The Revd Tim Goodbody is a Church of England minister in Stebbing, Great Dunmow in rural Essex. He has been ordained since 1998, and currently shares a job with his wife who is also ordained. His blog is Friends' Meeting House. Though Cranmer's Curate doesn't agree with every statement in this article (he agrees with most of it), he commends to the youth group Tim's honest, winsome and passionate Evangelical apologia for sticking with the Church of England:
I am not an Anglican by birth; I was not a cradle Christian and underwent believer’s baptism by full immersion at the age of 23.
I’m not an Anglican by choice either. Until I was 19 I had never been to church on a Sunday and was completely unaware of the complexities of denominational boundaries; it was even a few years before I noticed there were no women vicars (this was in the 80’s).
I went to an Anglican church because that’s where the people who were praying for me and trying to get me into the Kingdom went. I was so unchurched that I thought all churches would be like that church, so you can imagine my disappointment (it was St Michael le Belfry in York) when after my conversion I went to another one and it was dire.
So why did I stay? I’ve worshipped in and worked with lots of different denominations. They were all curate’s eggs, but nothing made me want to join. The Anglican Church has become like a family to me. A Baptist couple, over lunch one Sunday, upon hearing I was training for Anglican ordination, said: “And so what’s it like to be joining a sinking ship?”
That remark affected me as personally as if someone had just insulted my mother. It was Anglicans who shared the gospel with me, Anglicans who invited me to church, who picked me up from the gutter and who cared for me when I was in need. I’m sure other churches are good at this kind of thing too; it’s just that Anglicans made me fall in love with Christ first, and themselves second. And they never said a word about church politics!
However I am not an Anglican because the Anglican Church is best. Some days I think it’s the worst, and there have been periods even during my ordained ministry when, given the choice, I might have gone to a different church. But I didn’t, and here’s why:
I believe that the Church of England has a unique opportunity for mission. We are the church that people don’t go to; even though they might self-identify as C of E, they never go except for hatch, match and despatch-type events. For this reason whenever I conduct a funeral, a wedding or a baptism I do not hesitate to preach a gospel message and encourage a response.
In the rural context where I minister, the vicar has a role in society as a public figure that gives him or her a wide open doorway for evangelism in schools work, civic chaplaincy, village social events etc.
We are part of the cultural furniture. I do acknowledge that this can be a disadvantage because it makes us prone to wishy-washy wooliness, but it leads into my main reason for still being an Anglican.
This is the “Strangeways Principle”. I believe it is impossible to change a system or institution unless you are part of it. The Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ demonstrates this principle. I call it the Strangeways Principle because of what happened in the British Prison population following the 1990 riot at Strangeways.
While a refurbishment took place, a large number of prisoners were spread around the other prisons in the UK. Many were Christians, and by the grace of God, other prisoners came to faith, through associating with those who came from Strangeways. This for me is a model of how evangelicals should be within our church.
Sometimes liberalism, paperwork, money, and buildings imprison us, but a great work of the Kingdom is underway nevertheless. Evangelical Anglican ministry is like the yeast in the dough, the wheat among the tares. It may not seem effective in transformation in the short term, but remains a powerful force.
I believe that the Anglican Church needs to change, and this change can only come from within. Evangelicals, following this principle, should stay fully integrated in the life and ministry of the Anglican Church, to be able to influence the changes that we long for.
If Anglican Evangelicals had agreed with Martyn Lloyd Jones instead of John Stott in 1967, and gone off to form their own denomination, we would never have had the evangelical leaders that we have been blessed by since then. We would probably look a lot more like ECUSA (i.e. a mess).
So I want to stay an Anglican, in spite of our problems. Our bickering upsets me. The haranguing that evangelicals get from liberals over sexual morality distresses me, especially since this (Lambeth 1.10) is the official position of the Communion.
However, the Church is a fallible human institution. In many senses, I find my ministry to be more concerned with the Kingdom of God than the institutional church.
Ministers are also fallible mortals. I do not agree with the ordination of practising homosexuals, but I would receive communion from Gene Robinson because my understanding of sacraments is that those who minister them do not defile them. We may receive unworthily, but we are unworthy, not the sacrament (1 Cor 11. 17ff).
My commitment to Anglicanism is founded on theological confidence in its leadership. As a colleague in the deanery here said to me recently: “The bishop would have to instruct me to marry a donkey to a man before I would leave." I trust God that this is not going to happen. Claims of orthodoxy are not pawns in a game but statements about our relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Faith is about relationships; with Christ, and with other Christians. In the Anglican Church, that’s going to mean Christians we differ from. While I may not agree with everything that is said and done in the Anglican Church, I have been enriched by its diversity over the 23 years since my conversion.
This is about vocation; God has called me, the Anglican Church has recognised that calling. Until such time that he calls me elsewhere, I’m staying here.
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Sunday, 26 April 2009
LETTER TO MR FRANK FIELD MP ON CHRISTIAN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Mr Frank Field is Labour MP for Birkenhead and chairman of the 2011 Trust, set up to celebrate 400 years of the Bible in English since the publication of the Authorised Version (King James Version) in 1611.
Dear Mr Field,
‘You sound like one the Trots in my constituency’ was your effective reply to an impertinent line of questioning from an adolescent Julian Mann when you came to do a talk at the London school I attended in the early 1980s.
Nearly 30 years later and following conversion to Christianity shortly after I left school, I find myself as an Anglican Evangelical vicar in the north of England gravely concerned about the threats to Christian freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.
It is not that freedom of speech has declined in our country since we last met. Freedom of bad speech has increased hugely. The tolerance of obscenity, discourtesy, verbal bullying and smear is very high in our society in both public and private discourse.
What is declining in our country very rapidly is the freedom of good speech, what might be called the discourse of Christian salvation. It is now becoming increasingly socially, morally and legislatively unacceptable in the Britain of the new Millennium to express biblical truths, with their corresponding negatives, that are clearly and unequivocally stated in the Authorised Version of the Bible in the English language.
Consider this statement in the AV: ‘Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4v12).
That is a statement by the Apostle Peter before the Jewish Sanhedrin, ruling out the possibility of eternal salvation apart from faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ.
Consider another statement in the AV: ‘Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind’ (1 Corinthians 6v9).
That is a statement by the Apostle Paul upholding the teaching of Holy Scripture that heterosexual marriage is the only right context for the expression of sexual love with its corresponding negative truth that sex outside of heterosexual marriage, both straight and gay, is morally wrong.
This discourse of salvation is becoming increasingly proscribed in public discourse, in the workplace, in schools and colleges and even in the decreasing private space the politically-correct establishment is allowing the Christian Church to express its biblical convictions.
The problem with our Christian private space for those who oppose Christian freedom of expression is that it is not particularly private. We meet in churches and so the concern for the politically-correct establishment is that secular visitors to our churches will be exposed to our views.
Furthermore, many orthodox churches in both the Evangelical and Catholic traditions where biblical truths are being proclaimed have thriving children’s and young people's ministry. The PC establishment is therefore concerned about the ideological purity of the next generation.
It is surely not inconceivable, given the trajectory of our culture expressing itself in legislation, that in my life-time or else in that of my sons orthodox Christians in the United Kingdom will be imprisoned for expressing biblical statements contained in the Authorised Version of the Bible.
Under such circumstances, I wonder whether the Gideons or indeed your 2011 Trust will be allowed to place English Bibles in our prison cells.
If not, will we be allowed to bring our own?
With all Christian good wishes,
Julian Mann
The Parish Church of the Ascension,
Oughtibridge
www.oughtibridgechurch.org.uk
Dear Mr Field,
‘You sound like one the Trots in my constituency’ was your effective reply to an impertinent line of questioning from an adolescent Julian Mann when you came to do a talk at the London school I attended in the early 1980s.
Nearly 30 years later and following conversion to Christianity shortly after I left school, I find myself as an Anglican Evangelical vicar in the north of England gravely concerned about the threats to Christian freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.
It is not that freedom of speech has declined in our country since we last met. Freedom of bad speech has increased hugely. The tolerance of obscenity, discourtesy, verbal bullying and smear is very high in our society in both public and private discourse.
What is declining in our country very rapidly is the freedom of good speech, what might be called the discourse of Christian salvation. It is now becoming increasingly socially, morally and legislatively unacceptable in the Britain of the new Millennium to express biblical truths, with their corresponding negatives, that are clearly and unequivocally stated in the Authorised Version of the Bible in the English language.
Consider this statement in the AV: ‘Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4v12).
That is a statement by the Apostle Peter before the Jewish Sanhedrin, ruling out the possibility of eternal salvation apart from faith in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ.
Consider another statement in the AV: ‘Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind’ (1 Corinthians 6v9).
That is a statement by the Apostle Paul upholding the teaching of Holy Scripture that heterosexual marriage is the only right context for the expression of sexual love with its corresponding negative truth that sex outside of heterosexual marriage, both straight and gay, is morally wrong.
This discourse of salvation is becoming increasingly proscribed in public discourse, in the workplace, in schools and colleges and even in the decreasing private space the politically-correct establishment is allowing the Christian Church to express its biblical convictions.
The problem with our Christian private space for those who oppose Christian freedom of expression is that it is not particularly private. We meet in churches and so the concern for the politically-correct establishment is that secular visitors to our churches will be exposed to our views.
Furthermore, many orthodox churches in both the Evangelical and Catholic traditions where biblical truths are being proclaimed have thriving children’s and young people's ministry. The PC establishment is therefore concerned about the ideological purity of the next generation.
It is surely not inconceivable, given the trajectory of our culture expressing itself in legislation, that in my life-time or else in that of my sons orthodox Christians in the United Kingdom will be imprisoned for expressing biblical statements contained in the Authorised Version of the Bible.
Under such circumstances, I wonder whether the Gideons or indeed your 2011 Trust will be allowed to place English Bibles in our prison cells.
If not, will we be allowed to bring our own?
With all Christian good wishes,
Julian Mann
The Parish Church of the Ascension,
Oughtibridge
www.oughtibridgechurch.org.uk
GOD SAVE US FROM THE GOLDEN BOYS
Focussing on the few in order to reach the many may seem a sound principle in Christian ministry, but unfortunately it can lead to golden boy syndrome.
GBS can manifest itself in certain Evangelical ministries where judgements are made at an early stage about who is going to be strategically influential for the future. The condition can thus develop in some young men and women who are targeted for special attention and mentoring by the leaders of their mega-church youth groups, teenage summer camps, Christian Unions or student church plants.
The Evangelical leaders do not deliberately set out to spread the disease but we can if not careful in our approach to cultivating the ministers of the future create the conditions in which it can thrive.
The spiritual conditions supporting golden boy syndrome can in fact continue beyond the youth group and student church into full-time ministry and even into incumbency. A couple of years ago even cc was invited by an Evangelical organisation to a special conference with a well-known Evangelical preacher not open to all of his peers in ministry.
Apart from the fact that he felt the bottom of the barrel was being rather noisily scraped, your curate refused on principle. By God’s grace, he has never been and never will be a ‘strategic’ boy.
Of course, it can make sense for regular preaching groups of Evangelical ministers in nearby local churches who meet for encouragement and help in sermon preparation to be invitation only. You don’t want to be debating theological presuppositions at such groups but rather sharpening up each other’s sermons for the edification of the local churches we are called to serve.
But creaming off golden boys from their peer group of Evangelical ministers for a special fast-stream session with a top preacher is surely a different matter.
The problem with the golden boys of youth is that they can become the self-appointed messiahs of middle-age. The perception that they are strategically golden goes to their heads and in their 30s and 40s they can come to believe that they are the only proper preacher in town; that their ‘brand’ of church plant is the only one worth supporting; and that in the final analysis they own the copyright on Christianity.
Such arrogance can enormously damage the cause of the Gospel and we are all prone to it.
Advocates of the strategic boy approach will argue that Jesus concentrated on twelve and within the twelve on three. That is certainly true, but our Lord never flattered them or fed their egos or worse used their admiration and dependency to feed his own.
Unless being fairly regularly called ‘dull’ and ‘slow to believe’ amounts to being treated as a golden boy.
GBS can manifest itself in certain Evangelical ministries where judgements are made at an early stage about who is going to be strategically influential for the future. The condition can thus develop in some young men and women who are targeted for special attention and mentoring by the leaders of their mega-church youth groups, teenage summer camps, Christian Unions or student church plants.
The Evangelical leaders do not deliberately set out to spread the disease but we can if not careful in our approach to cultivating the ministers of the future create the conditions in which it can thrive.
The spiritual conditions supporting golden boy syndrome can in fact continue beyond the youth group and student church into full-time ministry and even into incumbency. A couple of years ago even cc was invited by an Evangelical organisation to a special conference with a well-known Evangelical preacher not open to all of his peers in ministry.
Apart from the fact that he felt the bottom of the barrel was being rather noisily scraped, your curate refused on principle. By God’s grace, he has never been and never will be a ‘strategic’ boy.
Of course, it can make sense for regular preaching groups of Evangelical ministers in nearby local churches who meet for encouragement and help in sermon preparation to be invitation only. You don’t want to be debating theological presuppositions at such groups but rather sharpening up each other’s sermons for the edification of the local churches we are called to serve.
But creaming off golden boys from their peer group of Evangelical ministers for a special fast-stream session with a top preacher is surely a different matter.
The problem with the golden boys of youth is that they can become the self-appointed messiahs of middle-age. The perception that they are strategically golden goes to their heads and in their 30s and 40s they can come to believe that they are the only proper preacher in town; that their ‘brand’ of church plant is the only one worth supporting; and that in the final analysis they own the copyright on Christianity.
Such arrogance can enormously damage the cause of the Gospel and we are all prone to it.
Advocates of the strategic boy approach will argue that Jesus concentrated on twelve and within the twelve on three. That is certainly true, but our Lord never flattered them or fed their egos or worse used their admiration and dependency to feed his own.
Unless being fairly regularly called ‘dull’ and ‘slow to believe’ amounts to being treated as a golden boy.
Friday, 24 April 2009
EVANGELICAL DIVORCES MUST NOT MAKE US PARANOID ABOUT MARRIAGE
Cranmer's Curate received a tragic report on his post-Easter break of marital difficulties amongst ministers in his own Conservative Evangelical constituency. Clearly, the post-modern culture of easy divorcism combined with our innate human sinfulness is taking its toll in some cases.
Cranmer's Curate is concerned that one unfortunate spin-off from Evangelical divorces can be the creation of a climate of fear and insecurity around marriage and an unwillingness to be open and honest.
Marriage is a wonderful gift of God and a fantastic institution. Our Lord Jesus Himself was very positive about marriage and very negative about divorce (see for example Mark 10v2-12).
None of us can afford to be complacent both in relation to our own sinfulness and the unrelenting cultural pressures on our marriages. But equally we must not react to the tragedy of Evangelical divorces by falling into the sin of paranoid negativism about God's gracious gift of marriage.
Cranmer's Curate is concerned that one unfortunate spin-off from Evangelical divorces can be the creation of a climate of fear and insecurity around marriage and an unwillingness to be open and honest.
Marriage is a wonderful gift of God and a fantastic institution. Our Lord Jesus Himself was very positive about marriage and very negative about divorce (see for example Mark 10v2-12).
None of us can afford to be complacent both in relation to our own sinfulness and the unrelenting cultural pressures on our marriages. But equally we must not react to the tragedy of Evangelical divorces by falling into the sin of paranoid negativism about God's gracious gift of marriage.
Monday, 20 April 2009
CRANMER'S EASTER COLLECT PREACHES AGAINST HYPOCRISY
The Collect for the Sunday after Easter shows just how biblical the Church of England fundamentally is. Cranmer's Curate wonders whether this Collect was used in Southwark Cathedral after its Dean, the Very Revd Colin Slee, questioned the Anglican credentials of the orthodox bishops of Rochester, Lewes and Willesden in his annual report distributed on Easter Sunday.
The Common Worship Collect for Easter 2 is based on the Book of Common Prayer Collect for the Sunday after Easter, though there is an alternative, blander CW Collect. Here is the wonderful Collect in the version in which Thomas Cranmer composed it in the Book of Common Prayer:
Almighty Father, who hast given thine only Son to die for our sins, and to rise again for our justification; Grant us so to put away the leaven of malice and wickedness, that we may always serve thee in pureness of living and truth; through the merits of the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
Cranmer derived this post-Easter Collect from the Apostle Paul's command to the wayward church at Corinth: 'Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth' (1 Corinthians 5v7-8 - RSV).
One feature of the old leaven, sadly at work in the Corinthian church, was its tolerance of sexual immorality, both heterosexual and homosexual, amongst professing Christians, leading the Apostle Paul to declare unequivocally in 1 Corinthians chapter 6 that the unrepentant 'unrighteous' will not inherit the kingdom of God (v9-10).
Southwark was the Cathedral that back in 1996 chose to host a 20th anniversary celebration for the Lesbian and Gay 'Christian' Movement. Cranmer's magisterial prayer intoned by the likes of Mr Slee could only echo in that place with hypocrisy.
As cc takes time out of the blogosphere for his post-Easter break, he has been asked by an American member of the youth group about the pronunciation of Oughtibridge. It's oo-tee-bridge. But cc tends to call it Booty Bridge - after a letter he once received from an estate agent.
Every blessing in Christ's service,
Julian Mann
The Common Worship Collect for Easter 2 is based on the Book of Common Prayer Collect for the Sunday after Easter, though there is an alternative, blander CW Collect. Here is the wonderful Collect in the version in which Thomas Cranmer composed it in the Book of Common Prayer:
Almighty Father, who hast given thine only Son to die for our sins, and to rise again for our justification; Grant us so to put away the leaven of malice and wickedness, that we may always serve thee in pureness of living and truth; through the merits of the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
Cranmer derived this post-Easter Collect from the Apostle Paul's command to the wayward church at Corinth: 'Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth' (1 Corinthians 5v7-8 - RSV).
One feature of the old leaven, sadly at work in the Corinthian church, was its tolerance of sexual immorality, both heterosexual and homosexual, amongst professing Christians, leading the Apostle Paul to declare unequivocally in 1 Corinthians chapter 6 that the unrepentant 'unrighteous' will not inherit the kingdom of God (v9-10).
Southwark was the Cathedral that back in 1996 chose to host a 20th anniversary celebration for the Lesbian and Gay 'Christian' Movement. Cranmer's magisterial prayer intoned by the likes of Mr Slee could only echo in that place with hypocrisy.
As cc takes time out of the blogosphere for his post-Easter break, he has been asked by an American member of the youth group about the pronunciation of Oughtibridge. It's oo-tee-bridge. But cc tends to call it Booty Bridge - after a letter he once received from an estate agent.
Every blessing in Christ's service,
Julian Mann
Friday, 17 April 2009
WE MUST NOT EXPLOIT MINISTRY APPRENTICES
For the benefit of cc's overseas and secular readers, ministry apprentices are usually young graduates who work in a church for one or two years as a way of testing the water for full-time Christian ministry.
These apprenticeship schemes burst onto the UK scene in the 1990s and took their inspiration from the Ministry Training Scheme in the Diocese of Sydney, which encouraged significant numbers of young graduates into full-time Christian ministry.
The small South Yorkshire church cc serves is about to get an apprentice. A young graduate of 21 or 22 can enormously benefit from a year's experience in a local church and the church gains from their enthusiasism for Christ and practical help. A useful gap year after graduation can help the young person to mature a bit before they enter the secular work-place at 22 or 23 and, if full-time ministry is right for them, they can begin the denominational selection process and maybe look to go to theological or Bible college in their late 20s.
Problems can arise, however, in busy churches that have a large number of apprentices who stay for two or more years. In some cases, these churches are plants from larger churches in city centres or university towns and they are not formally part of a denominational structure.
When cc was a student, large churches took on parish assistants and there was usually only one or two of them and this was an established route to ordination. With lots of apprentices in churches outside of a denominational structure, what do they do next?
A disturbing report has reached cc's ears of one young man who has done nearly three years in one of these student church plants and is getting past his mid-20s. He is apparently too busy to apply for a secular job.
Something is wrong here. Apprentices undoubtedly provide growing churches with relatively cheap labour, carting equipment around and helping to set up in the school or other venue the church is meeting in as well as following up new comers and doing youth work etc. When there are lots of them, it can be difficult for a busy minister to keep a paternal eye on them.
Also, younger homogeneous church plants can lack wiser heads, older members of a congregation with life experience who can act as mentors and take a longer-term view.
The fact is, if a graduate hasn't got himself established in a job by his mid-20s, there is a danger of Evangelical drop-out syndrome. Furthermore, the job market is very tough at the moment.
To call a spade a shovel, two- or more-year apprentices who are too busy to apply for a secular job are being exploited.
Certain religions can do that to people. They are called cults.
These apprenticeship schemes burst onto the UK scene in the 1990s and took their inspiration from the Ministry Training Scheme in the Diocese of Sydney, which encouraged significant numbers of young graduates into full-time Christian ministry.
The small South Yorkshire church cc serves is about to get an apprentice. A young graduate of 21 or 22 can enormously benefit from a year's experience in a local church and the church gains from their enthusiasism for Christ and practical help. A useful gap year after graduation can help the young person to mature a bit before they enter the secular work-place at 22 or 23 and, if full-time ministry is right for them, they can begin the denominational selection process and maybe look to go to theological or Bible college in their late 20s.
Problems can arise, however, in busy churches that have a large number of apprentices who stay for two or more years. In some cases, these churches are plants from larger churches in city centres or university towns and they are not formally part of a denominational structure.
When cc was a student, large churches took on parish assistants and there was usually only one or two of them and this was an established route to ordination. With lots of apprentices in churches outside of a denominational structure, what do they do next?
A disturbing report has reached cc's ears of one young man who has done nearly three years in one of these student church plants and is getting past his mid-20s. He is apparently too busy to apply for a secular job.
Something is wrong here. Apprentices undoubtedly provide growing churches with relatively cheap labour, carting equipment around and helping to set up in the school or other venue the church is meeting in as well as following up new comers and doing youth work etc. When there are lots of them, it can be difficult for a busy minister to keep a paternal eye on them.
Also, younger homogeneous church plants can lack wiser heads, older members of a congregation with life experience who can act as mentors and take a longer-term view.
The fact is, if a graduate hasn't got himself established in a job by his mid-20s, there is a danger of Evangelical drop-out syndrome. Furthermore, the job market is very tough at the moment.
To call a spade a shovel, two- or more-year apprentices who are too busy to apply for a secular job are being exploited.
Certain religions can do that to people. They are called cults.
Thursday, 16 April 2009
LESSON FROM RICK WARREN ON LARRY KING: BE BRAVE IN BABYLON
This article by Cranmer's Curate first appeared on the US-based orthodox Anglican news service VirtueOnline:
Rick Warren's attempts to distance himself from the Proposition 8 pro-heterosexual marriage campaign on the Larry King show were manifestly unsatisfactory. But there are vitally important lessons here for orthodox Christians involved in the media, and indeed for all of us wanting to stand up for our biblical convictions in our daily interactions.
The pro-gay narrative is now so very powerful in mainstream society, with the media and the liberal political establishment acting as the priestly caste for the new cult.
Here is the mantra: Gays are nice people just wanting to be who they are. They only want equality. Those who oppose them are nasty reactionaries who are really no better than racists.
Orthodox Christians who find themselves regularly on the mainstream media have by definition an unusual level of inter-personal and communications skills. They simply wouldn't be given the microphone on a regular basis if they didn't. Yes, a Christian 'weirdo', indeed any oddball, can get themselves onto the media as a one-off but not regularly on Larry King. And they don't tend to get asked to do the prayer at a Presidential Inauguration.
Orthodox Christians courted by the mainstream media and political establishment are under enormous pressure to fit their words into the post-modern narrative. They are on the receiving end of a full-throttle Babylonian ideological offensive with nice and nasty policemen being deployed to get them to cooperate.
None of us is immune so here are some suggested antidotes for Christian communicators wanting to be brave in Babylon:
* Remember that the Lord Jesus offended people and was profoundly hated. Jesus' words in John 15v18 need to be at the front of our minds: 'If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you' (RSV).
* Root our significance and security in the love of Christ, not in people's affirmation. The Apostle Paul's attitude as expressed in 1 Thessalonians 2v3-4 is so profoundly exemplary: 'For our appeal does not spring from error or uncleanness, nor is it made with guile; but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please men, but to please God who tests our hearts'.
* Remember the apostolic command to 'conduct yourselves wisely towards outsiders, making the most of the time. Let your speech be always gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone' (Colossians 4v5-6).
* Have a realistic view of what can be achieved in a media interview. An altar call is almost impossible via the media and usually unhelpful when attempted, but making one or two well-reasoned points in defence of biblical truth is a very useful service in pre-evangelism. It can open up conversations for the rest of us in ordinary contexts.
Rick Warren's attempts to distance himself from the Proposition 8 pro-heterosexual marriage campaign on the Larry King show were manifestly unsatisfactory. But there are vitally important lessons here for orthodox Christians involved in the media, and indeed for all of us wanting to stand up for our biblical convictions in our daily interactions.
The pro-gay narrative is now so very powerful in mainstream society, with the media and the liberal political establishment acting as the priestly caste for the new cult.
Here is the mantra: Gays are nice people just wanting to be who they are. They only want equality. Those who oppose them are nasty reactionaries who are really no better than racists.
Orthodox Christians who find themselves regularly on the mainstream media have by definition an unusual level of inter-personal and communications skills. They simply wouldn't be given the microphone on a regular basis if they didn't. Yes, a Christian 'weirdo', indeed any oddball, can get themselves onto the media as a one-off but not regularly on Larry King. And they don't tend to get asked to do the prayer at a Presidential Inauguration.
Orthodox Christians courted by the mainstream media and political establishment are under enormous pressure to fit their words into the post-modern narrative. They are on the receiving end of a full-throttle Babylonian ideological offensive with nice and nasty policemen being deployed to get them to cooperate.
None of us is immune so here are some suggested antidotes for Christian communicators wanting to be brave in Babylon:
* Remember that the Lord Jesus offended people and was profoundly hated. Jesus' words in John 15v18 need to be at the front of our minds: 'If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you' (RSV).
* Root our significance and security in the love of Christ, not in people's affirmation. The Apostle Paul's attitude as expressed in 1 Thessalonians 2v3-4 is so profoundly exemplary: 'For our appeal does not spring from error or uncleanness, nor is it made with guile; but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please men, but to please God who tests our hearts'.
* Remember the apostolic command to 'conduct yourselves wisely towards outsiders, making the most of the time. Let your speech be always gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone' (Colossians 4v5-6).
* Have a realistic view of what can be achieved in a media interview. An altar call is almost impossible via the media and usually unhelpful when attempted, but making one or two well-reasoned points in defence of biblical truth is a very useful service in pre-evangelism. It can open up conversations for the rest of us in ordinary contexts.
POLITICIANS ARE MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD TOO
Politicians, it would seem, are the modern equivalents of the tax collectors and sinners whom Jesus befriended, much to the scandal of the Pharisees (Matthew 9v9-13).
It is difficult to think of a group of people lower in the public esteem. It would seem that the other group currently in the dog-house - the police - are in there by association, because they are perceived as doing the politicians’ bidding.
Holy Scripture teaches that all people are made in the image of God (Genesis 1v27). It also teaches that the image of God, though gravely marred by sin, remains in humanity following the Fall (James 3v9).
Humanity includes politicians.
Being made in the image of God means we have a conscience, a kind of in-built moral compass.
It is true to say that the dial on this compass is easily sent into a spin by the magnetic force of our sin. But, if you pardon the pun, the reaction to the Downing Street e-mail spin scandal shows that even New Labour politicians, members of probably the most virulently secularising political movement in British history, have got one.
Take, for example, former Labour cabinet minister, Alan Milburn, quoted in yesterday’s Daily Mail: ‘It is very, very important that we end this sort of approach to politics – which demeans politics.....It is morally unacceptable and it has inflicted huge damage on the Labour government.’
Cynics may suggest that Mr Milburn has something of an anti-Downing Street agenda as a Blairite, but his reaction has the sound of heart-felt moral revulsion. He didn’t need to be quite so explicit in invoking morality, which when you think about it must in this instance be defined in Judeo-Christian terms. Is not the specific offence by the Downing Street spin machine against the Ninth Commandment – ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour’?
It is important to stress that being made in the image of God does not automatically spell eternal salvation. Justifying faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is required for that – the kind that says: ‘God, have mercy on me a sinner’ (Luke 18v13).
However, the self-righteous, Pharisaic demonising of politicians, with its implication that politicians are less in possession of a moral compass than the rest of us, is surely an arrogant offence against the living God, in whose image they are created.
Cranmer’s Curate would add that he has met more rogues in the clerical ranks than he ever met when he was a journalist interviewing politicians.
It is difficult to think of a group of people lower in the public esteem. It would seem that the other group currently in the dog-house - the police - are in there by association, because they are perceived as doing the politicians’ bidding.
Holy Scripture teaches that all people are made in the image of God (Genesis 1v27). It also teaches that the image of God, though gravely marred by sin, remains in humanity following the Fall (James 3v9).
Humanity includes politicians.
Being made in the image of God means we have a conscience, a kind of in-built moral compass.
It is true to say that the dial on this compass is easily sent into a spin by the magnetic force of our sin. But, if you pardon the pun, the reaction to the Downing Street e-mail spin scandal shows that even New Labour politicians, members of probably the most virulently secularising political movement in British history, have got one.
Take, for example, former Labour cabinet minister, Alan Milburn, quoted in yesterday’s Daily Mail: ‘It is very, very important that we end this sort of approach to politics – which demeans politics.....It is morally unacceptable and it has inflicted huge damage on the Labour government.’
Cynics may suggest that Mr Milburn has something of an anti-Downing Street agenda as a Blairite, but his reaction has the sound of heart-felt moral revulsion. He didn’t need to be quite so explicit in invoking morality, which when you think about it must in this instance be defined in Judeo-Christian terms. Is not the specific offence by the Downing Street spin machine against the Ninth Commandment – ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour’?
It is important to stress that being made in the image of God does not automatically spell eternal salvation. Justifying faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is required for that – the kind that says: ‘God, have mercy on me a sinner’ (Luke 18v13).
However, the self-righteous, Pharisaic demonising of politicians, with its implication that politicians are less in possession of a moral compass than the rest of us, is surely an arrogant offence against the living God, in whose image they are created.
Cranmer’s Curate would add that he has met more rogues in the clerical ranks than he ever met when he was a journalist interviewing politicians.
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
MADE UP EASTER – DIFFERENT STORY
Talk by Cranmer's Curate at the all-age Family Communion in the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge on Easter Sunday:
Is this a true story or a made-up story?
Yesterday evening, I decided to put on my super-vicar suit with SV on the front of the red t-shirt and I jumped out of the window and flew to New York. I took Lisa with me – she held onto my cape - and we had a spaghetti Bolognese in an Italian restaurant in New York and then we flew back again. Is that true or made up?
Anybody see me perhaps flying past your window? There’s one other person who appears in the story - Lisa - and if you ask her she will tell you what I think you already know.
Easter celebrates the story of Jesus Christ risen from the dead. Dead and buried on Good Friday, in his tomb for the whole of Saturday, alive on Easter Sunday.
Is it a made-up story?
I want to imagine you are living in Jerusalem 2000 years ago around the time when Jesus was killed and you work for a company that makes films – a film company based in Jerichowood. And they think a film about Jesus, the famous preacher who unfortunately got crucified, coming back to life again would sell a lot of DVDs but they do need people to believe that it happened for the film to go well and for lots of people to buy it.
So you’ve got the job of making up a story that’s going to go into the newspapers before the film comes out about Jesus coming alive again.
What would be in your story? Can I tell you what would be in my story if I was making it up?
First of all, I’d have some people seeing Jesus actually come alive again in his tomb. I would have the moment when he threw off the grave clothes and stood up alive and kicking in my story. I’d have that in definitely if I wanted people to believe it and so watch the film
But in the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which tell us that Jesus rose from the dead, none of them have a story about somebody seeing Jesus come alive again the moment it happened. They have people who saw Jesus out of his tomb definitely alive but there is no exciting, action story about the moment it actually happened. If they were making it up, they certainly would have put that in.
The second thing I would have in my story – a cool dude as the first person to see Jesus coming alive again. There is a possible person mentioned in the Gospels, the man who owned the tomb Jesus was put it. He was a rich and famous multi-millionaire called Joseph of Arimathea and the Roman Governor knew him – he was a powerful man. I would have him as the first witness.
But who is actually the first witness in the Gospels? A lady called Mary Magdalene who had a rather shady past and was certainly not rich or famous.
Please don’t be offended ladies but 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, if you’d seen a murder and reported it to the police, they would not have been interested because what you had seen could not be used in a court of law. Women’s evidence did not count in court.
So you’re making up a story about Jesus rising from the dead and who’s the first person who sees it? A lady. Not very clever. O out of 10. If you want people in Jerusalem 2000 years ago to believe your story and watch the film, you need to have Joseph of Arimathea or a Roman general or someone like that as the first person to see Jesus risen from the dead.
Why do the Gospels have a woman as the first person to see Jesus alive? Because that’s what happened. They’re telling the truth even though it’s inconvenient; they’re not making it up.
Jesus really did rise from the dead. He really is the Son of God, he really is the true King of the world and everyone really does need to believe in him to have their sins forgiven.
If it were a made-up story, it would be a very different story.
Is this a true story or a made-up story?
Yesterday evening, I decided to put on my super-vicar suit with SV on the front of the red t-shirt and I jumped out of the window and flew to New York. I took Lisa with me – she held onto my cape - and we had a spaghetti Bolognese in an Italian restaurant in New York and then we flew back again. Is that true or made up?
Anybody see me perhaps flying past your window? There’s one other person who appears in the story - Lisa - and if you ask her she will tell you what I think you already know.
Easter celebrates the story of Jesus Christ risen from the dead. Dead and buried on Good Friday, in his tomb for the whole of Saturday, alive on Easter Sunday.
Is it a made-up story?
I want to imagine you are living in Jerusalem 2000 years ago around the time when Jesus was killed and you work for a company that makes films – a film company based in Jerichowood. And they think a film about Jesus, the famous preacher who unfortunately got crucified, coming back to life again would sell a lot of DVDs but they do need people to believe that it happened for the film to go well and for lots of people to buy it.
So you’ve got the job of making up a story that’s going to go into the newspapers before the film comes out about Jesus coming alive again.
What would be in your story? Can I tell you what would be in my story if I was making it up?
First of all, I’d have some people seeing Jesus actually come alive again in his tomb. I would have the moment when he threw off the grave clothes and stood up alive and kicking in my story. I’d have that in definitely if I wanted people to believe it and so watch the film
But in the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which tell us that Jesus rose from the dead, none of them have a story about somebody seeing Jesus come alive again the moment it happened. They have people who saw Jesus out of his tomb definitely alive but there is no exciting, action story about the moment it actually happened. If they were making it up, they certainly would have put that in.
The second thing I would have in my story – a cool dude as the first person to see Jesus coming alive again. There is a possible person mentioned in the Gospels, the man who owned the tomb Jesus was put it. He was a rich and famous multi-millionaire called Joseph of Arimathea and the Roman Governor knew him – he was a powerful man. I would have him as the first witness.
But who is actually the first witness in the Gospels? A lady called Mary Magdalene who had a rather shady past and was certainly not rich or famous.
Please don’t be offended ladies but 2000 years ago in Jerusalem, if you’d seen a murder and reported it to the police, they would not have been interested because what you had seen could not be used in a court of law. Women’s evidence did not count in court.
So you’re making up a story about Jesus rising from the dead and who’s the first person who sees it? A lady. Not very clever. O out of 10. If you want people in Jerusalem 2000 years ago to believe your story and watch the film, you need to have Joseph of Arimathea or a Roman general or someone like that as the first person to see Jesus risen from the dead.
Why do the Gospels have a woman as the first person to see Jesus alive? Because that’s what happened. They’re telling the truth even though it’s inconvenient; they’re not making it up.
Jesus really did rise from the dead. He really is the Son of God, he really is the true King of the world and everyone really does need to believe in him to have their sins forgiven.
If it were a made-up story, it would be a very different story.
Sunday, 12 April 2009
CHRISTIANITY WORKS BETTER THAN PC
Political correctness does not appear to be working very well in the work-place in the light of a recent spate of scandals. PC's preoccupation with ideological soundness and a post-modern image of 'diversity' in appointments seems to be creating a culture in which less than the best, both in terms of character and competence, are getting promoted.
Because able people with a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview do not bear the mark of this particular beast (cf Revelation 13v16-18), it looks as if they are being passed over for promotion in the new Britain.
The mainstream political parties, the public sector and the BBC would seem to be the principal perpetrators of this anti-meritocratic culture. Most worryingly, it appears to be infecting the police service, which has such a vital role in a society in which law and order are increasingly breaking down. One would have thought that in the current moral climate policing would be the last sphere in which to play ideological games with appointments. Honest coppers have their roots in Christian Britain, so PC PCs are a contradiction in terms.
The private sector, which is called upon to pay the national mortgage, cannot afford the luxury of anti-meritocratic personnel policies. If such a culture were to be imposed on commerce, then the country really would be in trouble in a competitive world where UK plc is up against the burgeoning Tiger economies. Commerce cannot of course separate itself from the philosophical, cultural and moral climate in which it does its business, so in UK markets it is under pressure to worship the PC beast. The more it caves into this pressure, the more broke we will all become.
Bible-believing Christians are inclined to be more meritocratic about appointments and opposed to PC positive discrimination for two main reasons:
* Christianity makes a right separation between Church and State. Jesus Himself said in response to a question about whether God’s chosen people should pay taxes to a pagan political establishment: ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s’ (Matthew 22v21 - RSV). Sensible, biblically-informed Christians thus allow secular space in which the people doing the job do not have to be committed Christians. So they may as well be the best qualified and gifted. Political correctness seems to be somewhat Islamic in its refusal to make the separation that Jesus made.
* Christianity makes a distinction between the temporal sphere and the eternal Kingdom of God, which belongs to His Christ whose kingship is not of this world (John 18v36). Christians have responsibilities in the temporal sphere to be positive people in society (see for example Titus 3v1-2), but our vision extends beyond this present world - we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness (2 Peter 3v13). In the temporal sphere, Bible-believing Christians can be content to be meritocratic in appointments whereas in PC land this world is all that there is, so they feel the need to promote their ideological own.
Unfortunately, it cannot be too long before liberal-dominated church denominations begin to worship the beast in its current obsession with PC at the expense of meritocracy - all-female or even all-gay shortlists for incumbencies, cathedral and diocesan appointments and eventually bishoprics?
Because able people with a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview do not bear the mark of this particular beast (cf Revelation 13v16-18), it looks as if they are being passed over for promotion in the new Britain.
The mainstream political parties, the public sector and the BBC would seem to be the principal perpetrators of this anti-meritocratic culture. Most worryingly, it appears to be infecting the police service, which has such a vital role in a society in which law and order are increasingly breaking down. One would have thought that in the current moral climate policing would be the last sphere in which to play ideological games with appointments. Honest coppers have their roots in Christian Britain, so PC PCs are a contradiction in terms.
The private sector, which is called upon to pay the national mortgage, cannot afford the luxury of anti-meritocratic personnel policies. If such a culture were to be imposed on commerce, then the country really would be in trouble in a competitive world where UK plc is up against the burgeoning Tiger economies. Commerce cannot of course separate itself from the philosophical, cultural and moral climate in which it does its business, so in UK markets it is under pressure to worship the PC beast. The more it caves into this pressure, the more broke we will all become.
Bible-believing Christians are inclined to be more meritocratic about appointments and opposed to PC positive discrimination for two main reasons:
* Christianity makes a right separation between Church and State. Jesus Himself said in response to a question about whether God’s chosen people should pay taxes to a pagan political establishment: ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s’ (Matthew 22v21 - RSV). Sensible, biblically-informed Christians thus allow secular space in which the people doing the job do not have to be committed Christians. So they may as well be the best qualified and gifted. Political correctness seems to be somewhat Islamic in its refusal to make the separation that Jesus made.
* Christianity makes a distinction between the temporal sphere and the eternal Kingdom of God, which belongs to His Christ whose kingship is not of this world (John 18v36). Christians have responsibilities in the temporal sphere to be positive people in society (see for example Titus 3v1-2), but our vision extends beyond this present world - we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness (2 Peter 3v13). In the temporal sphere, Bible-believing Christians can be content to be meritocratic in appointments whereas in PC land this world is all that there is, so they feel the need to promote their ideological own.
Unfortunately, it cannot be too long before liberal-dominated church denominations begin to worship the beast in its current obsession with PC at the expense of meritocracy - all-female or even all-gay shortlists for incumbencies, cathedral and diocesan appointments and eventually bishoprics?
Thursday, 9 April 2009
YOUNG EVANGELICALS IN DANGER OF BEING SPUN OVER BY TONY BLAIR
This article by Cranmer's Curate first appeared on the US-based orthodox Anglican news service VirtueOnline:
Evangelical youth groups in both the United States and the United Kingdom need to be warned against the influence of a smooth-talking, highly plausible, international religious public relations executive called Tony Blair.
According to an interview in the gay magazine Attitude, as highlighted by Times religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill on her blog, Mr Blair is targeting younger evangelicals for the particular brand of cool-dude theological liberalism marketed by his Faith Foundation:
"In my Faith Foundation I have a lot of links with some of the evangelical groups in the US and elsewhere, and, actually, I think there is a generational shift that is happening there. If you talk to the older generation, yes, you will still get a lot of pushback, and parts of the Bible quoted, and so on. But actually, if you look at the younger generation of evangelicals, this is increasingly for them something that they wish to be out of - at least in terms of having their position confined to being anti-gay."
Chillingly, the thrice General Election-winning former UK Prime Minister, known as the Great Persuader, believes he can spin over orthodox evangelicals into liberalism with the right post-modern presentational techniques, at which he was so devastatingly adept in politics:
"When you've got people who are conducting the debate in a reasonable way, then you find that you do start to soften people's attitudes and then you open them up to the possibility of change and you open them up to the possibility of reconsideration. Whereas, if you just shout at them, then what you find is that people go back into their shell again. But that's always been my view about politics, which is that if you actually think you're right, you should have some confidence in your ability to persuade."
Evangelical pastors and youth leaders need our prayers in their calling to protect the next generation from this pernicious poison. We all need to be absolutely clear on the following points:
* The Bible needs to be responsibly interpreted, with the Old Testament understood as being fulfilled by the New, but as God's Word written Holy Scripture is not to be treated like a bucket of pick 'n mix sweets in a variety store
* Courteous listening and personal consideration are important in debate, but Christ's truth is more important than charm; being faithful to Him is more important than being nice
* A distinction must be made between primary and secondary issues in biblical interpretation, but false teaching is a reality and getting hooked on it has even more devastating consequences than heroine addiction. Heroine addicts can be rehabilitated in this world - falling for false teaching can wreck your soul for eternity (see Matthew 7v15-20)
May our gracious and almighty Lord Jesus Christ, the world's only true King and Saviour, protect the next generation of Bible-believing Christians from the wiles of the Arch Spin-doctor himself (who incidentally has won a lot more popularity contests than even Tony Blair).
Evangelical youth groups in both the United States and the United Kingdom need to be warned against the influence of a smooth-talking, highly plausible, international religious public relations executive called Tony Blair.
According to an interview in the gay magazine Attitude, as highlighted by Times religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill on her blog, Mr Blair is targeting younger evangelicals for the particular brand of cool-dude theological liberalism marketed by his Faith Foundation:
"In my Faith Foundation I have a lot of links with some of the evangelical groups in the US and elsewhere, and, actually, I think there is a generational shift that is happening there. If you talk to the older generation, yes, you will still get a lot of pushback, and parts of the Bible quoted, and so on. But actually, if you look at the younger generation of evangelicals, this is increasingly for them something that they wish to be out of - at least in terms of having their position confined to being anti-gay."
Chillingly, the thrice General Election-winning former UK Prime Minister, known as the Great Persuader, believes he can spin over orthodox evangelicals into liberalism with the right post-modern presentational techniques, at which he was so devastatingly adept in politics:
"When you've got people who are conducting the debate in a reasonable way, then you find that you do start to soften people's attitudes and then you open them up to the possibility of change and you open them up to the possibility of reconsideration. Whereas, if you just shout at them, then what you find is that people go back into their shell again. But that's always been my view about politics, which is that if you actually think you're right, you should have some confidence in your ability to persuade."
Evangelical pastors and youth leaders need our prayers in their calling to protect the next generation from this pernicious poison. We all need to be absolutely clear on the following points:
* The Bible needs to be responsibly interpreted, with the Old Testament understood as being fulfilled by the New, but as God's Word written Holy Scripture is not to be treated like a bucket of pick 'n mix sweets in a variety store
* Courteous listening and personal consideration are important in debate, but Christ's truth is more important than charm; being faithful to Him is more important than being nice
* A distinction must be made between primary and secondary issues in biblical interpretation, but false teaching is a reality and getting hooked on it has even more devastating consequences than heroine addiction. Heroine addicts can be rehabilitated in this world - falling for false teaching can wreck your soul for eternity (see Matthew 7v15-20)
May our gracious and almighty Lord Jesus Christ, the world's only true King and Saviour, protect the next generation of Bible-believing Christians from the wiles of the Arch Spin-doctor himself (who incidentally has won a lot more popularity contests than even Tony Blair).
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
PARISH VISITING NOW MORE VITAL THAN EVER
Parish visiting by the vicar is oh so feudal, so don’t bother. You’re unlikely to find anybody in during the day because everybody’s out at work, men and women, and the empty nesters are off on their overseas house swaps or their caravan holidays. And anyway people live in networks these days so they’re only really reachable through the targeted church plants.
Who wants a cheesy vicar in a dog-collar turning up on the doorstep?
Your curate would readily admit that he is certainly on the gorgonzola side of cheesy especially when he dons his clerical collar. But when he goes round knocking on doors offering a complimentary copy of the parish magazine, he certainly finds people in during the day, and generally an equal number of males and females. A conversation will often ensue on the doorstep with an opportunity to invite somebody to church.
Your curate's new doorstep catch-phrase is: ‘We don’t do posh but we do try to do friendly.’
He’s not quite sure how that lands. But the fact is many people these days are working shifts or working from home or sadly in the current economic climate out of work and your curate often catches them in. He ran into a Sheffield Wednesday football player on one occasion during a morning visiting session. As the young gentleman was getting into what looked like his parents’ 4-by-4 on the drive of a rather well-appointed detached property, he looked like somebody’s student son home for the Christmas vacation.
In fact, it was his house and we had a chat about the church.
New-build yuppie flats in city centres are often impenetrable, so those people do need to be reached by others means (yuppie churches are not the only way). But detached, semi-detached, or terraced homes across the nation have doorbells that can be rung by the local vicar or church member, provided they have a good reason for doing so such as to offer them a parish magazine or Christmas/Easter services card.
Cranmer's Curate thanks God for the wonderful opportunities in ordinary Church of England parish ministry to reach a wide range of unchurched people on their own doorsteps for Christ.
If that’s feudalism, bring it on.
Who wants a cheesy vicar in a dog-collar turning up on the doorstep?
Your curate would readily admit that he is certainly on the gorgonzola side of cheesy especially when he dons his clerical collar. But when he goes round knocking on doors offering a complimentary copy of the parish magazine, he certainly finds people in during the day, and generally an equal number of males and females. A conversation will often ensue on the doorstep with an opportunity to invite somebody to church.
Your curate's new doorstep catch-phrase is: ‘We don’t do posh but we do try to do friendly.’
He’s not quite sure how that lands. But the fact is many people these days are working shifts or working from home or sadly in the current economic climate out of work and your curate often catches them in. He ran into a Sheffield Wednesday football player on one occasion during a morning visiting session. As the young gentleman was getting into what looked like his parents’ 4-by-4 on the drive of a rather well-appointed detached property, he looked like somebody’s student son home for the Christmas vacation.
In fact, it was his house and we had a chat about the church.
New-build yuppie flats in city centres are often impenetrable, so those people do need to be reached by others means (yuppie churches are not the only way). But detached, semi-detached, or terraced homes across the nation have doorbells that can be rung by the local vicar or church member, provided they have a good reason for doing so such as to offer them a parish magazine or Christmas/Easter services card.
Cranmer's Curate thanks God for the wonderful opportunities in ordinary Church of England parish ministry to reach a wide range of unchurched people on their own doorsteps for Christ.
If that’s feudalism, bring it on.
Monday, 6 April 2009
WHY IS THE CROSS THE MAIN CHRISTIAN SYMBOL?
An edited version of a sermon by Cranmer’s Curate at the bridgethegap@5 service in the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, on Sunday April 5th 2009:
You can’t get away from it in any country that has been influenced by Christianity – the sign of the cross; on public buildings, on national flags and emblems, on livery and uniforms, as an item of jewellery still very common and of course it is the most frequently found symbol in churches. Look around you.
Why is the cross the main Christian symbol? It’s been observed before that it’s not a very touch-feely symbol when you think about it – the cross was an instrument of torture and execution, one of the most brutal forms mankind has ever come up with. That may not be central in the awareness of a pop star who wears a cross on stage. But it is the reality.
The cross is a visible reminder of a brutal, barbaric, lingering death of a Jewish man executed by the Romans nearly 2000 years ago. Why do Christians and indeed Christian-influenced civilisations make such a great thing of the cross?
The first thing to say by way of explanation is that Christianity is not a set of philosophical propositions or a religious rule book or a religious experience or a spiritual discipline, like yoga. Christianity is centred on a Person, the Person of Jesus Christ and so because the cross was the central event in what Christ came into the world to do, it’s central. The cross is central because Christ is central. The cross is central because Christianity is Christ.
The second thing to say is that the cross is central because it is central to the salvation from sin Christ came to achieve. Sin is what Christ came into the world to save us from and so the cross is central because it was on the cross that God in Christ dealt with your sin and mine.
Now that is not to say that other things Christ did aren’t important, such as his teaching and miracles, his resurrection, his commissioning of his apostles to preach his Gospel message to the world, and his ascension. But it is to say that the death of Christ is central in the salvation from sin he brings us and that is reflected in the fact that in the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, more space is given, more words are devoted to describing the week leading up to the death of Christ and particularly the events on the Thursday and Friday of Holy Week than to any other week in the life of Christ.
Other events before and after are important but the cross is the central saving event because it was on the cross that the Lord Jesus died in our place, taking the just punishment our sins deserve. As the prophet Isaiah said, writing about the future impact of the Lord’s Suffering Servant for God’s people: ‘He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed’ (Isaiah 53v5 – NIV).
It was on the cross that the Lord Jesus Christ bore the punishment that brings us peace, peace with God, the peace of sins forgiven.
The cross is the main Christian symbol because Christianity is Christ and because it was the central event in the salvation from sin our Lord Jesus Christ achieved for all who believe and trust in him.
You can’t get away from it in any country that has been influenced by Christianity – the sign of the cross; on public buildings, on national flags and emblems, on livery and uniforms, as an item of jewellery still very common and of course it is the most frequently found symbol in churches. Look around you.
Why is the cross the main Christian symbol? It’s been observed before that it’s not a very touch-feely symbol when you think about it – the cross was an instrument of torture and execution, one of the most brutal forms mankind has ever come up with. That may not be central in the awareness of a pop star who wears a cross on stage. But it is the reality.
The cross is a visible reminder of a brutal, barbaric, lingering death of a Jewish man executed by the Romans nearly 2000 years ago. Why do Christians and indeed Christian-influenced civilisations make such a great thing of the cross?
The first thing to say by way of explanation is that Christianity is not a set of philosophical propositions or a religious rule book or a religious experience or a spiritual discipline, like yoga. Christianity is centred on a Person, the Person of Jesus Christ and so because the cross was the central event in what Christ came into the world to do, it’s central. The cross is central because Christ is central. The cross is central because Christianity is Christ.
The second thing to say is that the cross is central because it is central to the salvation from sin Christ came to achieve. Sin is what Christ came into the world to save us from and so the cross is central because it was on the cross that God in Christ dealt with your sin and mine.
Now that is not to say that other things Christ did aren’t important, such as his teaching and miracles, his resurrection, his commissioning of his apostles to preach his Gospel message to the world, and his ascension. But it is to say that the death of Christ is central in the salvation from sin he brings us and that is reflected in the fact that in the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, more space is given, more words are devoted to describing the week leading up to the death of Christ and particularly the events on the Thursday and Friday of Holy Week than to any other week in the life of Christ.
Other events before and after are important but the cross is the central saving event because it was on the cross that the Lord Jesus died in our place, taking the just punishment our sins deserve. As the prophet Isaiah said, writing about the future impact of the Lord’s Suffering Servant for God’s people: ‘He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed’ (Isaiah 53v5 – NIV).
It was on the cross that the Lord Jesus Christ bore the punishment that brings us peace, peace with God, the peace of sins forgiven.
The cross is the main Christian symbol because Christianity is Christ and because it was the central event in the salvation from sin our Lord Jesus Christ achieved for all who believe and trust in him.
Sunday, 5 April 2009
THE SMUG FACE OF FRESH EXPRESSIONS
Planting new congregations where the Bible is taught and the Gospel proclaimed is undeniably to the glory of God and the good of His Church. But in spiritually immature hands church planting can damage God’s Church and the cause of His Christ.
The problem that appears to be developing at the grass-roots in some sections of the Fresh Expressions movement is a tendency to define themselves by what they are not:
· We are not a flower-arranging church dominated by old ladies.
· We are not a wooly liberal church with an unclear message.
· We are not a bunch of ritualists swinging bells and letting off smells.
· We are not a cloying holy huddle obsessed with pastoral care.
· We are not an exclusive religious club that doesn’t welcome visitors.
It is not a long jump from these negative statements about what they are not to the arrogant claim that their ‘brand’ of church has a monopoly on ministry to the young; on clear Gospel proclamation; on attractive informality; on outreach to the unchurched; and on friendly welcome.
The reality is that by God’s grace more and more established churches in local communities are wanting to do these very things and are beginning to make progress. They are doing them differently from church plants, but that probably means they’re wanting to get it right for their settings.
Of course, affirming biblical truth and good church practice involves denying unbiblical untruth and bad church practice. But that is not the issue here. The problem with the arrogant under-belly of the Fresh Expressions movement is self-definition by what you are not.
Is that not perilously close to the self-justifying Pharisee in Jesus’ parable: ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men’ (Luke 18v11)?
The problem that appears to be developing at the grass-roots in some sections of the Fresh Expressions movement is a tendency to define themselves by what they are not:
· We are not a flower-arranging church dominated by old ladies.
· We are not a wooly liberal church with an unclear message.
· We are not a bunch of ritualists swinging bells and letting off smells.
· We are not a cloying holy huddle obsessed with pastoral care.
· We are not an exclusive religious club that doesn’t welcome visitors.
It is not a long jump from these negative statements about what they are not to the arrogant claim that their ‘brand’ of church has a monopoly on ministry to the young; on clear Gospel proclamation; on attractive informality; on outreach to the unchurched; and on friendly welcome.
The reality is that by God’s grace more and more established churches in local communities are wanting to do these very things and are beginning to make progress. They are doing them differently from church plants, but that probably means they’re wanting to get it right for their settings.
Of course, affirming biblical truth and good church practice involves denying unbiblical untruth and bad church practice. But that is not the issue here. The problem with the arrogant under-belly of the Fresh Expressions movement is self-definition by what you are not.
Is that not perilously close to the self-justifying Pharisee in Jesus’ parable: ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men’ (Luke 18v11)?
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
WHY THE LOCAL CHURCH IS NOT GETTING PREFERMENT
Preferment is the ecclesiastical term for promotion but it applies to clergy not to the local churches they are called to serve. Cranmer’s Curate suggests three reasons why ambitious clergy prefer to escape from the local church:
• The world rates a fancy title whereas a local church looks, well, just plain ordinary. So if a clergyperson thinks they’ve got the face for television, they’re going to want to rise as quickly as possibly from the low profile of the local church into a more prominent position. For those without the face for television, the aspiration is the international conference speaker circuit.
• The world rates executive power whereas a local church relies on volunteers. It is much more 'executive' to have paid staff under you whether in the diocesan hierarchy or in a mega-church with an expanding staff team or in a para-church organisation or in a theological college/ministry training course. The role of the clergy in a local parish or community church reliant on volunteers is more prophetic than managerial. The prophet’s role is a lonely one and usually unappreciated by the people on the regular receiving end of the prophetic word. As our Lord Jesus said: ‘A prophet is not without honour except in his own country’ (Mark 6v4).
• The world rates upward mobility whereas the local church needs downright stickability. Most local churches, certainly in the Church of England, are in dire need of deep spiritual culture change and that takes time and commitment and continuity. Cc would agree with those who argue that a fourteen-year stay is the minimum requirement in most turnaround churches with your only real chance of putting the ball in the back of the net in the second half. Ambitious people prefer to move around and so build up their CV.
Cranmer’s Curate is powerfully struck by the link in 1 Corinthians 1 between a proper understanding of the message of the cross and a right perspective on the local church. In vv18-25 the Apostle Paul explains how the proclamation of the cross of Christ is the wisdom and the power of God for the salvation of those who believe. He then applies this to the local gathering of believers in Jesus:
‘For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God’ (1 Corinthians 1v26-29 - RSV).
That is why this parish plodder (cc) is so very privileged to serve a local church because it is called into being by the cross of Christ and shaped by His cross.
• The world rates a fancy title whereas a local church looks, well, just plain ordinary. So if a clergyperson thinks they’ve got the face for television, they’re going to want to rise as quickly as possibly from the low profile of the local church into a more prominent position. For those without the face for television, the aspiration is the international conference speaker circuit.
• The world rates executive power whereas a local church relies on volunteers. It is much more 'executive' to have paid staff under you whether in the diocesan hierarchy or in a mega-church with an expanding staff team or in a para-church organisation or in a theological college/ministry training course. The role of the clergy in a local parish or community church reliant on volunteers is more prophetic than managerial. The prophet’s role is a lonely one and usually unappreciated by the people on the regular receiving end of the prophetic word. As our Lord Jesus said: ‘A prophet is not without honour except in his own country’ (Mark 6v4).
• The world rates upward mobility whereas the local church needs downright stickability. Most local churches, certainly in the Church of England, are in dire need of deep spiritual culture change and that takes time and commitment and continuity. Cc would agree with those who argue that a fourteen-year stay is the minimum requirement in most turnaround churches with your only real chance of putting the ball in the back of the net in the second half. Ambitious people prefer to move around and so build up their CV.
Cranmer’s Curate is powerfully struck by the link in 1 Corinthians 1 between a proper understanding of the message of the cross and a right perspective on the local church. In vv18-25 the Apostle Paul explains how the proclamation of the cross of Christ is the wisdom and the power of God for the salvation of those who believe. He then applies this to the local gathering of believers in Jesus:
‘For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God’ (1 Corinthians 1v26-29 - RSV).
That is why this parish plodder (cc) is so very privileged to serve a local church because it is called into being by the cross of Christ and shaped by His cross.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
