Male headship is being undermined by the apotheosis of the young male ‘dude’ as the model, entrepeneurial church planter. This ideal is being vigorously promoted by the leader of the Mars Hill mega-church in Seattle, Mark Driscoll.
It is a reaction against a real problem, the feminisation ('chickification') of the modern church and the undermining of the biblical doctrine of male headship and the complementarity of the sexes. But this projection of the ideal male ‘dude’ appears to owe more to Clint Eastwood than to Jesus. It is so fundamentally unrealistic and image-driven that it has the potential to stunt the young men who buy into it from growing into mature Christians capable of acting as servant leaders to their wives and negotiating their way through difficult and painful decisions in the life of their families and churches.
Here are some of the deficiencies of the dude ideal:
· It fails to reckon with the fact that we are creatures with limitations. Clint Eastwood’s character Dirty Harry famously said in Magnum Force that a man's got to know his limitations. He didn’t mean it as a compliment but the Lord Jesus understood the limitations that are intrinsic to created humanity. He accepted the limitations of his incarnation, openly confessing that God the Father knew things that had not yet been disclosed to him as the incarnate Son (cf Matthew 24v36).
· It fails to reckon with the fact of human weakness. Jesus experienced weakness, fear and grief, most intensely in the Garden of Gethsemane. The Apostle Paul famously came to boast gladly of his weaknesses, for the Lord had said to him: ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness’ (2 Corinthians 12v9 – ESV).
· It fails to reckon with the reality of the church that the Lord Jesus calls into being. That church is made up of people who are not impressive in the world’s eyes (cf 1 Corinthians 1v28-31). The Lord calls what is foolish in the world to shame the wise. Christian leaders emerge from the church that the Lord has called into being, to his praise and glory.
Those to whom God grants his gifts of courage, boldness, faithfulness and resolution are often not the men we would naturally choose. Hudson Taylor, the chemist’s lad from Barnsley, fell far short of the mid-19th century ideal of a dude. But by God’s grace he exercised more influence for Christ in the long run than did those who more closely conformed to the Platonic ‘philosopher king’ ideal, such as the Old Etonians JC Ryle and CT Studd.
The final nail in the coffin of the Dirty Harry dude ideal is Jesus’ behaviour at the tomb of Lazarus his friend as recorded in John 11 and his reaction in front of the 'chicks' who were Lazarus' sisters. That reaction is recorded in the shortest verse in the Bible (John 11v35).
This piece by Cranmer's Curate about the controversy over the new House of Commons chaplain appeared over on Heresy Corner.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Thursday, 24 June 2010
SHOULD THE VICAR HEAL THE SICK?
Is the ministry of the 72 in Luke 10, including going from house to house healing the sick, normative for parish ministry?
That is the question raised by New Wine leader John Coles in a panel discussion yesterday at the Evangelical Ministry Assembly in London.
The discussion, chaired by Proclamation Trust director Vaughan Roberts, explored the common ground and differences between charismatic and conservative evangelicals. Other observers may have formed a different impression but to this parish plodder the common ground seemed to feature more prominently than the distinctives.
John Coles, an ordained Anglican, was clear that the paradigm in Luke 10 is normative for today.
It is significant that in addition to commanding the 72 to heal the sick the Lord Jesus commands them to 'greet no one on the road' (Luke 10v4).
The practicalities of that in the course of parochial ministry would be unquestionably eccentric.
Providentially for parish evagelism, Luke 10 is not meant to be normative for ministry in the post-apostolic era of the Church. It is specific to a historical context in God's unfolding plan of salvation - the Messiah being physically present in the land of Israel commanding his heralds to announce his royal arrival and perform the signs attesting to the revelation of his kingdom.
That is the question raised by New Wine leader John Coles in a panel discussion yesterday at the Evangelical Ministry Assembly in London.
The discussion, chaired by Proclamation Trust director Vaughan Roberts, explored the common ground and differences between charismatic and conservative evangelicals. Other observers may have formed a different impression but to this parish plodder the common ground seemed to feature more prominently than the distinctives.
John Coles, an ordained Anglican, was clear that the paradigm in Luke 10 is normative for today.
It is significant that in addition to commanding the 72 to heal the sick the Lord Jesus commands them to 'greet no one on the road' (Luke 10v4).
The practicalities of that in the course of parochial ministry would be unquestionably eccentric.
Providentially for parish evagelism, Luke 10 is not meant to be normative for ministry in the post-apostolic era of the Church. It is specific to a historical context in God's unfolding plan of salvation - the Messiah being physically present in the land of Israel commanding his heralds to announce his royal arrival and perform the signs attesting to the revelation of his kingdom.
Monday, 21 June 2010
WHY THE PARISH SYSTEM IS WORTH THE RISK
This is a shortened version of a piece by Cranmer's Curate that first appeared in the Church of England Newspaper:
Christianity is legal in the EU in 2047, but a licence from the Faith Integration Directorate is required. A retired vicar has recently moved into sheltered accommodation in a northern town.
He makes enquires at the local Empowerment Bureau about where his nearest church might be. He is aware that the former local parish church where a friend of his was the last vicar had been converted into a Chinese restaurant. But he did not know that the facility was now being used on Friday evenings by the Bang-For-Your-Buck network of churches for their weekly main meeting. Given that it is the only church he can reasonably get to without an exhausting journey, he duly turns up and is heartened to see the upstairs seating area full of young people in their 20s and 30s.
It is important to stress that our elderly friend is welcomed at the door and offered a latte and brioche, the same as everyone else. Having been in the trade, he takes the initiative in introducing himself to the Chief Enabler who is perfectly cordial to him. At no point is he explicitly told not to come. The problem arises when he seeks to join a smaller home or cell group. ‘Listen Bob, we’re just trying to reach people of a different demographic profile from you. Why don’t you try planting a church for mature folks like you with your income stream? Here’s a copy of my book – Rolling out the Eternal Roll-over...’
At present, parish churches embracing a socio-economic and demographic diversity still exist. A Harvest supper at which a 93-year-old lady happily inter-acts with a toddler is still possible in the Church of England and in the other older denominations.
But all that could change if these churches serving local communities proved unable to sustain themselves, and it would be a tragedy for the spiritual welfare of our nation. Large tranches of the population would be spiritually disenfranchised, and the New Testament Gospel for all without distinction would become a gospel for some with the right financial, educational and demographic qualifications.
The parish system therefore needs to be both defended and reformed if the Church of England is to be a truly mission-shaped Church and the weak and the powerless are to be prevented from falling through the nets of the network churches. But no honest appraisal of the current state of many parish churches can avoid the conclusion that deep change is needed, and that cannot occur without a risk-taking mentality becoming the norm rather than the exception amongst those entrusted with the cure of souls, to use the 'historic' yet perennial term for spiritual oversight in the Church of England.
For example, it would be very risky to attempt to change the Church Representation Rules in order to give reforming front-line clergy a clearer mandate to implement necessary change in non-viable parish churches. Churches that have fallen below 50 adults on a normal Sunday and that are paying a parish share of less than £20,000 pa certainly ought to be subject to special measures. How can such churches justify continuing to take resources from others without any recognition that they need to change their spiritual culture, remove their barriers to growth and become hospitable and mission-oriented? Complacent free-loading off others is wrong even when it is done democratically.
Such risk-taking and the ensuing conflict are worthwhile, for when the Church of England in its parishes is true to its calling it proclaims the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ to people in a diversity of communities, and embraces them whether or not they are able to exert power in the eyes of the world.
Christianity is legal in the EU in 2047, but a licence from the Faith Integration Directorate is required. A retired vicar has recently moved into sheltered accommodation in a northern town.
He makes enquires at the local Empowerment Bureau about where his nearest church might be. He is aware that the former local parish church where a friend of his was the last vicar had been converted into a Chinese restaurant. But he did not know that the facility was now being used on Friday evenings by the Bang-For-Your-Buck network of churches for their weekly main meeting. Given that it is the only church he can reasonably get to without an exhausting journey, he duly turns up and is heartened to see the upstairs seating area full of young people in their 20s and 30s.
It is important to stress that our elderly friend is welcomed at the door and offered a latte and brioche, the same as everyone else. Having been in the trade, he takes the initiative in introducing himself to the Chief Enabler who is perfectly cordial to him. At no point is he explicitly told not to come. The problem arises when he seeks to join a smaller home or cell group. ‘Listen Bob, we’re just trying to reach people of a different demographic profile from you. Why don’t you try planting a church for mature folks like you with your income stream? Here’s a copy of my book – Rolling out the Eternal Roll-over...’
At present, parish churches embracing a socio-economic and demographic diversity still exist. A Harvest supper at which a 93-year-old lady happily inter-acts with a toddler is still possible in the Church of England and in the other older denominations.
But all that could change if these churches serving local communities proved unable to sustain themselves, and it would be a tragedy for the spiritual welfare of our nation. Large tranches of the population would be spiritually disenfranchised, and the New Testament Gospel for all without distinction would become a gospel for some with the right financial, educational and demographic qualifications.
The parish system therefore needs to be both defended and reformed if the Church of England is to be a truly mission-shaped Church and the weak and the powerless are to be prevented from falling through the nets of the network churches. But no honest appraisal of the current state of many parish churches can avoid the conclusion that deep change is needed, and that cannot occur without a risk-taking mentality becoming the norm rather than the exception amongst those entrusted with the cure of souls, to use the 'historic' yet perennial term for spiritual oversight in the Church of England.
For example, it would be very risky to attempt to change the Church Representation Rules in order to give reforming front-line clergy a clearer mandate to implement necessary change in non-viable parish churches. Churches that have fallen below 50 adults on a normal Sunday and that are paying a parish share of less than £20,000 pa certainly ought to be subject to special measures. How can such churches justify continuing to take resources from others without any recognition that they need to change their spiritual culture, remove their barriers to growth and become hospitable and mission-oriented? Complacent free-loading off others is wrong even when it is done democratically.
Such risk-taking and the ensuing conflict are worthwhile, for when the Church of England in its parishes is true to its calling it proclaims the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ to people in a diversity of communities, and embraces them whether or not they are able to exert power in the eyes of the world.
Friday, 18 June 2010
HOW TO BECOME A POPULAR VICAR
Talk a lot about 'diversity' and 'community' and 'partnership' without being too specific about what you mean by the words.
Go to the nearest Mosque, especially if there is not one in your parish, stand outside it next to the imam and try to get yourself photographed in the local paper - with an inclusive smile on your face.
Practise that in front of the bathroom mirror.
Get involved in an 'apology for the Crusades' initiative in your local school.
Inveigle yourself onto the local radio and give 'thoughts' claiming that an inclusive god of 'love' is not really too bothered about what people believe and how they behave - provided they're inclusive.
Get involved in starting up a charity shop in the parish staffed by church volunteers. That means you won't have time to do potentially unpopular things like teaching the Bible.
Tell your parishioners that you're there to be an 'enabler' and a 'facilitator' and that they're so wonderful that they don't really need you.
Persuade yourself that the Lord Jesus Christ's words in Luke 6v26 were an invention of the Pauline party in the early Church. You'll find that much more psychologically comfortable.
Go to the nearest Mosque, especially if there is not one in your parish, stand outside it next to the imam and try to get yourself photographed in the local paper - with an inclusive smile on your face.
Practise that in front of the bathroom mirror.
Get involved in an 'apology for the Crusades' initiative in your local school.
Inveigle yourself onto the local radio and give 'thoughts' claiming that an inclusive god of 'love' is not really too bothered about what people believe and how they behave - provided they're inclusive.
Get involved in starting up a charity shop in the parish staffed by church volunteers. That means you won't have time to do potentially unpopular things like teaching the Bible.
Tell your parishioners that you're there to be an 'enabler' and a 'facilitator' and that they're so wonderful that they don't really need you.
Persuade yourself that the Lord Jesus Christ's words in Luke 6v26 were an invention of the Pauline party in the early Church. You'll find that much more psychologically comfortable.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS RIGHT ABOUT 'RELIGION'
Better late than never, but Cranmer's Curate has now got round to reading Christopher Hitchens’ God is not great. Mr Hitchens is right that 'religion', as he defines it, can corrupt people.
At the beginning of the chapter Religion Kills, he defined religion as follows:
Whilst it is absurd to claim that the abolition of this religion would eradicate the nastiness of which we human beings are capable, there is no question that if the 9/11 and July 7th bombers had not got into their heads the notion that they could earn a place in paradise by their suicides, those atrocities would not have happened.
So, who can dispute the fact that that kind of religion killed and continues to kill?
But we Anglican Evangelicals don’t believe in that kind of religion. We don’t believe that people can earn a place in heaven, whether by suicide-bombing or by feeding the poor.
In common with the other churches of the Reformation, the Church of England, in its 39 Articles of Religion, holds to the biblical doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone’.
To quote Article XI, Of the Justification of Man:
In the New Testament, this doctrine of justification by faith alone is beautifully expressed in Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector:
In abhorring the religion of the Pharisee, it is odd to be in agreement with such a public atheist, who incidentally writes like an angel.
But that does not alter the fact that the title of his book could not be more wrong if applied to the God and Father of Jesus Christ. The true and almighty God, who saves depraved mankind by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, is great.
This piece featuring the Revd Jonathan Fletcher's outstanding letter in the Church Times about the impact of women bishops first appeared on the US-based orthodox Anglican news service VirtueOnline.
At the beginning of the chapter Religion Kills, he defined religion as follows:
Imagine that you can perform a feat of which I am incapable. Imagine, in other words, that you can picture an infinitely benign and all-powerful creator, who conceived of you, then made and shaped you, brought you into the world that he had made for you, and now supervises and cares for you even while you sleep. Imagine, further, that if you obey the rules and commandments that he has lovingly prescribed, you will qualify for an eternity of bliss and repose.
Whilst it is absurd to claim that the abolition of this religion would eradicate the nastiness of which we human beings are capable, there is no question that if the 9/11 and July 7th bombers had not got into their heads the notion that they could earn a place in paradise by their suicides, those atrocities would not have happened.
So, who can dispute the fact that that kind of religion killed and continues to kill?
But we Anglican Evangelicals don’t believe in that kind of religion. We don’t believe that people can earn a place in heaven, whether by suicide-bombing or by feeding the poor.
In common with the other churches of the Reformation, the Church of England, in its 39 Articles of Religion, holds to the biblical doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone’.
To quote Article XI, Of the Justification of Man:
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works and deservings.
In the New Testament, this doctrine of justification by faith alone is beautifully expressed in Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector:
Two men went up to the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself, God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted (Luke 18v10-14 – King James Version).
In abhorring the religion of the Pharisee, it is odd to be in agreement with such a public atheist, who incidentally writes like an angel.
But that does not alter the fact that the title of his book could not be more wrong if applied to the God and Father of Jesus Christ. The true and almighty God, who saves depraved mankind by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, is great.
This piece featuring the Revd Jonathan Fletcher's outstanding letter in the Church Times about the impact of women bishops first appeared on the US-based orthodox Anglican news service VirtueOnline.
Sunday, 13 June 2010
PRAYERLESSNESS – PLAGUE OF THE WESTERN CHURCH
Yesterday (June 12th) was the tenth anniversary of your curate’s induction as vicar of this parish. One of the first things he did when he began his ministry here was to start a central church prayer meeting. Ten years on, usually about half a dozen of us meet monthly in the church vestibule to pray.
As a proportion of the regular congregation (around 15 per cent), that number may compare favourably with larger churches. But it is still a substantial minority. This prompts Cranmer’s Curate to offer some reflections as to why we in the modern Western church are plagued with prayerlessness:
• We are indoctrinated with naturalism and empiricism from early childhood, so even when we come to believe in Him, we find it difficult to engage with, let alone depend upon, a supernatural Being whom we cannot see. Judging from the size of prayer meetings in cultures where there is a strong belief in the spirit world, people converted out of that background do not share our handicap to the same extent.
• Praying out loud is now culturally very unfamiliar. So people are embarrassed to do so. People converted out of pagan cultures where prayer both public and private is offered to a deity, albeit a false one, do not share that handicap.
• We have a huge cultural prejudice against belief in a sovereign God. Even when we come to believe in God, we have such a deep-seated view of our own self-autonomy that we find it enormously hard to grasp the main biblical reason why dependence upon almighty God in prayer is so needful for frail humanity.
• We have too sunny a view of human nature and the condition of our Western liberal democracies that we fail to grasp what a wicked world we live in. If we believed the Bible’s teaching about the depravity of a fallen world, even and especially one which is relatively comfortable, we might be inclined to pray more. Those converted out of less comfortable social democracies again do not face the same handicap.
The 16th century Anglican Reformers had considerably less difficulty than we in grasping the central importance of prayer to the almighty God of the Bible, as reflected in the Book of Common Prayer Collect for today (Trinity 2):
As a proportion of the regular congregation (around 15 per cent), that number may compare favourably with larger churches. But it is still a substantial minority. This prompts Cranmer’s Curate to offer some reflections as to why we in the modern Western church are plagued with prayerlessness:
• We are indoctrinated with naturalism and empiricism from early childhood, so even when we come to believe in Him, we find it difficult to engage with, let alone depend upon, a supernatural Being whom we cannot see. Judging from the size of prayer meetings in cultures where there is a strong belief in the spirit world, people converted out of that background do not share our handicap to the same extent.
• Praying out loud is now culturally very unfamiliar. So people are embarrassed to do so. People converted out of pagan cultures where prayer both public and private is offered to a deity, albeit a false one, do not share that handicap.
• We have a huge cultural prejudice against belief in a sovereign God. Even when we come to believe in God, we have such a deep-seated view of our own self-autonomy that we find it enormously hard to grasp the main biblical reason why dependence upon almighty God in prayer is so needful for frail humanity.
• We have too sunny a view of human nature and the condition of our Western liberal democracies that we fail to grasp what a wicked world we live in. If we believed the Bible’s teaching about the depravity of a fallen world, even and especially one which is relatively comfortable, we might be inclined to pray more. Those converted out of less comfortable social democracies again do not face the same handicap.
The 16th century Anglican Reformers had considerably less difficulty than we in grasping the central importance of prayer to the almighty God of the Bible, as reflected in the Book of Common Prayer Collect for today (Trinity 2):
O Lord, who never failest to help and govern them whom thou dost bring up in thy stedfast fear and love; keep us, we beseech thee, under the protection of thy good providence, and make us to have a perpetual fear and love of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Thursday, 10 June 2010
CHURCH OF ENGLAND NEEDS FRESH INFLUX OF OLD LADIES
A fresh influx of old ladies converted to lively Christian faith in their 80s is now sorely needed to revitalise the Church of the nation.
An influx of old gentlemen of that generation would also be wonderful but an old lady born in 1930 brings the following benefits to a parish church that is in urgent need of major spiritual surgery:
• She is willing to take on traditional feminine roles in helping with crèche and toddlers and baking cakes, vital for getting a ministry among young families underway in a run-down Anglican church.
• She had her primary education during the 1930s when religious instruction in schools was Christian and of good biblical quality. She therefore has a deposit of Christian knowledge to draw on.
• She was of secondary school age during World War II and so knows that personal sacrifices are needed for good to triumph over evil. She is therefore combat-fit for the conflict that is inevitable in a church that needs to be turned around.
• Her understanding of good and evil is informed by Judaeo-Christian values. She will therefore not bring postmodern moral indifferentism to debates about the direction of the church.
• She was a mature and responsible adult during the 1960s, unlike those currently entering their sixth and even seventh decades. She is therefore not starry-eyed about that spiritually and morally disastrous decade for Western civilisation.
The common grace of God in a heavily Christian-influenced culture, combined with the special grace of God in spiritual regeneration, can make her a force for good in a turnaround parish church. So, for the sake of Christ's mission, Cranmer’s Curate urges the youth group to pray for gangs of sprightly ladies in their 80s to get soundly converted and stuck in to local parish churches with Evangelical ministry.
An influx of old gentlemen of that generation would also be wonderful but an old lady born in 1930 brings the following benefits to a parish church that is in urgent need of major spiritual surgery:
• She is willing to take on traditional feminine roles in helping with crèche and toddlers and baking cakes, vital for getting a ministry among young families underway in a run-down Anglican church.
• She had her primary education during the 1930s when religious instruction in schools was Christian and of good biblical quality. She therefore has a deposit of Christian knowledge to draw on.
• She was of secondary school age during World War II and so knows that personal sacrifices are needed for good to triumph over evil. She is therefore combat-fit for the conflict that is inevitable in a church that needs to be turned around.
• Her understanding of good and evil is informed by Judaeo-Christian values. She will therefore not bring postmodern moral indifferentism to debates about the direction of the church.
• She was a mature and responsible adult during the 1960s, unlike those currently entering their sixth and even seventh decades. She is therefore not starry-eyed about that spiritually and morally disastrous decade for Western civilisation.
The common grace of God in a heavily Christian-influenced culture, combined with the special grace of God in spiritual regeneration, can make her a force for good in a turnaround parish church. So, for the sake of Christ's mission, Cranmer’s Curate urges the youth group to pray for gangs of sprightly ladies in their 80s to get soundly converted and stuck in to local parish churches with Evangelical ministry.
Monday, 7 June 2010
THE DANGER OF ‘RETRO’ CHRISTIANITY
The news story by Sarah Harris in today's Daily Mail about the Ofsted report on RE teaching in schools highlighted the postmodern mangling of the Bible:
One shudders to think how many cases of 'feely bags' and poems in place of Gospel truth a similar enquiry into UK Sunday schools might uncover.
The Mail followed up the report with an editorial entitled ‘Our Heritage Denied’:
And therein lies precisely the ‘retro’ temptation for orthodox Christians. The ‘Christianity is vital to our heritage’ lobby are supportive of things we would support such as proper, contentful teaching of the Scriptures (capital S) to children in schools.
But the Christianity that conquered Britain is not a ‘retro’ faith. It is a radical faith in the living Christ that changes individual lives and transforms society.
That is not to say that saving Christian faith is not rooted in history. It thoroughly is - in the actual historical events of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. But 'retro' Christianity holds up a black and white photograph of the vicar and the school master and local bobby in a friendly conversation outside the church porch, with the children trooping down the path in a well-ordered crocodile. That has gone, but the call to proclaim the truth that Jesus is Lord, as opposed to he was Lord, abides.
The danger of getting too hugger-mugger with the ‘retro’ lobby is that we can find ourselves confined to a corner of the marketplace of ideas with a stall marked 'heritage'. That is not good for the pro-active, front-line and, in the right sense, culturally offensive evangelism that is needed to win people for Christ in post-Christian Britain.
In one example given (in the Ofsted report), a primary school used the story of the healing of a blind man to help pupils understand what it would feel like to be blind – rather than to gain understanding of miracles.
The pupils were shown a Braille alphabet and used a ‘feely bag’ to explore how difficult it is to be blind.
The main task was to write a poem about what they would miss if they were blind.
Ofsted said pupils did not learn anything about religion as a result.
One shudders to think how many cases of 'feely bags' and poems in place of Gospel truth a similar enquiry into UK Sunday schools might uncover.
The Mail followed up the report with an editorial entitled ‘Our Heritage Denied’:
Ofsted’s conclusion that many schools no longer teach the core beliefs of Christianity in RE lessons is depressing but hardly surprising.
The rise of multiculturalism has been accompanied by a neglect of the scriptures in our education system which sometimes borders on contempt.
But Christianity is more than a religion in this country. It forms the social, political and cultural basis of more than 1,500 years of British history.
And therein lies precisely the ‘retro’ temptation for orthodox Christians. The ‘Christianity is vital to our heritage’ lobby are supportive of things we would support such as proper, contentful teaching of the Scriptures (capital S) to children in schools.
But the Christianity that conquered Britain is not a ‘retro’ faith. It is a radical faith in the living Christ that changes individual lives and transforms society.
That is not to say that saving Christian faith is not rooted in history. It thoroughly is - in the actual historical events of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. But 'retro' Christianity holds up a black and white photograph of the vicar and the school master and local bobby in a friendly conversation outside the church porch, with the children trooping down the path in a well-ordered crocodile. That has gone, but the call to proclaim the truth that Jesus is Lord, as opposed to he was Lord, abides.
The danger of getting too hugger-mugger with the ‘retro’ lobby is that we can find ourselves confined to a corner of the marketplace of ideas with a stall marked 'heritage'. That is not good for the pro-active, front-line and, in the right sense, culturally offensive evangelism that is needed to win people for Christ in post-Christian Britain.
Thursday, 3 June 2010
HOW ABOUT A BREAK FROM BIG NAME CONFERENCE SPEAKERS?
English evangelical conferences do appear to be somewhat addicted to the big name preacher, often flown over at great expense from overseas. Cranmer's Curate would like to make an appeal for a sabbatical from this phenomenon and for the greater use of local talent.
This appeal should not, and your curate hopes does not, spring from a desire to 'boast about men' (see 1 Corinthians 3v21a). The fact is that God has given certain individuals stand-out Bible teaching and ministry gifts and a conference can be an opportunity for those of us who belong to local churches and minister in them to benefit from those gifts. After his warning against boasting about men, the Apostle Paul goes on to say: 'For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours; and you (Christians in the local church) are Christ's; and Christ is God's (1 Corinthians 21b-23 - RSV).
It would be great to see more use made of English Bible expositors rooted in local churches. One gentleman cc can think of, ministering in London, tends to get wheeled out at conferences to talk about church planting but he is in fact a very gifted Bible expositor.
Most of us in English evangelicalism are not involved in homogeneous church planting but we do appreciate and need good Bible teaching for discipleship and ministry in our more normative settings. It therefore seems a shame that this particular minister has been pigeon-holed into speaking about an area of ministry that does not have the same universal application as the biblical exposition for which he seems unusually gifted.
Clearly, English ministers of the big suburban flagships are often invited to speak at evangelical conferences. But, though it is difficult to have to acknowledge this, some of those men are not necessarily unusually gifted Bible teachers. In some cases, they have been promoted through the old boys' network; in other cases their magnetic personalities have played a significant part in the numerical growth of their churches.
The men cc has in mind for a higher profile are not generally good at pulpiteering histrionics or exciting polemics or emotional displays. They are engaging Bible expositors and to get them you only have to pay mileage, not an expensive air fare.
How about evangelical conference organisers putting the money saved on air fares from Australia and the United States towards helping smaller churches to fund ministry apprentices?
This appeal should not, and your curate hopes does not, spring from a desire to 'boast about men' (see 1 Corinthians 3v21a). The fact is that God has given certain individuals stand-out Bible teaching and ministry gifts and a conference can be an opportunity for those of us who belong to local churches and minister in them to benefit from those gifts. After his warning against boasting about men, the Apostle Paul goes on to say: 'For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours; and you (Christians in the local church) are Christ's; and Christ is God's (1 Corinthians 21b-23 - RSV).
It would be great to see more use made of English Bible expositors rooted in local churches. One gentleman cc can think of, ministering in London, tends to get wheeled out at conferences to talk about church planting but he is in fact a very gifted Bible expositor.
Most of us in English evangelicalism are not involved in homogeneous church planting but we do appreciate and need good Bible teaching for discipleship and ministry in our more normative settings. It therefore seems a shame that this particular minister has been pigeon-holed into speaking about an area of ministry that does not have the same universal application as the biblical exposition for which he seems unusually gifted.
Clearly, English ministers of the big suburban flagships are often invited to speak at evangelical conferences. But, though it is difficult to have to acknowledge this, some of those men are not necessarily unusually gifted Bible teachers. In some cases, they have been promoted through the old boys' network; in other cases their magnetic personalities have played a significant part in the numerical growth of their churches.
The men cc has in mind for a higher profile are not generally good at pulpiteering histrionics or exciting polemics or emotional displays. They are engaging Bible expositors and to get them you only have to pay mileage, not an expensive air fare.
How about evangelical conference organisers putting the money saved on air fares from Australia and the United States towards helping smaller churches to fund ministry apprentices?
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
HEY YOU WHITEHOUSE HOW RIGHT YOU WERE
Dame Joan Bakewell's confession that Mary Whitehouse was right about the corrupting effect of the sexual revolution on young girls amounts to a form of blasphemy against the faith of the permissive society.
A teenage Cranmer's Curate remembers singing along unquestioningly to the liturgy of that era, expressed in the 1977 Pink Floyd album Animals:
Now one of the broadcasting apologists of the permissive society admits that this honourable Christian woman has been proved right in relation to the commercial sexploitation of girls. It is gracious of Dame Joan to make this admission but it does not amount to repentance. In the same Radio Times article she goes on to say:
Certainly, no sane Christian person who believes in the reality of a fallen world would claim that everything was rosy in the 1950s' garden. But compared to an Islamic state such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, the Midlands of 1950s' Christian Britain were positively liberated.
How would a woman with Dame Joan's urbane outlook on life have fared in a country where Christ's servants are not even allowed to build a church?
A teenage Cranmer's Curate remembers singing along unquestioningly to the liturgy of that era, expressed in the 1977 Pink Floyd album Animals:
Hey you, Whitehouse,
Ha ha charade you are.
You house proud town mouse,
Ha ha charade you are
You're trying to keep our feelings off the street.
Now one of the broadcasting apologists of the permissive society admits that this honourable Christian woman has been proved right in relation to the commercial sexploitation of girls. It is gracious of Dame Joan to make this admission but it does not amount to repentance. In the same Radio Times article she goes on to say:
Mrs Whitehouse wanted nastiness of all kinds kept off the television. Within nastiness she included sex. She wanted us all to be satisfied with life just as she knew it, happily married to Ernest with three sons and a teaching job in a Midlands school.
She had little imagination and no concept of what life was like for those unlike herself.
Mrs Whitehouse liked the way life was in the 1950s and deplored the changes that came with the 1960s.
She was also a great fantasist, believing that the way things were as she knew them should be preserved at all costs, unchanged and unchanging. Yet plenty of us knew that life in the '50s and '60s was riddled with hypocrisy, censorship, class and racial prejudice, family life that gave women few choices and education standards that believed in imposing the values of one generation on the next. She went to war on the BBC – and we opposed her.
Certainly, no sane Christian person who believes in the reality of a fallen world would claim that everything was rosy in the 1950s' garden. But compared to an Islamic state such as Saudi Arabia or Iran, the Midlands of 1950s' Christian Britain were positively liberated.
How would a woman with Dame Joan's urbane outlook on life have fared in a country where Christ's servants are not even allowed to build a church?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
