CHRISTIANS MUST NOT BE GUILTY OF CIVIL UNREST

If former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr George Carey proves right that judicial decisions against religious believers could lead to 'civil unrest', Christian believers must not be guilty of it.

Dr Carey made his comment in his witness statement to the High Court in support of the Evangelical Christian marriage guidance counsellor, Gary McFarlane, who was appealing against his sacking by Relate for his biblical principles:

The fact that senior clerics of the Church of England and other faiths feel compelled to intervene directly in judicial decisions and cases is illuminative of a future civil unrest. I am concerned that judges are unaware of these basic issues on the Christian faith; further it is difficult to see how it is appropriate for other religions to be considered by the Judiciary where the practices are further removed from our traditions.

Lord Justice Laws this week dismissed Mr McFarlane's application to appeal against his sacking.

Whatever the outcome of Thursday's General Election, a combination of an increasingly oppressive culture of political correctness, compounded by the spending cuts needed to save Britain from a Greek-style 'junk status' credit rating, could lead to civil disorder on the British Isles. But Christians must not be in any way associated with any form of civil disorder or misbehaviour.

Our civil marching orders as Christ's soldiers and servants are clear in the New Testament, for example 1 Peter 2:

Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king (vv11-17 - NIV).

IT IS UP TO GOD WHETHER THE PARISH CHURCH GROWS INTO VIABILITY

In the light of deeper reflection on the Apostle Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 3, Cranmer's Curate agreed a revision of our church's Aims for Growth at our Annual Parochial Church Meeting yesterday evening.

Our Aims originally began:

As a Parish Church family, we aim in dependence upon God and upon his grace in our Lord Jesus Christ to build the congregation that meets in the parish church building into viability.

Whilst this acknowledged our dependence on God, it does not seem quite right to make us the subject of the sentence. The Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 does speak of himself as a builder - 'according to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it' (v10) - but that surely describes his work in a particular phase in the life of the church at Corinth, namely its inception.

The consistent factor over whether a church grows or not is surely the sovereign superintendence of God, as Paul affirms in the previous agricultural metaphor:

What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labour. For we are God's fellow-workers. You are God's field, God's building (vv5-9 - ESV).

Our other aims regarding our commitment to prayer, the Word, evangelism, good works in the community, and sacrificial giving would seem to be in the realm of our choice as Christians - we can choose to prioritise those things or not. Clearly those who do so choose are regenerate Christians in whom the grace of God is powerfully at work. But the decision over whether a particular church will grow into viability in relation to the commitments it has taken on (namely two buildings and a full-time paid ministry of Word and Sacrament) would seem to be in a different category. That is surely God's sovereign decision, though we should ask.

The Aims have therefore been modified as follows:

As a parish church family, we aim in dependence upon God and upon his grace in our Lord Jesus Christ:

• To grow in our commitment to prayer individually and corporately

• To grow in our commitment to God’s Word individually and corporately

• To grow in our commitment to proclaiming the Gospel of eternal salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to our parish

• To grow in our commitment to love and good deeds towards our parish through community involvement

• To grow in our commitment to regular, planned, sacrificial Christian giving to the work of God’s kingdom in and through the parish church.

Our united prayer is that Almighty God would grow the congregation that meets in the parish church building into viability, to Christ’s praise and honour. A viable, sustainable parish church is one that can pay for the cost of its ministry of Word and Sacrament through Parish Share and cover the running costs of its buildings and facilities.

THE LORDSHIP OF CHRIST DETERMINES BAPTISM POLICY

The most basic Christian credal confession – Jesus Christ is Lord - is the reason why the children of couples who are not heterosexually married should be refused baptism in church.

The issue has reared its head because of the allegation that the Revd Peter Nunn, Priest-in-Charge of The Risen Lord, Preston, ‘discriminated’ against a lesbian couple in a civil partnership who wanted a baby girl baptised.

The facts of this particular case are somewhat hazy. According to a letter in this morning’s Church Times (April 23) from a Reader in the Diocese of Blackburn, Michael Speight of Fulwood, Preston, the church at which the couple wanted the baptism was not in fact their nearest Anglican parish church:

According to Google maps, it is more than eight miles between the family home and the church the couple chose for their child’s baptism. That is the flawed decision. There was not a breach of canon law.

Mr Speight was answering a disgraceful letter by Christopher Haffner in the April 16 edition in which he alleged:

It appears the Priest-in-Charge has failed in his duty, and the diocese has supported his failure. It is to be hoped that the lesbian couple are able to find a more welcoming and law-abiding priest down the road.

There are likely to be many more of these allegations of baptismal discrimination by homosexual couples and politically-correct collaborationists in the institutional Church. The practical reality is that couples in civil partnerships are much harder to handle than heterosexual cohabiting couples who are usually willing to accept a service of thanksgiving for the birth of a child.

In the current cultural climate, a homosexual couple refused baptism are likely to be quick to contact the media with an allegation of ‘discrimination’ and even in some cases go to the police.

The basic reason why no orthodox minister could hold a baptism for the child of a cohabiting or homosexual couple is because of the baptismal vows. Parents bringing children for baptism who are too young to profess the Christian faith for themselves are asked whether they 'submit to Christ as Lord'.

It is a charade for a Christian minister to be involved in a public church service where the Lordship of Christ is being so brazenly denied by a relationship that goes against His biblical will. It is certainly not serving the child to involve him or her in a Christian service stripped of basic integrity.

Ministers will be under growing pressure over this. The situation is likely to get significantly worse due to politically-correct moves to give homosexual couples the right to sue over refusals of baptism.

Thankfully, because Jesus Christ is Lord He can give us the strength to stand up to this and endure hardship for His Name’s sake. We need humbly to cast ourselves on His mercy.

THE CONTROL OF ANGER IN PASTORAL MINISTRY

This YouTube video shows the pastor of the Mars Hill mega-church in Seattle, Mark Driscoll, screaming during a sermon. What had aroused his anger was the fact that some of the men in his congregation, who had been 'coming here for years', were having pre-marital sex with their girlfriends and some of the married men were not praying with their wives.

Mr Driscoll has become a hugely influential figure in Reformed Evangelical circles in the English-speaking world. Both of the above concerns regarding the treatment of women by church-going men strike Cranmer's Curate as matters that should arouse the anger of a godly pastor. The youth group must judge for themselves whether on this occasion Mr Driscoll is in control of his anger or whether it is in control of him.

The Apostle Paul's definitive statement on anger in Ephesians 4 is absolutely clear that the Christian must be in control of his anger: 'Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil' (Ephesians 4v26-27 - RSV).

Anger is surely an important emotion in ministry. If we are passionate for the honour of God and of His Christ, that surely must produce anger in us when we see our Lord being dishonoured, especially by professing, communicant Christians.

But the problem that can arise around anger is that a righteous reaction against bad behaviour in the congregation can get tangled up with other issues and frustrations in our lives as pastors. So, when we do get angry, don't we need to be very careful that there is no element of emotional transference onto our congregations in our reaction?

Cranmer's Curate once heard the very wise David Jackman, formerly director of the Proclamation Trust, issue an important warning to pastors that cc prays he is careful to put into practice: 'Watch your emotional levels.'

The other, in a sense more sinister, problem around anger in pastoral ministry is that it can be used as a tool of domination over a congregation.

Your curate is off on his post-Easter break. He leaves the youth group with the BCP Collect for Easter 1:

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.

MUSLIMS' FREEDOM TO CONVERT TO CHRIST IS ELECTION ISSUE

Cranmer's Curate thanks the Barnabas Fund for sending him a review copy of Freedom to believe – Challenging Islam’s Apostasy Law by its international director Dr Patrick Sookhdeo. It is a very important book and the issues of religious freedom it raises should feature in the General Election campaign here in the United Kingdom.

Prospective Parliamentary Candidates, especially in urban areas where there is a significant Muslim population, should be asked specifically whether they uphold Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Candidates must be asked whether they will vigorously take up the cases of Muslim constituents who have converted to another religion or worldview and are suffering the sort of violent abuse experienced by Nissar Hussein in Bradford.

A hospital nurse, Mr Hussein was born a Muslim but converted to Christianity in 1996. His wife converted soon after.

According to Freedom To Believe (p83-84):

Since their conversion they and their children have been regularly jostled, attacked, told loudly to move out of the area and given death threats in the street. His wife has been held hostage inside their home by a mob for two hours....Hussein’s car has also been rammed and torched, and the steps to his home have been strewn with rubbish. Recently he was told that his house would be burned down if he did not repent and return to Islam. He reported this to the police, who told him that such threats were rarely carried out and that he should “stop being a crusader and move to another place”. A few days later the unoccupied house next door was set on fire.

The attitude of the police reported here contrasts strongly with the conscientiousness with which many police forces in the UK are pursuing complaints of ‘homophobia’ and even ‘Islamophobia’. The recent case of a Christian street preacher from the US who was fined £1,000 by a Scottish court after answering a question about homosexuality has been publicised by the Christian Institute. Shawn Holes was kept in a police cell overnight in Glasgow and then charged with a breach of the peace. The accusation was that he had used “homophobic remarks” that were “aggravated by religious prejudice”.

Muslim converts to our Lord Jesus Christ are vulnerable. They are precious to Jesus. To persecute them is to persecute him. It is incumbent on those of us who live in the kind of communities where we can bask in the sunlight of Article 18 to support them.

We must exercise the responsibility that accompanies the privilege of living in a Christian-influenced Parliamentary democracy to stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

A PLEA FOR OPENNESS OVER BISHOPS PLAN

This piece by Cranmer's Curate is from April's edition of the Forward in Faith magazine, New Directions:

If plans to consecrate a group of Conservative Evangelical bishops come to fruition, openness and sensitivity will be needed, writes Julian Mann

The voices calling for a group of Conservative Evangelical bishops to be consecrated for the UK are undeniably getting louder. Fuelling the growing sense among Reformed Anglicans that the CofE is going the way of TEC is the near certainty that there will be no legal provision for opponents of women bishops whilst civil partnerships are gaining institutional recognition. The discussions are said to involve ‘senior figures’. Only time can tell whether the talk will turn into action. But this parish plodder would make two appeals if an agreed plan emerges.

No secrecy

Firstly, there should be no secrecy over the consecrations. There needs to be a strong local mandate from as many as possible within our constituency in the Church of England. Whilst one understands the need to safeguard the position of those men who volunteer to be bishops, the process does need to be as open as possible, with consultation about the individuals and good advance notice of the consecrations. Simply to be told at a gathering of the clans hastily convened by the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans that the consecrations are taking place the following weekend and asked for an endorsement would be very far from providing a positive mandate. It would leave the new bishops vulnerable to the charge that they had been parachuted in by the big churches and their church plants, and the lack of ownership would effectively kibosh their ministry from the start.

Secondly, there should be real sensitivity to those incumbents in small non-evangelical parish churches. Not only do they minister in net-receiving churches, but their PCCs and congregations are not going to be sympathetic to the new bishops. These ministers are surely Christ’s vulnerable ‘little ones’ in all of this. Writing them off as mediocrities without the management skills to get their PCCs on side is just ignorance talking about the reality of ministry in a church where the Word has not been taught and there are few shared spiritual priorities. It takes a lot longer now to turn a nonevangelical church around than it did even thirty years ago.

Practical details

Clearly, there are many outstanding questions to be addressed over the practicalities and legalities. If the bishops to be consecrated are already ministers who hold a bishop’s licence to officiate, presumably those licences would have to be forfeited. Effectively, the new bishops would leave the institutional Church of England but would have a pastoral relationship with clergy and churches that remained in. It is likely therefore that the new bishops would be senior clergy about to retire and/or younger episcopally-ordained church planters already ministering without a bishop’s licence.

There could be some interesting alliances once, God willing, they come on stream. The growing army of dogmatic neo-liberals in the institutional hierarchy are bound to be furiously opposed. Any incumbent presenting Confirmation candidates to one of the new bishops should expect to be threatened with the Clergy Discipline Measure. The Open-Evangelical Fulcrum constituency is also likely to provide vocal opposition. But some old-school liberal bishops could well be inclined to cut deals with the new cats on the block. They have not got the same axe to grind as anti-FCA evangelicals, coupled with the fact that old-school liberals are often generous people. What is the merit in driving out a financially generous and lively congregation?

Those courageous enough to undertake this process on our behalf deserve our prayers. May their ‘love abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment’ [Phil 1.9].

TRUE ANGLICANS PRAY FOR THE CONVERSION OF MUSLIMS ON GOOD FRIDAY

Unlike last year's edition, the Canterbury Church Book and Desk Diary for 2010 includes a politically incorrect collect for Good Friday:

O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live: Have mercy upon thine ancient people the Jews, and upon all who have not known thee, or who deny the faith of Christ crucified; take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy fold, that they may be made one flock under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end.

That is taken from the 1928 revised version of the Book of Common Prayer.

The Collect for Good Friday in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which remains the permanently authorised liturgy of the Church of the nation, is even more politically incorrect. It begins with the same affirmation of God's gracious love for mankind and His desire for the conversion of sinners, but the intercession at the heart of it is different:

Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord

For 'Turks', read Muslims and for 'true Israelites' read the spiritual descendants of Abraham, namely believers in his promised Offspring, Jesus Christ (see Galatians 3v15-29). The authorised BCP Collect thus includes a specific prayer for the conversion of Muslims to Christ and by its imprecation that converted Muslims, together with Jews, atheists and errant Christians, may be numbered among the 'true Israelites' it denies that Islam is an 'Abrahamic' faith.

How long before this authentically Anglican prayer is banned as 'Islamophobic' under European 'hate speech' legislation?