literal, straightforward meeting. Had the Committee also toured say ten of the more “prophetic” dioceses, it would have found most probably that the blessing of same-sex persons has in no way ceased, even though there is no official Liturgy for the same and the official permission of the Bishop is not requested. (It may be noted here that is because the Primates of the Global South have reliable reports of what goes on unofficially and widely in not a few liberal dioceses that they do not take the statements of the House of Bishops as necessarily faithful and true.)

Secondly, the Joint Committee finds that the “interventions” by overseas Bishops to establish missions and congregations on U.S. territory, and to consecrate missionary Bishops for this purpose, are wholly against the spirit and the letter of what may be called a fundamental law of Anglican polity. In this it agrees with the statement of the House of Bishops of TEC from New Orleans defending the territorial episcopate as the Anglican way of being the church on the ground. Further, it advances in support of this position all kinds of evidence from Councils of the Early Church and resolutions from Lambeth Conferences. Further, it also seems to believe that there is some hope of resolving this problem and so makes suggestions—mostly concerning what the Archbishop of Canterbury could do—for ways to heal this growing schism and to bring back into TEC the recent seceders on terms that are reasonable and fair. One may comment that while what it stated and recommended by the Committee is balanced and reasonable, what is wholly missing—perhaps because the Committee does not really feel this—is the sense that the present TEC leadership has actually adopted a new form of religion. That is a new type of Christianity which, while using much traditional wording and symbols, is contrary to classic, biblically-based traditional Anglican worship, doctrine and discipline. In a word, its basic confession is not “Jesus is the only Lord and Savior” but something like “Jesus is a Savior and is our Savior.”

Finally, the Joint Committee finds that the position of the House of Bishops in terms of the understanding of “sexual orientation” and the making sure that people of all kinds of “orientation” are welcome in the Church as whole persons is wholly in accord with the position adopted by The Lambeth Conference of 1998 and widely accepted within the Anglican Family.

Here is the final paragraph:

"The life of the Anglican Communion has been much damaged in recent years following the tensions raised by the consecration in The Episcopal Church of a bishop living in a committed same-sex relationship and the authorization in some dioceses of Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions. With the response of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in September 2007, the Communion should move towards closure on these matters, at least for the time being. The Communion seems to be converging around a position which says that while it is inappropriate to proceed to public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions and to the consecration of bishops who are living in sexual relationships outside of Christian marriage, we need to take seriously our ministry to gay and lesbian people inside the Church and the ending of discrimination, persecution and violence against them. Here, The Episcopal Church and the Instruments of Communion speak with one voice. The process of mutual listening and conversation needs to be intensified. It is only by living in communion that we can live out our vocation to be Communion.”

One may regret that the Report ends in this way, which may be seen as placing too much emphasis (by stating it last of all) on the failure of the Church to minister fully to one small class of persons, “gay and lesbian people,” when Communion has many other more important dimensions to be emphasized and lived.

In conclusion:
What will be the fall-out from this Report which is now in the possession of all the global Primates and their advisers? We can only guess and here we go.

The majority of, if not all, the Primates of the Global South will not regard it as binding because, relying on what they believe to be accurate information from the U.S.A., they will believe that the fine words of the House of Bishops (taken at face value by the Committee) do not match either the reality on the ground in many dioceses or the general teaching of the leadership of TEC on the radical meaning and prophetic actions and requirements of “the Baptismal Covenant.” Thus the missionary interventions will continue with the general intention of creating a new province in North America for they regard TEC as apostate and engaged in infidelity.

The majority of Bishops in the West/North will be inclined to accept the Report and support the Archbishop of Canterbury in his going ahead with the 2008 Lambeth Conference, even if many from the Global South do not attend. This Bishops will also pay lip service to the need to bring the American seceders back into TEC and away from their African “Pastors” but do little about it for they have other things to do!

The Global Anglican Communion will effectively be no more, except in name, and this may lead to the effort to create a two-tier membership, at which the Archbishop of Canterbury has hinted. But since TEC has been given a relatively clean bill of health by this Committee, it will apparently not be the lead candidate for any such second tier anymore! More likely then that we shall see something like a North/South divide with some in the South (e.g., S Africa) looking to the North and some in the North (e.g., Evangelicals in England, Australia and U.S.A.) looking to the South! If this occurs, Anglicanism will be opening a wholly new era for itself and will have few maps available to guide it.

END

Making Sense of the HOB

2007-09-28T12:12:00.000-07:00

Fulcrum isn't my favorite group - open evangelicals and all; but at first glance, this looks like a helpful guide to the Episcopal melt down.

Joint Statement on the Resolution of the House of Bishops

2007-09-26T17:09:00.000-07:00

Here is the statement of 3 Anglican groups, the American Anglican Council, the Anglican Communion Network, and Forward in Faith North America.

The facts:

Dar es Salaam required TEC these 4 things:

1. End same-sex blessings at all levels.
2. Confirm that no more non-celibate homosexuals will be consecrated bishop.
3. Provide alternative Primatial oversight for those who do not agree with the Episcopal Church's leadership.
4. End all lawsuits against parishes and vestries.

The HOB did the following:
1. Reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (Election of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."
2. Pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
3. Commend our PB's plan for episcopal visitors.
4. Deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end.

Number 1 means that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included. One of the candidates for the Diocese of Chicago episcopate is a non-celibate lesbian.

Number 2 - means that in addition to refraining from authorizing rites for same-sex blessing, the "majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions." Further, this prohibition will remain until (unless was the word in Dar Es Salaam) a broader consensus regarding sex-sex unions is reached. As the ink dried, a same-sex union was performed in the diocese of Los Angeles.

Number 3 neglects to mention that no affected bishop or diocese was consulted regarding the adequacy of the PB's plan.

Forget about Sexual Innovations, Concentrate on the Basic Doctrine which motivates the leadership of TEC

2007-09-26T12:11:00.000-07:00

Back in 1991, when I was a colleague of Professor Charles Caldwell (now retired and living in Naples FL.) I was very impressed with his insight into The Episcopal Church and his evaluation of it.

Though he saw women’s ordination as a serious error, and though he also noticed all kinds of errors and faults in the 1979 Prayer Book, he maintained—I still think rightly—that the answers to three basic questions by Episcopalians would reveal where they were doctrinally and morally.

These questions did not involve anything about women’s ordination or the ordination of active homosexual persons, but they got to basic Christianity:

Who is God?

Who is Jesus?

What is salvation?

How one answers these proclaims where one is in the spectrum from pantheism through to biblical Trinitarianism. In passing I may note that Dr Caldwell often demonstrated that the official Prayer Book of TEC had rejected the full, biblical Trinitarian Faith, even though it did so, to mislead the unwary, in nearly “orthodox” phrases.

The present TEC through its House of Bishops (Sept 25, 2007) has declared that it is officially not in favor of blessing same-sex unions or of ordaining people in such unions. At the same time, it is fully committed to the full rights of homosexual persons both in society and in church (so it is not clear if this includes supporting same-sex unions that are not actually blessed in church).

However, many bishops turn a blind eye and do not seek to prevent such events occurring in their dioceses, as all investigative reporters can demonstrate very quickly.

Thus TEC speaks out of both sides of its mouth simultaneously—a practice that has been in operation since the early 1970s.

Now back to doctrine.

If one reads the growing literature on “The Baptismal Covenant” (so beloved of the Episcopal hierarchy) and its duties (see the recent book of sermonettes by the lady Presiding Bishop), if one studies the theology being taught in most of TEC seminaries, if one studies the resolutions submitted to diocesan and national convents, if one listens to the discussions of the House of Bishop, if one looks at the innovative liturgies being used in many places, if one listens to the sermons in most churches, if one studies the history of innovations in TEC since 1960, if one follows the web Episcopal blogs, and if one reads the learned articles and books of the professors in most TEC seminaries, then one comes to the conclusion quickly that the practical theology—that which makes TEC tick like a clock—is not biblical Trinitiarian Theism at all.

Reduced to a short span it is: God is Love and all love (loving) in the world is God.

Stated in more technical terms, it varies from a dynamic kind of pantheism, through various kinds of panentheism (especially beloved of feminist theologians) to process philosophy/theology, where God and the cosmos are seen to be in an evolutionary process together.

So Who is GOD in the new religion? God may be neuter or feminine but not solely masculine—thus God is She or It and is never Father but is Parent or Mother/Father. Further God is not in God’s own being wholly Transcendent, above and beyond the cosmos—No! God’s being is integrated into the cosmos even while also being apart from it. (A simple picture of this is the Mother giving birth but always keeping what She births tied to her—the cosmos in God and God never wholly apart from the cosmos—pan-en-theism.)

In this way of thinking, the symbol of God as Trinity is retained but usually to present a “divine” picture of community and cooperation for communitarianism on earth.

And who is JESUS? Jesus is the Child of God even as also the child of Mary, a unique Event of cosmic evolution. Jesus is regarded as really androgynous, even while also being male in a male-dominated society, and “his” real saving work is the way “he” got alongside the poor, needy, outcasts, and hungry and ministered to them. Where regular religion and society stopped, there Jesus began to minister and this led to his martyr’s death. The resurrection is the symbol of new life arising from this Jesus, new life to change the world with justice and peace and enabling the value of all human beings of every kind and type to be recognized and affirmed.

And what is SALVATION? Since God is not separate from the cosmos, heaven is not “up there.” Salvation is cooperating with God in change to bring about better and better conditions on earth for people so that they live in dignity, without fear and poverty. The present millennial goals of the United Nations express part of this hope of salvation. Christians today in the Baptismal Covenant are charged to work for justice, peace and dignity.

I SUGGEST that from today onwards those who wish to engage with Episcopal leaders leave aside for the time being the sexuality agenda and move instead to the Basic Christianity agenda to ascertain what kind of sincere, religious people are the majority of the House of Bishop, Executive Council and General Convention of The Episcopal Church. They are sincere, please grant them this, and they are fervent, please grant them this—but move on and examine their theology that motivates them.

Then having done this to go back to the public Liturgies and new Canon Law of TEC since 1970 and read these in the light of the doctrine discovered.

(my own attempts to do this kind of thing are found in the content of several booklets available from www.anglicanmarketplace.com or by calling 1-800-727-1928)

Dr Peter Toon

The Revd Dr Peter Toon

President of the Prayer Book Society 2007

www.pbsusa.org

www.anglicanmarketplace.com

www.anglicansatprayer.org

The statement: it's all here ...

2007-09-25T17:01:00.000-07:00

Follow the link to statement made by House of Bishops at the recently completed New Orleans meeting...

There is one basic problem here: It is not an honest statement. It really does not express the thinking and actions of many of our bishops. As the ink was drying, there are ongoing same-sex unions in many places, and a lesbian candidate for the Diocese of Chicago episcopate.

Kendall Harmon put it this way: "What was it I asked at the beginning of the meeting: Is the leadership of the Episcopal Church going to be honest about what they really believe and are doing or will they hide behind an institutional and verbal smokescreen? They opted for the second."

Oh, Yes, there was that Game Against Miami

2007-09-21T11:52:00.001-07:00

Really, I watched it on TV, and I don't think it was THAT bad. The main problem was with the offense. And believe it or not; I don't Miami is that good.

clipped from www.mysanantonio.com

College Football: A&M blown away in Miami

MIAMI — In a demoralizing, debilitating first half, Texas A&M couldn't run against Miami. The Aggies couldn't throw. They couldn't block.

They couldn't tackle. They couldn't defend the pass or run.

But enough about A&M's highlights over the first two quarters.

Revealing Comment from Bishop of Egypt

2007-09-21T11:48:00.001-07:00

One bishop speaks his mind!

clipped from babybluecafe.blogspot.com

From the Bishop of Egypt's Address to the House of Bishops "For the first time in centuries, the fabric of our Communion is torn ..."

American Bishops to Meet

2007-09-19T18:09:00.001-07:00

Article by Kendall Harmon on bps upcoming meeting.

clipped from www.kendallharmon.net

AP: Episcopal Bishops in Key Meeting on Gays

Starting on Thursday in New Orleans, Episcopal bishops will take up the most direct demand yet that they reverse course: Anglican leaders want an unequivocal pledge that Episcopalians won't consecrate another gay bishop or approve official prayers for same-gender couples. If the church fails to do so by Sept. 30, their full membership in the Anglican Communion could be lost.

"I think the bishops are going to stand up and say, `Going backward is not one of our options,'" said Wade of the Washington diocese, who has led church legislative committees on liturgy and Anglican relations. "I don't think there's going to be a backing down."

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is taking the rare step of meeting privately with the bishops on the first two days of their closed-door talks. The Anglican spiritual leader faces a real danger that the communion, nearly five centuries old, could break up on his watch.

Miami Next!

2007-09-19T08:46:00.001-07:00

An Interview with Gerald Bray

2007-09-12T17:16:00.000-07:00

Here is a great interview with Dr. Gerald Bray, Anglican presbyter, theologian and a great encouragement to reformed, evangelical Anglicans.

How Mark Dever Does Application in Sermons

2007-09-12T15:47:00.000-07:00

When Mark Dever prepares to preach, he takes the main points of his sermon and asks how each of them related to the following categories:

Unique Salvation History – What about the passage is important for the way God unfolds his plan of salvation in history? What’s unrepeatable by us but worthy of worshiping God for?

Non-Christian – How does the passage speak to the unbeliever? How does it call him/her to repentance and belief? How does it warn, rebuke, correct, or prod the unbeliever? What does it say about the danger of the unbeliever’s situation, the exclusivity of Christ, the sinner’s need for a Savior, or the sufficiency of that Savior as a substitute for the sinner?

Public – What does the passage say about our lives and roles in the public sphere, both as Christians and non-Christians (e.g., government, neighborhood)?

Christ – How is Jesus foreshadowed or typed? What particular perfection of Christ does that type depict? How is Jesus remembered or described in character, authority, glory, or essence?

Christian – What does the passage mean for the life of the individual Christian? How does it call him/her to deeper repentance and belief? How does it warn, rebuke, correct, motivate, comfort, or encourage the Christian?

Capitol Hill Baptist – What does the passage mean for the corporate life of our local church? How does it call the local corporate body to tend to its corporate life together and corporate witness to the unbelieving community around it?

At the 9Marks site they have posted a sample of this "application grid" from a sermon Dever delivered on Mark. They have also posted a blank one if you want to try it at home! (Obviously this is useful for preachers, but there's no reason it cannot also be incorporated into personal devotions and study.)

Bishop Howe on the Mark

2007-09-09T19:18:00.000-07:00

My Dear Archbishop Rowan,

I have just seen the preposterous diatribe sent to you by Bishop Jack Spong, and, as one of his fellow Bishops, I send my deepest apology.

I am saddened that in his very first sentences he has disparaged you for "not coming alone" to the meeting of the American House of Bishops later this month The invitation, which I personally composed, was, of course, to you AND the members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates.

Bishop Spong has systematically denied virtually every tenet of the Christian Faith, and he presided over the near-destruction of the Diocese of Newark. During his tenure (1978 - 2000) the number of baptized members in the Diocese of Newark declined from 64,323 to 36,674, a loss of 27,649 or 43 percent. Eighteen congregations were closed between 1978 and 1997, and a further nine in 2000.

His sarcasm, his disrespect, and his arrogance are simply stunning. But then this is the same Bishop Spong who stated at the last Lambeth Conference that the African Bishops had "moved out of animism into a very superstitious kind of Christianity. They've yet to face the intellectual revolution of Copernicus and Einstein that we've had to face in the developing world. That's just not on their radar screen."

Your commitment to the Primates, and to all the members of the Communion, to uphold the teaching of Lambeth 1998 has been a spectacular gift, one that we all understand has been costly to you, personally.

Bishop Spong dares to say that you have become a "miserable failure." Shame on him. It is Bishop Spong who has consistently repudiated the teachings of the Holy Scriptures in favor of the latest cultural innovations, and he has inflicted tremendous damage on the Church of Jesus Christ.

Bishop Spong has the hubris to say of the orthodox, "We are espousing a position about homosexuality that is dated, uninformed, inhumane and frankly embarrassing. No learned person stands there today."

Actually, it is his position that is embarrassing! Study after study, from Masters and Johnson to Charles Socarides has shown that for a remarkably high percentage of homosexual persons a change of orientation is possible.

But the deeper question is not whether or not a given person's orientation has changed, but whether or not that person is willing (often at great personal sacrifice!) to conform his/her conduct to the teaching of Scripture that sexual intimacy is for marriage (one man, one woman, in Christ).

For Bishop Spong to lecture you as he has done is beyond belief. Please know that he speaks for himself alone, and that the Bishops who are gathering in New Orleans in just two weeks will greet you with great eagerness and affection.

Warmest regards in our Lord,

The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

Tony Snow: Cancer's Unexpected Blessings

2007-09-07T11:05:00.000-07:00

I commend this article to you. Tony Snow, talk show host, and formerly White House Press Secretary wrote this.

Chuck Collins writes his congregation

2007-09-06T11:43:00.001-07:00

The Rev. Chuck Collins
Rector of Christ Church, San Antonio writes his congregation about upcoming House of Bishops Meeting. Chuck expresses my thoughts as well.

I am writing to inform you about an important matter. The upcoming House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans (September 19- 25) is one of the most important meetings in the history of the Episcopal Church. Weighing in the balance is whether the Episcopal Church will walk with the Anglican Communion or choose to walk away from our Anglican heritage. It's perhaps the last opportunity for the Episcopal Church to choose "communion" over "independence." No one expects overnight changes from this meeting, but the House of Bishops actions (or failure to act) will determine the future of the Episcopal Church.

Nineteen "Windsor Bishops," of whom Bishop Lillibridge is an active member, met a few weeks ago. I have high hopes that their presence at the House of Bishops meeting will be known and recognized, if for nothing else as a minority group of bishops (there are about 120 diocesan bishops in all) who are committed to be constituent members f the Anglican Communion by agreeing to follow the directives of the Windsor Report and the Tanzania Communiqué. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will interrupt his sabbatical to meet with the bishops gathered in New Orleans for the first part of their time, along with the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and representatives of the Anglican Consultative Council.

There is still much that isn't clear. For example, it's not clear if moderate uncommitted bishops will join the nineteen in support of traditional values. It's not clear if the meeting with the Archbishop will impact the invitations to attend Lambeth 2008 (if at all). If it doesn't impact the invitations as they stand, a number of Global South Primates have already said they will not be attending. It's unclear how Canterbury will lead: with his personal sympathies, or with the will of the wider Communion that overwhelmingly upholds what the Bible teaches about marriage and sex? And it's not clear what kind of solution will be offered by the Primates for oversight of churches and dioceses for whom it would be a violation of conscience to continue as Episcopalians.

Even though there are many unknowns, there are some things that are clear at this point. First, there is no indication that Episcopal Church leaders (House of Bishops and our Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori) will change their direction back to traditional and biblical values. And they seem largely unfazed by the possibility of severing our tie to the Anglican Communion. This was evident by their rejection of portions of the Primate's Communiqué at the last House of Bishops meeting. Secondly, Bishop Lillibridge has repeatedly told the diocese that he will continue to uphold the values and principles of the Windsor Report that uphold traditional Christianity. We have a bishop who courageously stands against the tide for the things that are most important to us and to the people of the Diocese of West Texas. Thirdly, it seems that the different groups and personalities that make up the conservative wing of the Episcopal Church will argue and bicker among themselves, not understanding that different churches have had to respond differently because of different circumstances. And lastly, for the traditional-minded churches and dioceses who feel that they have been pushed off the back of the boat, the Primates will not leave us to drown but will provide some means for us to connect to the Anglican Communion. It's clear that one of the results of the realignment will be to rethink the way we do dioceses and provinces.

Wisdom From The Past: Prayers For the Dead

2007-09-03T11:04:00.001-07:00

That is why we shouldn't pray for the dead. (See extract 126 down the page).

Three Imputations

2007-09-03T10:36:00.000-07:00

So, what in the world do we mean by "imputation?" C. FitzSimons Allison made a big point of this teaching, rediscovered by the reformers in the 16th century. Here is a good summation of its importance here.

Schism or Revolution

2007-09-01T20:51:00.000-07:00

Chris Sudgen asks if what is going on in the Anglican Communion is schism or is it revolution?

Theodicy

2007-08-29T16:22:00.000-07:00

Theodicy: ■ noun (plural theodicies) the vindication of divine providence in view of the existence of evil.

In Dawkins vs McGrath, author Sacromone in First Things says what McGrath did not assert the sovereignty of God. After all, God is directing all of history, both good and bad things, to their appointed end. Here is a good article.

What is Reformed Theology?

2007-08-28T10:47:00.000-07:00

Reformed Theology

God Rules - The Sovereignty of God

God is in total and utter charge of the world. He is free and independent of every force or being outside of himself. He created, sustains, governs and directs all things. His purposes are always and totally being fulfilled in his sovereign providence, by which one day the marvelous perfect purposes he has had from the beginning, will be fully and finally completed and perfected.

That means, though we cannot always and may never fully understand what God is doing through the world as we see it- especially when we face suffering, or death, nevertheless God never allows things to go out of control. He always has the last word, and therefore can be trusted with our lives.

When God saves, he saves - The invincibility of God's grace

There is nothing a human being can do to contribute to the incredible undeservable salvation of God. What God does in salvation is not only undeserved (we do not merit it), and unrepayable (we cannot ever become worthy of it), it is a sovereign definite act of God. That is to say, God purposes before the beginning of the world, to elect, create, call, redeem and save specific people- not by giving us a potential to respond to him in faith, but giving us a spiritual new life by which we come alive to him and the fruit of which is faith.

That means, our relationship with God is utterly dependent on Him. If he has begun a work of real faith in our lives, nothing and no-one will be able to prevent him completing it. That gives us the confidence to trust our lives to the one whose love has changed our relationship to God forever.

What God says, (the Bible), is true - The inerrancy of Scripture

Foundational to Reformed faith is the conviction that the Word of God, the Bible is utterly true and trustworthy, infallible and inerrant. God has ensured that the right people, in the right places, at the right times, have been rightly led to write the right things, so that the Bible gives us the true and trustworthy word of God. The implication of this, is that faith (trust in God) is expressed in our obedience to the Scriptures. God has the last word, not human tradition, reason or experience, and the new Spirit-life of a Christian will confirm to us that what Scripture speaks, God speaks to us. That is in particular true in that the OT law is designed to do more than just show God's righteousness and our sinfulness to lead us to Christ, and to proclaim God's judgment on sin and so restrain evil & promote righteousness living; the law is also given to guide the obedience of our faith, not as a means of life or way to life, but as a way of life- something that reveals, informs and guides the way Christians are to approach their owns lives in their families and nations.

That mean, our only wholly reliable experience and encounter with God, will come through his Word. The way for a deeper experience of the presence and power of God, is through a greater obedience to his Word. The Bible is more than a guide for faith; it is the very Word in whose obedience our faith is truly expressed.

All our life is Christian life - The integration of life and faith

A sovereign God has rights over every aspect of our life, and so the whole of our life is to be lived consciously before him. True worship is therefore living every moment in such a way that God is honored and will be pleased. It is not that even the best of our actions are in themselves deserving of his pleasure, but he treasures our activities which arise from and express faith, however flawed, (much as parents treasure the artwork of their children- not for their art-worthiness, but their expression of relationship). There is consequently no divide between secular and sacred aspects of life- by faith the exuberant joy of the sports field may be as much worship as the reflective praise of a Sunday congregation.

That means, that what we do in our working life or leisure time is as important to God as the so-called 'religious' activities. We are to have a distinctively God-honoring attitude to everything in which we are engaged. Christians are called to honor God in their politics, their shopping, their choice of TV programs, their sex-lives, and in each the honoring of God will be a blessing to us.

God rules non-Christians too! - God’s kingdom over the 'secular' world

God is no less in charge of non-Christians as Christians, and he works out his sovereign purposes for the world through all of his creation. That means we are to affirm as part of the good providence of God, much that we see in so-called 'secular' people and institutions. God has not so given-over to evil those who rebel against him that his image in them is erased, so we are to identify the providential hand of God and honor him in the lives of others. In particular we recognize that God has and does work through people whose understanding of him is flawed and through institutions who are deficient in Christian truth; but where the knowledge of God is imperfect, we Endeavour to teach; where practice deviates, we rebuke, correct and encourage godliness; and where the gospel is denied or opposed, we proclaim the judgment of God and call people to repent.

That means that there can be no ghetto mentality for Christians. In all of life, we need to look out for the signs God is working, even amongst non-Christians. We are called to challenge things that are wrong, not just keeping our heads down for a quiet life; but we are also to be affirming of things that are right, even when they bear fatal deficiencies with respect to saving faith. Even as all life is worship, so all the world is God's work.

God speaks when the Bible is preached - The priority of biblical preaching

Central to understanding the necessity for the gathering of Christians as the church is the preached Word of God. Preaching is more than just exposition and application of the Bible; it is the Spirit-given and Spirit-empowered proclamation of God to his people. For that reason preachers are to be first and foremost obedient disciples, conscious of their accountability to God, and made accountable to others called to Word-ministry, so that God's truth is proclaimed with a Spirit-given life-transforming power. Similarly the gathering of Christians is to be Word-centered in its structure and activity, so that nothing will distract or divert or mislead people in the Word of God. It is God's Word which constitutes the church, as the means of its spiritual life, the focus of its sacramental activity, the guide for its praise and prayer, and the power of its encounter with God.

That means, that sermons need to be taken on board not taken when bored. Christian gatherings are not to be judged by their style or music, but by their effectiveness in humbling us before God through his Word. Ministry is to be honored and supported because of the continual challenge and spiritual battle involved in bring challenging truth to a rebellious people and world. So a 'church' that denies God's Word, is denying that which makes it a true church.

Moral Imperative of the Week

2007-08-27T12:10:00.000-07:00

The biblical concept of truth is that a true statement corresponds with or matches objective reality. While human knowing is corrupted by sin, knowledge of the things that matters most - divine and human - is possible.

From Douglas Groothuis

Aggie Football is Just Around the Corner

2007-08-25T11:48:00.001-07:00

Cornelis Venema Coming to All Saints'

2007-08-23T15:31:00.000-07:00

Are we getting the gospel right? What if we don'? Does it matter? And if we are getting it right, how do we get it out? These are some of the questions our guest speaker, Dr. Cornelis Venema will be addressing when he visits us October 12-14.

The first session will be Friday at All Saints' (corner of 8th and F in Anchorage, 907-279-3924) from 7-9 pm (babysitting available).

The second session will be Saturday at Church in the Wildwood, 16832 Hansen Drive, Eagle River (907-694-2089)

Professor of Doctrinal Studies

B.A., Dordt College, 1975
M.Div., Calvin Theological Seminary, 1978
Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary, 1985

How does God reveal Himself? What are the natures of Christ? What is the role of the Holy Spirit in sanctification? What are the scriptural principles for the organization of the church? What does the Bible teach about the millennium and the last judgment?

These are some of the questions discussed in the systematic theology courses taught by Dr. Cornelis P. Venema. The course work ranges from the foundations of theology, to extensive studies of the three persons of the Trinity, to discussion of church government, to exploration of Scriptural teaching regarding personal and general eschatology.

While studying at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1979-1981, Dr. Venema was a Teaching Fellow in the Department of Theology. He served as pastor of the First Christian Reformed Church of Ontario, California, for six years before coming to Mid-America.

Dr. Venema serves as President of the Seminary in addition to his systematic theology teaching responsibilities. He serves as an elder in his church and preaches on a regular basis. Dr. Venema also speaks and teaches in a variety of church and conference settings.

His special interest lies in Reformation theology, particularly the work of the Reformers John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger. Dr. Venema's most recent book, Heinrich Bullinger and the Doctrine of Predestination: Author of "The Other Reformed Tradition"?, reflects this interest. He is the author of several other books including But for the Grace of God: An Exposition of the Canons of Dort; What We Believe: An Exposition of the Apostles' Creed; and The Promise of the Future. Dr. Venema is a co-editor and frequent contributor to The Outlook and the Mid-America Journal of Theology.

Wisdom from Fitz

2007-08-23T10:28:00.001-07:00

ps - This is Fitz Allison's response to an earlier article by Sarah Hey.  
Even if one never read Sarah's article, I think Fitz' response is still understandable.

Sarah Hey's critique seriously misrepresents Steve Noll's
position when she claims he advocates leaving the Anglican
Communion.  The fact is that the Episcopal Church is in the
process of leaving the Anglican Communion and has already
departed in polity and doctrine.  The Episcopal Church has been
given a deadline of the 30th of September to repent.  A score of
Anglican Primates have already declared themselves out of or in
impaired communion with the Episcopal Church.  If the Archbishop
of Canterbury sides with the Episcopal Church against the stated
policy of the Windsor Report and against a majority of the
Primates and the Dar es Salaam agreement where will Sarah stand?

If the Anglican Communion is defined simply by polity and not
by faith then she and Ephraim must follow the example of the
Jansenists in Roman Catholicism, suffer, endure and die. 

Duncan and Common Cause will be an integral part of the Anglican
Communion perhaps one not centered in Canterbury and whose
Primate is not the appointment of a prime minister elected by an
aggressively secularized Western post-modern culture. 

If Common Cause members were anti-Anglican Communion as she
alleges why do they go to such trouble to be under, ordained by
and part of Anglican Provinces? And why would these Provinces
accept, encourage and oversee these Communion desiring
constituents if the Communion itself was not mutually seen as a
lynch pin in their identity? 

Archbishops of Canterbury have had a tradition of being dragged
out of derivative and outmoded polity commitments.  Both
Canterbury and York forbade Seabury's going to Scotland. 
Canterbury asked White not to include Seabury in the
consecrations, which advice White ignored.  It was Canterbury
that changed regarding the necessary polity and function of
bishops.  This was also true regarding missionary bishops in the
19th century when Canterbury had to respond to initiatives for
which he had no precedents (since the early church).  Another
example of Canterbury's change following unprecedented
developments is George Carey's change of mind regarding AMIA.  

The criticism of Common Cause partners for being against the
Communion is way off the mark.  When a sizable portion of the
congregation of the Cathedral in Arkansas asked the Spong/Borg
affirming bishop to allow them to become a mission in the
Diocese they were told no, that they were exclusive in an
inclusive diocese so they had to be excluded.  Believing in the
Anglican Communion, they asked to belong to an Anglican Diocese
in an Anglican Communion Province, Rwanda. 

Ephraim and Sarah's position would be that such a congregation
is expendable and lost to the Anglican Communion (as well as ten
congregations in the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada.)

If they were not pro-Anglican Communion they could with much
less trouble have merely set out on their own.  Sarah's
observation that there needs to be a "center other than
doctrine" for Anglicanism to flourish is correct.  Any
incarnational faith must be institutionally organized but the
latter cannot flourish without Christian doctrine (faith) or it
will fly apart centrifugally, as it is now doing.  Institutions
must be continually judged, amended and pruned that the faith
and doctrine not be lost.  And that too is happening.

Clarity from Peter Toon: Has TEC overthrown the Foundation of Christ as the only Savior?

2007-08-20T09:40:00.000-07:00

That September Deadline for The Episcopal Church

And how “the judicious Mr. Hooker” from yesterday may help us today.

Peter Toon

The Anglican Primates’ Meeting set a deadline of September 30 for the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church [TEC] to respond in the affirmative or negative as to whether it will abide by the recommendations of The Windsor Report (2004) on sexuality. Before this deadline, there will be a meeting of the House of Bishops, which will be addressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is desirous to bring the American Bishops into general conformity with the mind of the global Anglican Communion.

Obviously, if the House of Bishops decides by a majority vote to stay with the present position of TEC, then this will mean that TEC will probably walk apart from the global Anglican Communion in the immediate future. Already not a few provinces have declared themselves out of communion with TEC or with specific bishops and dioceses within it and so there is a division already.

If the TEC House of Bishops decides to maintain the status quo then their position will raise a matter of conscience for some members of that house, together with clergy and laity. They will have to decide whether to stay within TEC or secede from it, as have not a few of their friends done in the last few years.

What guidance can be offered to such people as they face this question of conscience?

One possible source of help is to go to the writings of Richard Hooker (d.1600), who addressed with care and erudition in 1586 a question not too different from that faced by Episcopalians today. So let us see what he had to say.

Enter Hooker

He lived at a time when the Church of England faced pressures from within and without to change radically—that is to abandon the Elizabethan Settlement of Religion of 1559. From within were the Puritans (or Anglican Presbyterians) pressing for reform of the Church of England towards the Genevan model of a Calvinistic Presbyterianism; and from without were the Pope and Spain seeking to restore Ecclesia Anglicana to the governance of the Papacy (and threatening force as came later in the Armada).

Both Hooker and the Puritans believed that the Church of Rome taught and confessed many heresies and errors, but they disagreed over whether or not this Church could be called a Church of God. This difference was the root cause of a controversy in which Hooker published a Tractate of some 20,000 words, with the title A Learned Discourse on Faith, and Works, and how the Foundation of Faith is overthrown. >From the content of this Tractate we can discern what Hooker believed about the Church of Rome and whether or not it was right to secede from it. Here in summary form are the positions Hooker expounded and in them is the basis for guidance for present-day Episcopalians:

The Church of Rome publicly teaches many heresies and errors which do great harm to souls. These vary from extraordinary claims about the Pope and the Eucharist to false teaching about how a sinner is justified by God the Father through Jesus Christ.

However, the same Church does maintain the true foundation of the visible Church of God—i.e., that Jesus Christ is the one and only Saviour of mankind, and the one and only Mediator between God and man.
Some of the heresies and errors of Rome do by logical deduction and inference indirectly overthrow the foundation of this same Church. Yet they do not directly overthrow it. (The distinction between directly and indirectly is assumed by Hooker to be an important distinction.)
By the mercy and providence of God alone, it is possible to be saved everlastingly while a member of the Church of Rome, despite the presence of heresies and errors.
The safest and surest way to obtain salvation and be a faithful child of God is to depart from the Church of Rome and be a member of a Reformed Catholic Church where the pure Gospel is proclaimed and where heresies and errors of Rome do not exist.

Unlike the Puritans, Hooker was not prepared to say that the Church of Rome was totally engulfed in infidelity and fully gone into apostasy. But he did believe that the body of this Church hung on to Christ by a very thin and tiny thread! It was a visible Church of God that like Israel of old which often departed from the Lord its God.

So Hooker addresses Episcopalians today from across the centuries, but within the communion of the saints, with these questions as they ponder what they ought to do on or after September 30:

A. Is TEC still a visible Christian Church in the sense that the fact of Jesus Christ as the one and only Saviour is clearly and unambiguously affirmed by her?

B. Assuming that TEC is truly a visible Church of God (even if united to Christ the head by a thin thread) does She teach and propagate such heresies and errors as directly overthrow this foundation of Christ the only Saviour?

With respect to A, it can be claimed on the basis of her constitution that TEC is committed to the Creeds and thereby holds on to Christ the only Saviour. Yet on the basis of many weekly sermons this claim could be challenged.

With respect to B, it can be argued that despite the Creeds, there is also widespread acceptance of universalism (“all will be saved in the end and there is no hell”) by the leadership of the Church, as well as the claim that all religions sincerely practiced lead to God. But do they contradict the Foundation indirectly or directly? Then there is the acceptance of new sexual ethics and practice which again has to be evaluated as to whether it represents an indirect or a direct overthrowing of the foundation!

So Hooker would say, I thin, that the first thing to get clear is whether or not TEC actually and really maintains the true and living Foundation. Then the second thing to work out—if indeed the Foundation is apparently maintained—whether any of the TEC heresies and errors in worship, doctrine, morality and discipline actually overthrow the Foundation directly? If the answer to the latter is yes then secession is morally required immediately! However, if any overthrowing is not direct but by implication and thus indirectly then secession becomes more a question of prudential judgment, than of a distinct moral duty.

[Please note that the Preservation Press of the PBS of the

USA

will publish in September 07 this Tractate of Hooker’s under the title On Salvation and the Church of Rome, and in a contemporary form of English, in order to help the reader quickly receive Hooker’s teaching and not have to labor over his complex original style. Send $7.50 to The Prayer Book Society, P O Box 35220, Phildelphia, PA. 19128-0220.]

Evangelical, Catholic, Reformed and Protestant

2007-08-17T13:26:00.001-07:00

From Gervase Duffield:

"The faith of the Church of England, then is Evangelical because it proclaims the Gospel, Catholic because it is in accord with apostolic doctrine, Reformed both because it partook of the rediscovery of biblical truth at the Reformation, and also because Anglicans are more nearly aligned with the Reformati than with the Lutherans, and Protestant because it affirms publicly and solemnly the absolute supremacy and finality of the Bible over tradition and all church teaching. Such a faith is set forth in the Thirty-Nine Articles.

I'm Concerned - James 3.1

2007-08-15T17:46:00.000-07:00

James 3:1 (ESV)
¹ Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

The first time I read this verse was after I told a friend I was going to seminary. He sent me a note which included this verse. I thought that was a very strange thing to do! However, I'm glad he did. It made me think; and it still makes me think, years later. What a privilege, and what a responsibility to those of us who are pastor-teachers.

All this came to mind as I was just looking on our diocesan web page at pictures of all the recent ordinands. I wonder if they know that they are committing themselves to a life of teaching!

Systematics for Everyone

2007-07-29T05:37:00.000-07:00

A wonderful resource for all. Robert Culver is 91 and going strong! He is a scholar-farmer, living on a small, working farm in Houston, MN. This systematic differs from others in that Dr. Culver has the pastor and interested lay person in mind as he puts on paper his years of study, teaching and preaching.

Diocese of Alaska Bishop Timeline

2007-07-28T11:57:00.000-07:00

The Search Timeline for the 8th Bishop of Alaska

2007

July-September Focus Groups of the Search Committee address questions, working toward the Profile

October 3-8 Clergy Retreat and Diocesan Convention – Bishop Search Committee gathers information for Profile

December Profile due to Standing Committee by the 1st. for their meeting on December 8.

2008

January – Profile and Nomination Form disbursed

February 1 to April 30 – Nominations for the 8th Bishop of Alaska are open

May 1- August 31 – Screen candidates

September – Onsite visits (outside)

October – Background checks of Nominees

November – Announce Nominees

December – Petition process, first two weeks

December - January – Background checks for Petitioners

2009

January (early) – Walkabouts (Nominees visit Alaska)

January (mid) – Electing Convention (date and place TBA)

March – Transition

April (toward end) – The installation of the 8th Bishop of Alaska

Ascol on Exposition

2007-07-28T11:45:00.001-07:00

Reformed Southern Baptist leader, and contributor to the Founders Journal has written on Biblical Exposition. Dr. Ascol will visit Anchorage in August of 2008.