This by Cranmer's Curate appeared in Friday's Church of England Newspaper:
An excuse some Anglicans make for commuting away from the small parish churches where they live is that we are ‘boring’. This prompts this parish plodder to offer some reflections for his own ministry and hopefully for that of others in a similar situation:
• We must resist the temptation to compete. That can manifest itself in a tendency incessantly to think numbers at our services and on nurture courses such as Christianity Explored or Alpha and to exaggerate the numerical growth since we arrived. That is likely to lead to discouragement and ineffectiveness in serving Christ in the face of evangelistic reality in most small church parishes.
• We mustn’t be starry-eyed about the large churches either. Realism (hopefully not cynicism) will help us to think straight. The reason the large churches and their church plants can attract commuters is not necessarily because the preaching is superior quality. What these churches can offer that we often can't is music in a contemporary form and that is undoubtedly a draw in the pop culture. They can also offer peer group on a scale that we can't. These are facts of life - we just have to live with them, not get discouraged by them and get on with evangelism in the power of the Holy Spirit.
• We in the smaller churches need to operate on the ‘little and often’ principle in feeding our congregations with God's wonderful Word. That means sermons of no more than 20 minutes that are geared towards ministering God's Word in digestible form to people who have probably not had much biblical teaching. Their edification in Christ needs to be at the front of our minds, not what may impress our absent peers from the preaching conference.
• We should try to be creative with the limited resources that we have. Manageable variations to our services include interviews with members of the congregation, children involvement in prayers and Bible readings, and leading the congregation in memorising Bible verses (which done with gusto can be great fun). These things may sound about as innovative as shepherd's pie at a harvest supper but they are often brand new on the menu of a small church.
• We should hold our nerve in maintaining a mix of traditional hymns and the more modern choruses (provided in our settings they can be played on the organ and/or with the limited range of musical instruments at our disposal). Good traditional hymns really can reinforce the biblical message we are trying to introduce to a small congregation in a way that some of the repetitious modern choruses can’t.
Small parish churches that have an agreed agenda to grow are actually very exciting places to be. The living Christ is at work as his Word is proclaimed. We mustn’t allow ourselves to be bounced off the ball by the arrogance of the ‘you’re boring’ accusation. At the same time, we need to work hard to ensure that there is no justification for such a fundamentally consumerist rationalisation for driving past the door of a small church where God is at work.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Friday, 29 January 2010
IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT ANY BIBLES
This by Cranmer's Curate first appeared on VirtueOnline in its Culture Wars section:
That is the world of the latest Denzel Washington film, The Book of Eli - apart from one copy of the King James version in Braille.
During January there have been two films portaying a violent, anarchic post-apocalyptic world in the cinemas here in the UK - The Road and The Book of Eli. I didn’t manage to sit through all of The Road – it was a bleak January day and it was the cannibals that did it.
But Mr Washington's performance as the iterant warrior-monk, Eli, charged with the task of preserving the last remaining copy of the Bible on earth was magnificent. He has some great lines – including a quote from Johnny Cash.
The film won’t be favourably received in the United Kingdom – it’s too supportive of the Bible. It’s bound to fare better in America.
But despite its tremendous reverence for the Christian Scriptures it cannot be said that the film is untarnished by political correctness. Eli quotes the words of Jesus – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – claiming that they summarise the core message of the Bible. But as far as I recall the Name of the Lord Jesus is not mentioned and certainly not his atoning death for the sins of the world.
At the end when a dying Eli finally makes it to Alcatraz, which has been transformed into a fortress of human culture and where he dictates the Bible from memory, the film shows a freshly-printed copy of the New King James being placed on a shelf next to the Koran.
So, it is not a film that reflects the exclusive truth-claims of the Christian Scriptures but it does provide a reminder of the incredible privilege of having ready access to God’s Word and of the courageous sacrifice men such as William Tyndale made to that end.
That is the world of the latest Denzel Washington film, The Book of Eli - apart from one copy of the King James version in Braille.
During January there have been two films portaying a violent, anarchic post-apocalyptic world in the cinemas here in the UK - The Road and The Book of Eli. I didn’t manage to sit through all of The Road – it was a bleak January day and it was the cannibals that did it.
But Mr Washington's performance as the iterant warrior-monk, Eli, charged with the task of preserving the last remaining copy of the Bible on earth was magnificent. He has some great lines – including a quote from Johnny Cash.
The film won’t be favourably received in the United Kingdom – it’s too supportive of the Bible. It’s bound to fare better in America.
But despite its tremendous reverence for the Christian Scriptures it cannot be said that the film is untarnished by political correctness. Eli quotes the words of Jesus – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – claiming that they summarise the core message of the Bible. But as far as I recall the Name of the Lord Jesus is not mentioned and certainly not his atoning death for the sins of the world.
At the end when a dying Eli finally makes it to Alcatraz, which has been transformed into a fortress of human culture and where he dictates the Bible from memory, the film shows a freshly-printed copy of the New King James being placed on a shelf next to the Koran.
So, it is not a film that reflects the exclusive truth-claims of the Christian Scriptures but it does provide a reminder of the incredible privilege of having ready access to God’s Word and of the courageous sacrifice men such as William Tyndale made to that end.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
EVANGELISM MUST NOT BE UNDERMINED BY FISH STICKER SOB STORIES
'When it comes to applying equality and diversity laws, Christians seem to be the first to be punished and the last to be protected. This prejudice and intolerance must end,' declares the Christian Institute in its superbly researched and presented booklet, Marginalising Christians - Instances of Christians being sidelined in modern Britain.
But the reality is that prejudice and intolerance against Christians are not going to end. Because aggressive secularism has become so deeply entrenched amongst the liberal establishment running Britain since the 1960s, hassle for pro-active Christians is likely to be a fact of life for many years to come. But these tribulations are offset by liberal human rights legislation and the legal vestiges of Christian Britain, which are quite difficult to remove without dragging other faiths into the net.
Christians therefore have recourse to the law, which means we don't suffer nearly as much as our Christian brothers and sisters in Muslim countries. Remembering that should help to keep us humble.
The fact at parochial level is that the current spiritual and moral fluidity is providing tremendous opportunities for evangelism. People at the grass-roots are tiring of secular materialism. Christmas has been staging a come-back at parish level during the Noughties and the people who have been coming to church are less culturally motivated than previous generations of Christmas attenders. Cranmer's Curate sensed this Christmas that our visitors were really listening to the Word.
So, though things are getting more difficult in some ways and physically dangerous for front-line clergy in a growing number of communities, these are great days for the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. That means it's worth enduring the temporal injustices we are bound to suffer.
Whilst the cases publicised by the Christian Institute have involved real injustices against Christians in secular employment, there is the danger that fighting discrimination can become the legal equivalent of heresy hunting - we begin to look for it. Armed with our sob stories, we could end up pandering to the victim culture of post-modernity.
For the sake of parish evangelism, the Christian Institute and Christian Concern for our Nation need to make sure that the cases they publicise involve Christians who have, as St Paul enjoins in Colossians 4v5, conducted themselves wisely towards outsiders.
A fish sticker on the back of a Christian's car shouldn't automatically entitle us to the legal defence fund, particularly if we've been driving badly.
But the reality is that prejudice and intolerance against Christians are not going to end. Because aggressive secularism has become so deeply entrenched amongst the liberal establishment running Britain since the 1960s, hassle for pro-active Christians is likely to be a fact of life for many years to come. But these tribulations are offset by liberal human rights legislation and the legal vestiges of Christian Britain, which are quite difficult to remove without dragging other faiths into the net.
Christians therefore have recourse to the law, which means we don't suffer nearly as much as our Christian brothers and sisters in Muslim countries. Remembering that should help to keep us humble.
The fact at parochial level is that the current spiritual and moral fluidity is providing tremendous opportunities for evangelism. People at the grass-roots are tiring of secular materialism. Christmas has been staging a come-back at parish level during the Noughties and the people who have been coming to church are less culturally motivated than previous generations of Christmas attenders. Cranmer's Curate sensed this Christmas that our visitors were really listening to the Word.
So, though things are getting more difficult in some ways and physically dangerous for front-line clergy in a growing number of communities, these are great days for the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. That means it's worth enduring the temporal injustices we are bound to suffer.
Whilst the cases publicised by the Christian Institute have involved real injustices against Christians in secular employment, there is the danger that fighting discrimination can become the legal equivalent of heresy hunting - we begin to look for it. Armed with our sob stories, we could end up pandering to the victim culture of post-modernity.
For the sake of parish evangelism, the Christian Institute and Christian Concern for our Nation need to make sure that the cases they publicise involve Christians who have, as St Paul enjoins in Colossians 4v5, conducted themselves wisely towards outsiders.
A fish sticker on the back of a Christian's car shouldn't automatically entitle us to the legal defence fund, particularly if we've been driving badly.
Sunday, 24 January 2010
AN ANGLICAN-METHODIST PARTNERSHIP TO COMBAT 'ISLAMAPHOBIA'
This by Cranmer's Curate first appeared on Archbishop Cranmer:
Could anyone have predicted 20 years ago that moves towards the institutional convergence of Anglicans and Methodists would result in an alliance to combat specifically 'Islamaphobia'? One wonders what John Wesley and George Whitefield would have made of the following job advert:
Sheffield Methodist District
Challenging Extremism in South Yorkshire
This is a new project, funded by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, to challenge Islamaphobia, racism and divisive politics.
We wish to recruit: Project Manager - Full time, salary £35,000
To lead the project, develop its work, and build strong and broad partnerships
Communications Officer - 0.6 FTE, salary £27,000 pro rata
To develop consistent key messages and build communications capacity in the community.
The application pack is said to be available from an e-mail address at the Anglican Diocese of Sheffield. The employer is thus the Sheffield Methodist District with the Diocese of Sheffield having placed the advert. So, two Christian denominations are closely involved in the organisation of these two secular-funded roles which are not restricted to professing Christians and are clearly aimed at the wider community.
The questions raised by this for the Church's mission are far from trivial.
What place does challenging 'Islamaphobia' have in the Church's mission? If 'Islamaphobia' is defined as a refusal to show Christian love and hospitality towards Muslims with whom Christians ought to be sharing the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, then it certainly deserves to be challenged.
But that is not the politically-correct definition of 'Islamaphobia'. In fact, the orthodox doctrine of the Church of England would have to be branded 'Islamaphobic' according to PC criteria. Article 18 of the 39 Articles of Religion - Of Obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ - pronounces 'accursed' those who claim that people can be saved by the 'Law or Sect' that they profess: 'Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved,' it affirms.
Furthermore, this PC-defined form of extremism is to be challenged in the wider non-Christian community who have no interest in Christian evangelism and little commitment to biblical authority. Thus, it would seem that the Church, with funding from the State, is getting involved in preaching PC morality to the community rather than the gospel.
Challenging racism is clearly something the Church must engage in - racism is a barrier to the gospel and is a profoundly unloving attitude, unworthy of Christians. That is why I (His Grace’s curate) personally support the ban on clergy being members of the British National Party: membership of a racist political party intrinsically constitutes conduct unbecoming.
But surely challenging racism where it is found is part of the role of front-line clergy engaged in evangelism in their communities. The cost of the project manager approximates to that of a full-time minister deployed in a parish, and the cost of the communications officer to that of a youth worker. Should the Church be involved in deploying secular-funded central staff dedicated not only to challenging racism but also 'Islamaphobia' as apparently defined by PC criteria and 'divisive politics'?
Surely in a democracy politics is inherently divisive - people are allowed to vote for different parties and debate the issues freely and disagree openly: one is permitted to divide along party lines.
Furthermore, is not 'Christianaphobia' as great if not a greater problem now in British society than ‘Islamaphobia’, and of more immediate concern to Christian organisations such as the Sheffield Methodist District and the Diocese of Sheffield? What about the situation faced by Christians in the public sector suspended or fired from their employment simply for offering to pray with clients or for saying 'God bless'?
What about the situation faced by Christian street preachers accused of hate speech simply for affirming the Bible's teaching?
What about the situation faced by confessing Anglicans who wish to uphold the doctrine of the Church of England?
There is no doubt that an Anglican-Methodist partnership led by John Wesley and George Whitefield would have spent the money on a full-time evangelist - even if that meant losing the grant from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
Could anyone have predicted 20 years ago that moves towards the institutional convergence of Anglicans and Methodists would result in an alliance to combat specifically 'Islamaphobia'? One wonders what John Wesley and George Whitefield would have made of the following job advert:
Sheffield Methodist District
Challenging Extremism in South Yorkshire
This is a new project, funded by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, to challenge Islamaphobia, racism and divisive politics.
We wish to recruit: Project Manager - Full time, salary £35,000
To lead the project, develop its work, and build strong and broad partnerships
Communications Officer - 0.6 FTE, salary £27,000 pro rata
To develop consistent key messages and build communications capacity in the community.
The application pack is said to be available from an e-mail address at the Anglican Diocese of Sheffield. The employer is thus the Sheffield Methodist District with the Diocese of Sheffield having placed the advert. So, two Christian denominations are closely involved in the organisation of these two secular-funded roles which are not restricted to professing Christians and are clearly aimed at the wider community.
The questions raised by this for the Church's mission are far from trivial.
What place does challenging 'Islamaphobia' have in the Church's mission? If 'Islamaphobia' is defined as a refusal to show Christian love and hospitality towards Muslims with whom Christians ought to be sharing the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, then it certainly deserves to be challenged.
But that is not the politically-correct definition of 'Islamaphobia'. In fact, the orthodox doctrine of the Church of England would have to be branded 'Islamaphobic' according to PC criteria. Article 18 of the 39 Articles of Religion - Of Obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ - pronounces 'accursed' those who claim that people can be saved by the 'Law or Sect' that they profess: 'Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved,' it affirms.
Furthermore, this PC-defined form of extremism is to be challenged in the wider non-Christian community who have no interest in Christian evangelism and little commitment to biblical authority. Thus, it would seem that the Church, with funding from the State, is getting involved in preaching PC morality to the community rather than the gospel.
Challenging racism is clearly something the Church must engage in - racism is a barrier to the gospel and is a profoundly unloving attitude, unworthy of Christians. That is why I (His Grace’s curate) personally support the ban on clergy being members of the British National Party: membership of a racist political party intrinsically constitutes conduct unbecoming.
But surely challenging racism where it is found is part of the role of front-line clergy engaged in evangelism in their communities. The cost of the project manager approximates to that of a full-time minister deployed in a parish, and the cost of the communications officer to that of a youth worker. Should the Church be involved in deploying secular-funded central staff dedicated not only to challenging racism but also 'Islamaphobia' as apparently defined by PC criteria and 'divisive politics'?
Surely in a democracy politics is inherently divisive - people are allowed to vote for different parties and debate the issues freely and disagree openly: one is permitted to divide along party lines.
Furthermore, is not 'Christianaphobia' as great if not a greater problem now in British society than ‘Islamaphobia’, and of more immediate concern to Christian organisations such as the Sheffield Methodist District and the Diocese of Sheffield? What about the situation faced by Christians in the public sector suspended or fired from their employment simply for offering to pray with clients or for saying 'God bless'?
What about the situation faced by Christian street preachers accused of hate speech simply for affirming the Bible's teaching?
What about the situation faced by confessing Anglicans who wish to uphold the doctrine of the Church of England?
There is no doubt that an Anglican-Methodist partnership led by John Wesley and George Whitefield would have spent the money on a full-time evangelist - even if that meant losing the grant from the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
ANGLICAN PARISH PLANTS ARE VULNERABLE
This is a fact Cranmer's Curate has not sufficiently credited.
On a Sunday off recently, your curate visited a parish plant of around 40 adults from a large suburban Anglican Evangelical flagship. The new church meets in the building of a near-by parish church of another tradition.
It felt vulnerable. The students were not yet back from their Christmas vacation so the people present were the supporting adult congregation and their children.
The welcome was superb - cc was in civvies and was greeted warmly but not embarrassingly so as he came in. Your curate was encouraged to see a gentleman of the road there who seemed quite comfortable in the surroundings. He like your curate had clearly been made to feel welcome.
The sermon on Psalm 2, which on that Sunday was given by a member of the church family in secular employment, was of a very high quality indeed.
But the pressures of meeting in somebody else's building were apparent. The heating system was struggling as were the sound system and the computer-operated overhead projector. With his radio microphone playing up, the staff member leading from the front was scarcely audible.
There was no brashness or arrogance about this church plant - no proclamations of its growth figures or claims to be 'thriving' or comparisons between the plant leader and a Special Forces operative. It gave off a humble vibe.
So, whilst this kind of parish plant gets a good start in terms of 40 or 50 praying, giving, committed Evangelical Christians, these fresh expressions do constitute a vulnerable Christian work. Therefore the Apostle Paul's wonderful words in 2 Corinthians 12v9 apply to them as they do to those of us ministering in small turnaround parish churches:
On a Sunday off recently, your curate visited a parish plant of around 40 adults from a large suburban Anglican Evangelical flagship. The new church meets in the building of a near-by parish church of another tradition.
It felt vulnerable. The students were not yet back from their Christmas vacation so the people present were the supporting adult congregation and their children.
The welcome was superb - cc was in civvies and was greeted warmly but not embarrassingly so as he came in. Your curate was encouraged to see a gentleman of the road there who seemed quite comfortable in the surroundings. He like your curate had clearly been made to feel welcome.
The sermon on Psalm 2, which on that Sunday was given by a member of the church family in secular employment, was of a very high quality indeed.
But the pressures of meeting in somebody else's building were apparent. The heating system was struggling as were the sound system and the computer-operated overhead projector. With his radio microphone playing up, the staff member leading from the front was scarcely audible.
There was no brashness or arrogance about this church plant - no proclamations of its growth figures or claims to be 'thriving' or comparisons between the plant leader and a Special Forces operative. It gave off a humble vibe.
So, whilst this kind of parish plant gets a good start in terms of 40 or 50 praying, giving, committed Evangelical Christians, these fresh expressions do constitute a vulnerable Christian work. Therefore the Apostle Paul's wonderful words in 2 Corinthians 12v9 apply to them as they do to those of us ministering in small turnaround parish churches:
But he (the Lord) said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me (ESV).
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
WHY ARE PRE-1960'S EVANGELICALS BETTER CHRISTIANS?
Why are Evangelicals converted to Christ prior to the cultural revolution of the 1960's so much more gracious and faithful Christians than those of us converted subsequently?
Some in the youth group may not agree with the premise. The Proclamation Trust didn't exist in the 1950's. Evangelical people in the pews were being served up blessed thoughts and topical sermons - a diet of sub-Spurgeon at best and mangled texts at worst.
And wasn't 1950's Evangelicalism riddled with 'legalism'? Christian Unions and youth groups agonising over whether you could be a keen Christian and enjoy a glass of sherry at Christmas, or flick a tiddly-wink on a Sunday, or watch Gone with the Wind?
There may have some of that and your curate has heard Evangelicals from that era testify to it. But cc is also convinced that such legalism is hugely exaggerated by our generation boldly proclaiming our liberation from the Galatian heresy of the Evangelical tradition of the past.
But our expository sermons are so much better. A 22-year-old who has been on a Cornhill course can 'handle the Bible' so much better than a man who has been preaching for 50 years. And he can deliver a much better Bible overview as well. He's read Goldsworthy.
And when it comes to guidance he's read Friesen and Jensen and so you won't find him getting hung up over his 'calling' to be a missionary in the Punjab rather than Lithuania.
That may be so. But the question remains whether our generation of Evangelicals has a better grasp of the doctrines of the gospel than previous generations.
And the empirical evidence is not going to go away that the pre-1960's generation of Evangelicals is not only more godly in Christian living but also more gracious and forgiving. They may not 'handle' the Bible as well as the scions of our expository courses, but they would seem to be more faithful and loving doers of the Word than we are.
We have to face the fact that our generation was converted out of a culture in terrible straights, a culture that indoctrinates arrogance and selfishness and prima donna-ism and breeds spoilt brats.
Whilst we don't want to lionise our elders and must continue to ask 'what does the Bible say?' rather than 'what does the framework or the tradition say?', a good dose of humility is surely the spiritual Cod Liver Oil our generation sorely needs.
Some in the youth group may not agree with the premise. The Proclamation Trust didn't exist in the 1950's. Evangelical people in the pews were being served up blessed thoughts and topical sermons - a diet of sub-Spurgeon at best and mangled texts at worst.
And wasn't 1950's Evangelicalism riddled with 'legalism'? Christian Unions and youth groups agonising over whether you could be a keen Christian and enjoy a glass of sherry at Christmas, or flick a tiddly-wink on a Sunday, or watch Gone with the Wind?
There may have some of that and your curate has heard Evangelicals from that era testify to it. But cc is also convinced that such legalism is hugely exaggerated by our generation boldly proclaiming our liberation from the Galatian heresy of the Evangelical tradition of the past.
But our expository sermons are so much better. A 22-year-old who has been on a Cornhill course can 'handle the Bible' so much better than a man who has been preaching for 50 years. And he can deliver a much better Bible overview as well. He's read Goldsworthy.
And when it comes to guidance he's read Friesen and Jensen and so you won't find him getting hung up over his 'calling' to be a missionary in the Punjab rather than Lithuania.
That may be so. But the question remains whether our generation of Evangelicals has a better grasp of the doctrines of the gospel than previous generations.
And the empirical evidence is not going to go away that the pre-1960's generation of Evangelicals is not only more godly in Christian living but also more gracious and forgiving. They may not 'handle' the Bible as well as the scions of our expository courses, but they would seem to be more faithful and loving doers of the Word than we are.
We have to face the fact that our generation was converted out of a culture in terrible straights, a culture that indoctrinates arrogance and selfishness and prima donna-ism and breeds spoilt brats.
Whilst we don't want to lionise our elders and must continue to ask 'what does the Bible say?' rather than 'what does the framework or the tradition say?', a good dose of humility is surely the spiritual Cod Liver Oil our generation sorely needs.
Sunday, 17 January 2010
ORIGINAL SINNERS ON THE PCC
In the Church Times of January 8th, the Revd Martyn Snow, vicar of Christ Church Pitsmoor here in Sheffield and area dean of Ecclesfield, argued for a new style of leadership on PCCs. Here is Cranmer's Curate's letter in response in Friday's edition:
Sir, — The Revd Martyn Snow’s apologia for café-style PCCs and deanery synods (Comment, 8 January) articulates an increasingly fashionable approach to pastoral leadership which needs a considered response.
The parish church I am privileged to serve is in the same Sheffield deanery as Martyn’s, but, unlike his, it is currently unsustainable. It is one of the majority of parish churches in our diocese which do not pay their way in terms of parish share.
Martyn is undoubtedly right that “the stronger the relationship and the less adversarial the meeting, the more likely it is that people will work together to address the issues.” But as an aspiration for the conduct of PCC meetings, it needs teasing out.
First, without a clear idea of biblical authority, such unity can be pernicious. The PCC can unite around the wrong agenda, and the warm glow of relationships achieved by such a collaborative approach can ill serve the gospel.
Second, the reality of PCCs in small churches is that people can get on them in uncontested elections with the clear agenda to block change. Canon Giles Fraser terms these people “mission-blockers”.
The Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Steven Croft, in Jesus’ People: What the Church should do next (Church House, 2009), says that some of the research carried out in church congregations suggests that smaller churches develop “gatekeepers”. They “act informally on behalf of the congregation and ‘vet’ potential new members: if people pass the test (usually because they are ‘people like us’) then they are gradually introduced to others”.
In such churches, the gatekeepers can easily dominate the PCC. For the sake of Christ’s Kingdom, a minister has to be prepared to take them on — wisely, gently, and determinedly.
Third, Martyn’s stress on the “innate creativity within every human” because we are made in the image of God leaves out the reality of Original Sin. Orthodox Anglicans believe that all of us — leaders and led — have it in us, sadly.
So, on certain issues where the gospel is at stake, a good old-fashioned adversarial debate can provide the rigorous scrutiny that the opinions of original sinners like us sorely need.
JULIAN MANN
The Vicarage
Church Street, Oughtibridge
Sheffield S35 0FU
Sir, — The Revd Martyn Snow’s apologia for café-style PCCs and deanery synods (Comment, 8 January) articulates an increasingly fashionable approach to pastoral leadership which needs a considered response.
The parish church I am privileged to serve is in the same Sheffield deanery as Martyn’s, but, unlike his, it is currently unsustainable. It is one of the majority of parish churches in our diocese which do not pay their way in terms of parish share.
Martyn is undoubtedly right that “the stronger the relationship and the less adversarial the meeting, the more likely it is that people will work together to address the issues.” But as an aspiration for the conduct of PCC meetings, it needs teasing out.
First, without a clear idea of biblical authority, such unity can be pernicious. The PCC can unite around the wrong agenda, and the warm glow of relationships achieved by such a collaborative approach can ill serve the gospel.
Second, the reality of PCCs in small churches is that people can get on them in uncontested elections with the clear agenda to block change. Canon Giles Fraser terms these people “mission-blockers”.
The Bishop of Sheffield, Dr Steven Croft, in Jesus’ People: What the Church should do next (Church House, 2009), says that some of the research carried out in church congregations suggests that smaller churches develop “gatekeepers”. They “act informally on behalf of the congregation and ‘vet’ potential new members: if people pass the test (usually because they are ‘people like us’) then they are gradually introduced to others”.
In such churches, the gatekeepers can easily dominate the PCC. For the sake of Christ’s Kingdom, a minister has to be prepared to take them on — wisely, gently, and determinedly.
Third, Martyn’s stress on the “innate creativity within every human” because we are made in the image of God leaves out the reality of Original Sin. Orthodox Anglicans believe that all of us — leaders and led — have it in us, sadly.
So, on certain issues where the gospel is at stake, a good old-fashioned adversarial debate can provide the rigorous scrutiny that the opinions of original sinners like us sorely need.
JULIAN MANN
The Vicarage
Church Street, Oughtibridge
Sheffield S35 0FU
Thursday, 14 January 2010
WHEN TEAMS DAMAGE THE GOSPEL
This by Cranmer's Curate appeared in January's edition of the Forward in Faith magazine New Directions:
Julian Mann explains why team working can cause liberal policies to prevail, to the detriment of the Church’s reputation
The rhetoric of the deanery review is rapidly changing. Before the recession, the talk was of how churches in a deanery could ‘own’ the need for greater team working. But now, with the diocese facing a significant budget deficit, the Area Dean is telling the deanery synod, ‘We need to start working as a team before we are forced to.’
As an institutional prognosis, the Area Dean’s comment is surely right. As John Richardson pointed out in an excellent article on his blog The Ugley Vicar about a Times news report that the Church of England will lose as many as one in ten paid clergy in the next five years: ‘Of course, for many Anglicans, this is not news at all, especially if they are in rural areas (which means anywhere outside an urban environment). Typically, rural ‘parishes’ now consist of agglomerations of individual parishes, even into double figures. Recently I met a clergywoman from Norfolk looking after no less than fifteen. And the number of parishes involved is no guarantee of a full-time minister. In our local area another clergywoman is overseeing five parishes whilst holding down a part-time diocesan post.’
Theological differences
The problem with the rhetoric of the cluster is that it fails to face up to the profound theological differences between churches in a deanery. And that is ironic because the deanery review sales talk was all about respecting our theological differences. ‘We are diverse, yet united. Let’s celebrate our differences and yet learn to partner together in mission.’
But once the deanery review becomes incarnated in ‘pastoral reorganisation’, with clergy and Readers being licensed to the team rather than to individual parish churches, liberal policies tend to prevail and orthodox clergy and congregations are vulnerable to being bounced into practices with which they are theologically uncomfortable.
Managerial pronouncements
Take remarriage after divorce, for example. The team adopts a policy of conducting marriage services for those who have been divorced. When St Griselda’s-by-the-Pond had its own vicar, he offered a service of dedication after civil marriage instead of the full marriage service. Now the church finds divorcees being fairly freely remarried in its building, and the practice is now beginning to cause a scandal locally.
Mr Smith married his second wife in church shortly after the change in policy. The younger woman he has just run off with wants a traditional white wedding at St Griselda’s. The Revd Jezebel Gomer-Jones told the Team Rector that it would be ‘discriminatory’ to deny the bride her dream. After consulting the Area Dean, he heartily agreed. But down at the Dog and Duck, the regulars are taking bets on the timing of number four.
Godly people have simply been ground down by the bureaucrats and the reputation of the Gospel is suffering by practices such as serial remarriage. That is why in these difficult times orthodox support networks such as Forward in Faith, Reform and Anglican Mainstream have a vital part to play.
They can provide invaluable legal advice to churches to ensure that they are not steam-rollered by high-handed managerial pronouncements that are often legally ambiguous if not erroneous. This is not for the sake of obstructive nitpicking but for the sake of faithfulness to Christ’s revealed will for his ministry and mission.
Julian Mann explains why team working can cause liberal policies to prevail, to the detriment of the Church’s reputation
The rhetoric of the deanery review is rapidly changing. Before the recession, the talk was of how churches in a deanery could ‘own’ the need for greater team working. But now, with the diocese facing a significant budget deficit, the Area Dean is telling the deanery synod, ‘We need to start working as a team before we are forced to.’
As an institutional prognosis, the Area Dean’s comment is surely right. As John Richardson pointed out in an excellent article on his blog The Ugley Vicar about a Times news report that the Church of England will lose as many as one in ten paid clergy in the next five years: ‘Of course, for many Anglicans, this is not news at all, especially if they are in rural areas (which means anywhere outside an urban environment). Typically, rural ‘parishes’ now consist of agglomerations of individual parishes, even into double figures. Recently I met a clergywoman from Norfolk looking after no less than fifteen. And the number of parishes involved is no guarantee of a full-time minister. In our local area another clergywoman is overseeing five parishes whilst holding down a part-time diocesan post.’
Theological differences
The problem with the rhetoric of the cluster is that it fails to face up to the profound theological differences between churches in a deanery. And that is ironic because the deanery review sales talk was all about respecting our theological differences. ‘We are diverse, yet united. Let’s celebrate our differences and yet learn to partner together in mission.’
But once the deanery review becomes incarnated in ‘pastoral reorganisation’, with clergy and Readers being licensed to the team rather than to individual parish churches, liberal policies tend to prevail and orthodox clergy and congregations are vulnerable to being bounced into practices with which they are theologically uncomfortable.
Managerial pronouncements
Take remarriage after divorce, for example. The team adopts a policy of conducting marriage services for those who have been divorced. When St Griselda’s-by-the-Pond had its own vicar, he offered a service of dedication after civil marriage instead of the full marriage service. Now the church finds divorcees being fairly freely remarried in its building, and the practice is now beginning to cause a scandal locally.
Mr Smith married his second wife in church shortly after the change in policy. The younger woman he has just run off with wants a traditional white wedding at St Griselda’s. The Revd Jezebel Gomer-Jones told the Team Rector that it would be ‘discriminatory’ to deny the bride her dream. After consulting the Area Dean, he heartily agreed. But down at the Dog and Duck, the regulars are taking bets on the timing of number four.
Godly people have simply been ground down by the bureaucrats and the reputation of the Gospel is suffering by practices such as serial remarriage. That is why in these difficult times orthodox support networks such as Forward in Faith, Reform and Anglican Mainstream have a vital part to play.
They can provide invaluable legal advice to churches to ensure that they are not steam-rollered by high-handed managerial pronouncements that are often legally ambiguous if not erroneous. This is not for the sake of obstructive nitpicking but for the sake of faithfulness to Christ’s revealed will for his ministry and mission.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IS MODEL FOR ORTHODOX
Orthodox Anglicans looking to resist the Stonewall campaign to promote civil partnership ceremonies in churches should follow the non-violent protest tactics of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.
Stonewall and its collaborationists in the Lesbian and Gay 'Christian' Movement know that if Lord Waheed Alli's amendment to the Equality Bill in the House of Lords to allow civil partnerships in religious buildings succeeds, then that will pose a huge problem for church discipline particularly in the Church of England. Stonewall knows that if a PCC votes to allow civil partnerships in a parish church, then it becomes very difficult for an orthodox bishop to do anything about it.
Stonewall also knows that what is permissive in this kind of legislation eventually becomes prescriptive. Orthodox ministers and churches who refuse in conscience to allow civil partnerships in their buildings will end up having to plead for exemptions.
The sorry tale of the Equality Bill so far shows that the politically correct establishment is becoming increasingly less inclined to grant such exemptions. The Stonewall strategy is thus a clever one.
The best recourse for orthodox clergy and churches is non-violent conscientious protest. Refusing to take Holy Communion with professing Christians who promote disobedience to Christ's teaching on the sanctity of heterosexual marriage is one right course of action for orthodox Anglicans.
For clergy this course of action will be particularly costly. Clergy who refuse in conscience to administer Holy Communion to certain individuals could find themselves getting into trouble both with church authorities who tacitly support civil partnerships and with the State. And it could well be that some bishops will find themselves in that conscientious difficulty. They are effectively out of Communion with clergy and parishes in their own dioceses.
The BCP Collect for the First Sunday After Epiphany is so very pertinent in these dark days:
Stonewall and its collaborationists in the Lesbian and Gay 'Christian' Movement know that if Lord Waheed Alli's amendment to the Equality Bill in the House of Lords to allow civil partnerships in religious buildings succeeds, then that will pose a huge problem for church discipline particularly in the Church of England. Stonewall knows that if a PCC votes to allow civil partnerships in a parish church, then it becomes very difficult for an orthodox bishop to do anything about it.
Stonewall also knows that what is permissive in this kind of legislation eventually becomes prescriptive. Orthodox ministers and churches who refuse in conscience to allow civil partnerships in their buildings will end up having to plead for exemptions.
The sorry tale of the Equality Bill so far shows that the politically correct establishment is becoming increasingly less inclined to grant such exemptions. The Stonewall strategy is thus a clever one.
The best recourse for orthodox clergy and churches is non-violent conscientious protest. Refusing to take Holy Communion with professing Christians who promote disobedience to Christ's teaching on the sanctity of heterosexual marriage is one right course of action for orthodox Anglicans.
For clergy this course of action will be particularly costly. Clergy who refuse in conscience to administer Holy Communion to certain individuals could find themselves getting into trouble both with church authorities who tacitly support civil partnerships and with the State. And it could well be that some bishops will find themselves in that conscientious difficulty. They are effectively out of Communion with clergy and parishes in their own dioceses.
The BCP Collect for the First Sunday After Epiphany is so very pertinent in these dark days:
O Lord, we beseech thee mercifully to receive the prayers of thy people which call upon thee; and grant that they may both perceive and know what things they ought to do, and also may have grace and power faithfully to fulfill the same; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
PAX POLITICAL CORRECTA - BETTER FOR THE GOSPEL THAN THE FIFTIES?
Following Lord Carey's recent remarks about the effect of mass immigration on our nation's social cohesion, the question arises: how good for the gospel was the more religiously, culturally and ethnically homogeneous Britain of the 1950s?
In the wake of the former Archbishop's intervention, Cranmer's Curate was invited to appear on BBC Radio Sheffield to discuss 'What are British values?'
Your curate said that because of the fragmented state of British values we need to return to a 'broadly Christian consensus'. He sought to argue that our Parliamentary democracy developed in a substantially Christian culture and that we are now in danger of losing our democratic privileges because our culture is turning toxic.
Whilst he stands by that argument as a reasonable historical prognosis, cc is not so sure on reflection about the desirability of returning to the culturally Christian Britain of the 1950s.
Clearly, that culture spared the Church the horrors of the Equality Bill. But the problem with such a broadly Christian culture is that people think they're automatically Christian by virtue of being born in Britain. Such people can be especially resistant to being told that they need to be born again.
Your curate is reminded of a remark he once heard from the former Rector of St Helen's Bishopsgate, Dick Lucas, at a Proclamation Trust preaching conference. When Dick was growing up in the south of England in the 1940s, there were hardly any gospel-preaching churches. Now he said there are many churches where you can hear the gospel clearly proclaimed.
The spread of the gospel does require social stability, which is what we are in dire danger of losing in this country because we no longer have a unifying worldview. But the thought occurs to cc that Pax Political Correcta, though it is leading to problems for Christians, could actually be a more promising culture for proclaiming our Lord Christ's gospel than one in which people think they're Christian by birth. Furthermore, multi-cultural Britain presents wonderful opportunities for evangelism.
The question remains, of course, whether political correctness as the ascendant worldview in Western culture can deliver social stability. One suspects that, unlike the Pax Romana, it is a recipe for social chaos.
In the wake of the former Archbishop's intervention, Cranmer's Curate was invited to appear on BBC Radio Sheffield to discuss 'What are British values?'
Your curate said that because of the fragmented state of British values we need to return to a 'broadly Christian consensus'. He sought to argue that our Parliamentary democracy developed in a substantially Christian culture and that we are now in danger of losing our democratic privileges because our culture is turning toxic.
Whilst he stands by that argument as a reasonable historical prognosis, cc is not so sure on reflection about the desirability of returning to the culturally Christian Britain of the 1950s.
Clearly, that culture spared the Church the horrors of the Equality Bill. But the problem with such a broadly Christian culture is that people think they're automatically Christian by virtue of being born in Britain. Such people can be especially resistant to being told that they need to be born again.
Your curate is reminded of a remark he once heard from the former Rector of St Helen's Bishopsgate, Dick Lucas, at a Proclamation Trust preaching conference. When Dick was growing up in the south of England in the 1940s, there were hardly any gospel-preaching churches. Now he said there are many churches where you can hear the gospel clearly proclaimed.
The spread of the gospel does require social stability, which is what we are in dire danger of losing in this country because we no longer have a unifying worldview. But the thought occurs to cc that Pax Political Correcta, though it is leading to problems for Christians, could actually be a more promising culture for proclaiming our Lord Christ's gospel than one in which people think they're Christian by birth. Furthermore, multi-cultural Britain presents wonderful opportunities for evangelism.
The question remains, of course, whether political correctness as the ascendant worldview in Western culture can deliver social stability. One suspects that, unlike the Pax Romana, it is a recipe for social chaos.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
UNIONISING TURNS CLERGY INTO POSTMODERN VICTIMS
Here are three reasons why Cranmer's Curate won't be joining the faith workers' branch of trade union Unite:
1). By joining a union we include ourselves in the Gadarene rush of sub-groups in postmodern Western culture clamouring for victim status. It is actually a great privilege and honour to be a minister of Christ's Word and Sacraments. And the fact remains that even with the changes in the clergy terms of service a Church of England minister cannot be sacked for preaching the gospel. If parishioners are guilty of criminal behaviour towards a minister, the best course of action is surely to take the matter to the police rather than to a trade union.
2). Suffering goes with the territory of being a minister of the gospel. 'Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus,' the Apostle Paul urged Timothy whom he had put in charge of the turbulent church at Ephesus (2 Timothy 2v3). Opposition is actually an encouraging sign that the gospel is being preached faithfully.
3). Our reward as ministers is not the appreciation of the church hierarchy or our peers or those we pastor in our churches but the pleasure of the great and glorious Lord we are privileged to serve. That takes the form of occasional glimpses of the spiritual progress Christ brings about in those to whom He teaches His Word through us, as Paul experienced in the case of the church at Thessalonica (cf 1 Thessalonians 3v6-10). But ultimately Christ's reward takes the form of His 'well done, good and faithful servant' at His glorious return (cf the parable of the talents in Matthew 25).
1). By joining a union we include ourselves in the Gadarene rush of sub-groups in postmodern Western culture clamouring for victim status. It is actually a great privilege and honour to be a minister of Christ's Word and Sacraments. And the fact remains that even with the changes in the clergy terms of service a Church of England minister cannot be sacked for preaching the gospel. If parishioners are guilty of criminal behaviour towards a minister, the best course of action is surely to take the matter to the police rather than to a trade union.
2). Suffering goes with the territory of being a minister of the gospel. 'Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus,' the Apostle Paul urged Timothy whom he had put in charge of the turbulent church at Ephesus (2 Timothy 2v3). Opposition is actually an encouraging sign that the gospel is being preached faithfully.
3). Our reward as ministers is not the appreciation of the church hierarchy or our peers or those we pastor in our churches but the pleasure of the great and glorious Lord we are privileged to serve. That takes the form of occasional glimpses of the spiritual progress Christ brings about in those to whom He teaches His Word through us, as Paul experienced in the case of the church at Thessalonica (cf 1 Thessalonians 3v6-10). But ultimately Christ's reward takes the form of His 'well done, good and faithful servant' at His glorious return (cf the parable of the talents in Matthew 25).
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
WILL 2010 SEE A CHRISTIAN STREET PREACHER LOCKED UP?
From the Booty Bridge Bugle - staff reporter:
Handing Christian street preacher Tim Jeremiah a custodial sentence for incitement to religious hatred, Mr Justice Nero said it was unacceptable in a tolerant democracy for bigotry to be aired in public.
The fact that the words Jeremiah had quoted outside Alf's Greasy Spoon on Coronation St, Booty Bridge were taken from the New Testament added to the gravity of the offence, he said. Jeremiah's banner quoting the words of Jesus in the Gospel according to John was particularly provocative, the judge said.
Therefore, the reaction by an individual who cannot be named for legal reasons, which saw Jeremiah's offensive banner destroyed, his leaflets torn up and his jaw broken, was entirely understandable, Mr Justice Nero concluded.
Detective Sergeant Apple-blossom Jezebel, who led the police investigation into Jeremiah’s hate crime, said she was delighted with the verdict.
‘It strikes a blow for tolerance against the growing problem of religious hate speech in Britain today. Religion can no longer be used as a cloak for bigotry in a modern democracy,’ she said. DS Jezebel OBE is chair of the LGBT action group for Babylonshire Constabulary.
The director of communications for the new coalition government, Mr Pontius Woolley, said whilst faith groups did a good job 'running soup kitchens and so on', tolerance was a core value that the New Conservatives were keen to see upheld in a modernised society. The government would do all in its power to combat bigotry, Mr Woolley added.
Asked about the fact that the quotation from John 14v6 used by Jeremiah on his banner had been posted all over the internet, Mr Woolley said he had instructed the Liberal-Democrat Home Secretary to conduct an enquiry into the matter. ‘Whilst we are not generally in favour of internet censorship, we do have to look into extreme cases,’ he said.
Meanwhile, the police maintained a low key presence at a demonstration by Muslims at the funeral of a British serviceman killed in Afghanistan at which the vicar was thrown to the ground and kicked in the ribs, the coffin covered with a Crescent Moon flag and three church windows smashed.
‘We all have to make sacrifices for the sake of good interfaith relations,’ commented Chief Constable Dave Cool.
Handing Christian street preacher Tim Jeremiah a custodial sentence for incitement to religious hatred, Mr Justice Nero said it was unacceptable in a tolerant democracy for bigotry to be aired in public.
The fact that the words Jeremiah had quoted outside Alf's Greasy Spoon on Coronation St, Booty Bridge were taken from the New Testament added to the gravity of the offence, he said. Jeremiah's banner quoting the words of Jesus in the Gospel according to John was particularly provocative, the judge said.
Therefore, the reaction by an individual who cannot be named for legal reasons, which saw Jeremiah's offensive banner destroyed, his leaflets torn up and his jaw broken, was entirely understandable, Mr Justice Nero concluded.
Detective Sergeant Apple-blossom Jezebel, who led the police investigation into Jeremiah’s hate crime, said she was delighted with the verdict.
‘It strikes a blow for tolerance against the growing problem of religious hate speech in Britain today. Religion can no longer be used as a cloak for bigotry in a modern democracy,’ she said. DS Jezebel OBE is chair of the LGBT action group for Babylonshire Constabulary.
The director of communications for the new coalition government, Mr Pontius Woolley, said whilst faith groups did a good job 'running soup kitchens and so on', tolerance was a core value that the New Conservatives were keen to see upheld in a modernised society. The government would do all in its power to combat bigotry, Mr Woolley added.
Asked about the fact that the quotation from John 14v6 used by Jeremiah on his banner had been posted all over the internet, Mr Woolley said he had instructed the Liberal-Democrat Home Secretary to conduct an enquiry into the matter. ‘Whilst we are not generally in favour of internet censorship, we do have to look into extreme cases,’ he said.
Meanwhile, the police maintained a low key presence at a demonstration by Muslims at the funeral of a British serviceman killed in Afghanistan at which the vicar was thrown to the ground and kicked in the ribs, the coffin covered with a Crescent Moon flag and three church windows smashed.
‘We all have to make sacrifices for the sake of good interfaith relations,’ commented Chief Constable Dave Cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
