Even if William and Catherine have the Church of England’s Common Worship liturgy at their marriage service, counter-cultural (in the UK at any rate) Christian truth would get a much-needed public airing. But if they get the Book of Common Prayer, some serious punches for biblical Christianity could be landed.
Here is why the high priests of establishment political correctness could find themselves squirming in the Abbey:
• Right from the start, the Prayer Book's 'Form of Solemnization of Matrimony' insists that marriage is between a man and a woman: ‘Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony’.
• It insists that marriage has a transcendent, spiritual purpose that is uniquely Christian: ‘holy Matrimony (is) an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifiying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church’.
• It insists that sex before or outside heterosexual marriage is morally wrong: ‘It (Matrimony) was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body’.
• It insists that there is a final day of judgement on which the whole of mankind will appear before the Christian God. The officiating minister declares: ‘I require and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement, when the secrets of all hearts will be disclosed'.
• It insists on the complementary differences between the sexes. The form of vows is different for the man and the woman. The woman promises to ‘obey’ her husband, reflecting his God-given duty to provide loving leadership in the marriage.
• It insists that it is not God's moral will for the marriage that He has made to end in divorce. Before the congregation who have just witnessed the solemn vows (in this case the nation), the minister joins their right hands together and says: ‘Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder.’
All the above emphases are gross sins against the cult of secular permissiveness that has held the English-speaking world in a grip of self-obsessed superstition since the 1960s. The devil will no doubt be actively scheming to ensure that the Christian emphases at the Royal Wedding are downplayed.
But it is unlikely that he will succeed altogether. By God's grace, the couple have already chosen to get married in a building consecrated for the purposes of Christian worship.
Even in a national Church seriously debilitated by theological liberalism, it would be impossible for the Name of Jesus Christ not to be uttered in public in a positive light.
God willing, William and Catherine will get the historic liturgy of the Church of England as the form of words in which publicly to express their understanding of the God-given institution of heterosexual marriage which they have chosen to enter.
May God the Holy Trinity bless them.
Saturday, 27 November 2010
HAS RUSSELL BRAND SEEN THE LIGHT?
A old friend of Cranmer's Curate has just sent him a frankly astonishing comment by the comedian Russell Brand in a Newsnight interview on October 1st:
What a refreshingly percipient and God-fearing statement not from a theologian or a bishop but from a secular comedian of the alternative variety. It is reminiscent of Augustine's famous prayer: 'Our hearts are restless till they find their rest in thee.' But it does not mean Mr Brand is a Christian.
He might be for all cc knows but to talk, however positively, of the light of God does not a Christian make. A Christian confesses that the light that God shines in the faces of redeemed men and women is specifically the light of His eternal Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
It was after all the light of Jesus that shone in the face of Saul on the road to Damascus:
This was the man who later (when known as the Apostle Paul) wrote this:
Someone told me once that all our desire is the desire to be at one with God, in substitute form. So perhaps we can draw attention not to the shadow on the wall but to the source of light itself.
What a refreshingly percipient and God-fearing statement not from a theologian or a bishop but from a secular comedian of the alternative variety. It is reminiscent of Augustine's famous prayer: 'Our hearts are restless till they find their rest in thee.' But it does not mean Mr Brand is a Christian.
He might be for all cc knows but to talk, however positively, of the light of God does not a Christian make. A Christian confesses that the light that God shines in the faces of redeemed men and women is specifically the light of His eternal Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
It was after all the light of Jesus that shone in the face of Saul on the road to Damascus:
Now as he (Saul) journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" And he said, "Who are you, Lord?' And he said. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Act 9v3-5 - RSV).
This was the man who later (when known as the Apostle Paul) wrote this:
For it is God who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (2 Corinthians 4v6).
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
THE REAL UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT CLERGY DISCIPLINE
No Ekklesia, Bishop Pete Broadbent's speculation about the length of the royal marriage is not on a par with biblically faithful and prophetic comments made by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali.
You claim there are unanswered questions about the Bishop of London's decision to order Bishop Broadbent to withdraw from public ministry:
Bishop Nazir-Ali was rightly commenting about the growing cult of selfishness in UK society and about issues of Christian evangelism in Muslim areas. Such prophetic comments, arising from the teaching of Holy Scripture, are in a completely different category from Bishop Broadbent's remarks about the royal marriage.
The real unanswered questions about clergy discipline are as follows:
1). What action should be taken against an ordained person who behaves drunkenly in public?
2). What action should be taken against an ordained person who uses authorised marriage liturgy for a same-sex blessing?
3). What action should be taken against an ordained person who denies the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?
4). What action should be taken against an ordained person who is in a cohabiting sexual relationship whilst unmarried in their vicarage?
5). What action should be taken against an ordained person who allows an act of worship by a non-Christian religious group in the church building for which they are responsible?
You claim there are unanswered questions about the Bishop of London's decision to order Bishop Broadbent to withdraw from public ministry:
how have other bishops got away with making comments at least as offensive as Broadbent's without facing similar treatment? Comments made by bishops in recent years include the claim that married couples who choose not to have children are selfish (Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester); that Muslims are creating “no-go” areas for non-Muslims in Britain (also Nazir-Ali).
Bishop Nazir-Ali was rightly commenting about the growing cult of selfishness in UK society and about issues of Christian evangelism in Muslim areas. Such prophetic comments, arising from the teaching of Holy Scripture, are in a completely different category from Bishop Broadbent's remarks about the royal marriage.
The real unanswered questions about clergy discipline are as follows:
1). What action should be taken against an ordained person who behaves drunkenly in public?
2). What action should be taken against an ordained person who uses authorised marriage liturgy for a same-sex blessing?
3). What action should be taken against an ordained person who denies the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?
4). What action should be taken against an ordained person who is in a cohabiting sexual relationship whilst unmarried in their vicarage?
5). What action should be taken against an ordained person who allows an act of worship by a non-Christian religious group in the church building for which they are responsible?
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
ANATOMY OF A GOOD SERMON
Internet sermons are not the real experience – the Word of God needs to be listened to and submitted to in the local congregation to which the Christian disciple belongs.
But Cranmer’s Curate this week listened to a stand-out Christ-honouring sermon downloaded from the website of Dundonald Church in south London. It was on James 4v1-17, delivered to the congregation on Sunday November 14th and entitled ‘Fights and Quarrels?’. The preacher was the Revd Richard Coekin.
Here is a breakdown of why it was so good:
• It was delivered in plain English – there was no attempt to be flashily intellectual or impress with specialist theological jargon.
• It showed the contemporary relevance of James’ theme of conflict to the modern world and church but the biblical text set the agenda.
• The preacher was preaching to himself as much as to the congregation about the danger of friendship with the world. The humble personal engagement of the preacher made it all the more authoritative as a proclamation of God’s Word to fellow disciples.
• It was a serious sermon on a serious subject but was enhanced by human touches of humour. The illustrations from human experience were well-chosen and practical - they did not draw attention to themselves by trying to be cleverly inventive or 'original' but rather served the exposition of God's Word.
• The sermon recognised the specificity of the situation James was addressing in the churches he was writing to but clearly demonstrated the practical relevance of his admonitions to our own hearts and lives as sinners desperately in need of God's grace.
It is easy to take godly preaching like this for granted in a church where it is happening regularly. But the reality is that it is extremely rare in the modern church beyond the Evangelical comfort zones and therefore should be exported by a regional, cultural and social spreading out of ministers capable of delivering it.
But Cranmer’s Curate this week listened to a stand-out Christ-honouring sermon downloaded from the website of Dundonald Church in south London. It was on James 4v1-17, delivered to the congregation on Sunday November 14th and entitled ‘Fights and Quarrels?’. The preacher was the Revd Richard Coekin.
Here is a breakdown of why it was so good:
• It was delivered in plain English – there was no attempt to be flashily intellectual or impress with specialist theological jargon.
• It showed the contemporary relevance of James’ theme of conflict to the modern world and church but the biblical text set the agenda.
• The preacher was preaching to himself as much as to the congregation about the danger of friendship with the world. The humble personal engagement of the preacher made it all the more authoritative as a proclamation of God’s Word to fellow disciples.
• It was a serious sermon on a serious subject but was enhanced by human touches of humour. The illustrations from human experience were well-chosen and practical - they did not draw attention to themselves by trying to be cleverly inventive or 'original' but rather served the exposition of God's Word.
• The sermon recognised the specificity of the situation James was addressing in the churches he was writing to but clearly demonstrated the practical relevance of his admonitions to our own hearts and lives as sinners desperately in need of God's grace.
It is easy to take godly preaching like this for granted in a church where it is happening regularly. But the reality is that it is extremely rare in the modern church beyond the Evangelical comfort zones and therefore should be exported by a regional, cultural and social spreading out of ministers capable of delivering it.
Monday, 15 November 2010
MARRIAGE BATTLE NEEDS PUBLIC ORDER ACT CHANGE
The Christian Institute's campaign for the removal of the word 'insulting' from Section 5 of the Public Order Act is an essential precursor to the battle for the God-created institution of man-woman marriage in the UK.
When, and not if, legislation is introduced in Parliament to allow same-sex 'marriage', this will have a profoundly corrupting impact on British society. Children growing up will no longer be able to take it for granted that a married person shares a bed with a member of the opposite sex.
Christians, amongst others, will want to protest publicly, but no prizes for guessing which piece of legislation can be used to stifle Christian freedom of expression.
A peaceful Christian protest 'upsets' a crowd of pro-gay-marriage supporters and some disorder results. The Christians are the ones prosecuted under the Public Order Act.
We must not forget the lesson of street preacher Harry Hammond. He was prosecuted in 2001 under the Public Order Act 1986 after an angry crowd, 'insulted' by his sign bearing the words 'Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord', violently pushed him to the ground in Bournemouth town centre.
One can question the communication skills evidenced by the late Mr Hammond's sign. But surely no fair-minded person can disagree that the situation regarding Christian freedom of expression has significantly deteriorated since 2001.
That's why this is such a vitally important campaign.
Here is cc's letter to Adam Holloway MP:
Dear Adam, I hope I am not taking advantage of old friendship by writing to you an open letter in support of the Christian Institute's honourable campaign for repeal of the word ‘insulting’ from Section 5 of the Public Order Act.
I am writing to you in particular for two reasons:
1). You are a member of the Cornerstone group of Conservative MPs. Your group believes in ‘the spiritual values which have informed British institutions, our culture and our nation’s sense of identity for centuries’ and stands for ‘our ancient liberties against politically correct censorship and a commitment to our democratically elected parliament’.
2). You have had a professional life outside politics, having served in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. You therefore understand the pressures that the increasingly oppressive culture of political correctness in our country is placing upon people, outside the Westminster cocoon, who wish to live by the spiritual values of the Christian faith.
Section 5, with its criminalisation of the use of ‘insulting words’, has been deployed in two recent prosecutions against Christians. One involved a couple who debated religion with a Muslim in their hotel over breakfast; the other a street preacher in Cumbria who in conversation with a police officer upheld traditional Christian teaching on sexual ethics.
The Christian Institute helpfully points out that
I would add that some of our Lord's most famous statements were made in the heat of hostile debate with his religious opponents, including the one which, in Christian-influenced civilisations, has allowed both spiritual and political liberty to flourish: 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's' (Matthew 22v21 - AV).
May I ask you to use your parliamentary influence to ensure that the words of the living Christ can continue to be proclaimed in the United Kingdom without interference from a badly drafted law?
Kind regards,
Julian
When, and not if, legislation is introduced in Parliament to allow same-sex 'marriage', this will have a profoundly corrupting impact on British society. Children growing up will no longer be able to take it for granted that a married person shares a bed with a member of the opposite sex.
Christians, amongst others, will want to protest publicly, but no prizes for guessing which piece of legislation can be used to stifle Christian freedom of expression.
A peaceful Christian protest 'upsets' a crowd of pro-gay-marriage supporters and some disorder results. The Christians are the ones prosecuted under the Public Order Act.
We must not forget the lesson of street preacher Harry Hammond. He was prosecuted in 2001 under the Public Order Act 1986 after an angry crowd, 'insulted' by his sign bearing the words 'Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord', violently pushed him to the ground in Bournemouth town centre.
One can question the communication skills evidenced by the late Mr Hammond's sign. But surely no fair-minded person can disagree that the situation regarding Christian freedom of expression has significantly deteriorated since 2001.
That's why this is such a vitally important campaign.
Here is cc's letter to Adam Holloway MP:
Dear Adam, I hope I am not taking advantage of old friendship by writing to you an open letter in support of the Christian Institute's honourable campaign for repeal of the word ‘insulting’ from Section 5 of the Public Order Act.
I am writing to you in particular for two reasons:
1). You are a member of the Cornerstone group of Conservative MPs. Your group believes in ‘the spiritual values which have informed British institutions, our culture and our nation’s sense of identity for centuries’ and stands for ‘our ancient liberties against politically correct censorship and a commitment to our democratically elected parliament’.
2). You have had a professional life outside politics, having served in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. You therefore understand the pressures that the increasingly oppressive culture of political correctness in our country is placing upon people, outside the Westminster cocoon, who wish to live by the spiritual values of the Christian faith.
Section 5, with its criminalisation of the use of ‘insulting words’, has been deployed in two recent prosecutions against Christians. One involved a couple who debated religion with a Muslim in their hotel over breakfast; the other a street preacher in Cumbria who in conversation with a police officer upheld traditional Christian teaching on sexual ethics.
The Christian Institute helpfully points out that
a genuine Christian would never seek to be insulting, but we know that some people may feel offended by the claims of the gospel or by Christian beliefs on ethical issues. Being offended or feeling insulted should not be a matter for the criminal law or the police. Disagreement is not hatred. The freedom to disagree, to debate, and to discuss is at the heart of our democracy.
I would add that some of our Lord's most famous statements were made in the heat of hostile debate with his religious opponents, including the one which, in Christian-influenced civilisations, has allowed both spiritual and political liberty to flourish: 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's' (Matthew 22v21 - AV).
May I ask you to use your parliamentary influence to ensure that the words of the living Christ can continue to be proclaimed in the United Kingdom without interference from a badly drafted law?
Kind regards,
Julian
Thursday, 11 November 2010
WATCH SHOULD APOLOGISE OVER SMEARING OF WALLACE BENN
The Church of England Newspaper has published a letter from Wallace Benn refuting media smears that he had compared proponents of women bishops to 'Nazis' at the Reform national conference in October.
He makes it clear that
But Bishop Benn deserves an apology from Women and the Church (Watch). Its 'chair', Christina Rees, was right in the thick of stirring the controversy up. She imputed to Bishop Benn a comparison, which he never made, between the problem of women bishops and the problem of Hitler in 1939.
The report of Bishop Benn's remarks at October's Reform national conference appeared in The Times on November 3rd. Who stirred up The Times into publishing a story smearing Wallace Benn two weeks after the conference?
It was ironic that Ms Rees was also quoted as saying:
Frankly, the smearing of Wallace Benn shows how bitter the infighting is.
A moment's thought shows how much of a non-story it was. The New Testament uses warfare analogies. The Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus:
And to the pastoral leader he had appointed over the church in Ephesus he wrote:
Just because the Apostle Paul used a soldiering analogy to encourage a church and a pastor does not mean that he approved of everything 1st century Roman soldiers got up to!
He makes it clear that
I never mentioned Hitler or the Nazis in my 45-minute interview with Paul Perkin at the conference. Nor did I even have them in mind as I made clear to Ruth Gledhill (the reporter in question) when she asked me about this on the day before the original article appeared in The Times (November 3).
I said that the situation in which we find ourselves in the Church feels like people probably felt as they viewed the year ahead in January 1939. There are storm clouds on the horizon and warfare around the corner. We all hope and pray that it won’t happen.
But Bishop Benn deserves an apology from Women and the Church (Watch). Its 'chair', Christina Rees, was right in the thick of stirring the controversy up. She imputed to Bishop Benn a comparison, which he never made, between the problem of women bishops and the problem of Hitler in 1939.
The report of Bishop Benn's remarks at October's Reform national conference appeared in The Times on November 3rd. Who stirred up The Times into publishing a story smearing Wallace Benn two weeks after the conference?
It was ironic that Ms Rees was also quoted as saying:
It's so unhelpful, because it's not where the Church is.
Frankly, the smearing of Wallace Benn shows how bitter the infighting is.
A moment's thought shows how much of a non-story it was. The New Testament uses warfare analogies. The Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus:
Finally be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the full armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil (Ephesians 6v10-11 - ESV).
And to the pastoral leader he had appointed over the church in Ephesus he wrote:
Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits (2 Timothy 2v3-4).
Just because the Apostle Paul used a soldiering analogy to encourage a church and a pastor does not mean that he approved of everything 1st century Roman soldiers got up to!
NOTHING TRIVIAL ABOUT REVISIONIST COMPROMISE
In an otherwise excellent post about the continuing persecution of Christians in Iraq, blogging genius Archbishop Cranmer dismisses the current preoccupations of English Roman Catholics and Anglicans as ‘trivia’.
Whilst Iraqi Christians suffer for their faith with the bombing of their churches and homes,
Clearly 'croaking' and 'obsessing' are not to be commended in the visible Church of Christ. But if orthodox Anglicans contending for biblical truth against liberal revisionists are included in this charge of 'obsessing', then regrettably cc must take issue with C.
The New Testament drives no such wedge between the Christian calling to bear up under persecution and the need to resist worldly compromise.
The letters to the seven churches in Revelation make that dual Christian responsibility crystal clear.
The church at Thyatira is rebuked for cultural compromise, particularly in the area of sexual morality:
No hermeneutical contortions or theological polysyllables should be allowed to muddy the clear message of this to the Church of Jesus Christ in any and every cultural context until He returns. The number seven in Revelation represents completeness, so these seven letters within the book of Revelation represent a complete picture of what the reigning Christ approves of in His Church and what He disapproves of.
Patient endurance in the teeth of persecution is something Christ commends completely to His Church in every culture and generation; sexual immorality is something He completely deplores.
Where the hermeneutical wrangling kicks in within the modern Church is over the definition of sexual immorality. Liberal revisionists insist that faithful same-sex relationships are acceptable, even commendable in the sight of God.
But that view, contrary to a biblical theology of God the Holy Trinity, the human person and the institution of heterosexual marriage and held almost exclusively in liberal Protestant denominations of the decadent, post-1960s West, is manifestly the poisonous fruit of the cultural compromise the Lord Jesus so emphatically deplores.
Whilst Iraqi Christians suffer for their faith with the bombing of their churches and homes,
one church here croaks of acquiring five converting bishops, and rubs its hands with glee at the prospect of winning ‘a wave’ of entire parishes; and another obsesses over issues of gender and sexuality,he declares.
Clearly 'croaking' and 'obsessing' are not to be commended in the visible Church of Christ. But if orthodox Anglicans contending for biblical truth against liberal revisionists are included in this charge of 'obsessing', then regrettably cc must take issue with C.
The New Testament drives no such wedge between the Christian calling to bear up under persecution and the need to resist worldly compromise.
The letters to the seven churches in Revelation make that dual Christian responsibility crystal clear.
Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life,the living Christ says to the church at Smyrna (Revelation 2v10 – RSV).
The church at Thyatira is rebuked for cultural compromise, particularly in the area of sexual morality:
But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and eat food sacrificed to idols (Revelation 2v20).
No hermeneutical contortions or theological polysyllables should be allowed to muddy the clear message of this to the Church of Jesus Christ in any and every cultural context until He returns. The number seven in Revelation represents completeness, so these seven letters within the book of Revelation represent a complete picture of what the reigning Christ approves of in His Church and what He disapproves of.
Patient endurance in the teeth of persecution is something Christ commends completely to His Church in every culture and generation; sexual immorality is something He completely deplores.
Where the hermeneutical wrangling kicks in within the modern Church is over the definition of sexual immorality. Liberal revisionists insist that faithful same-sex relationships are acceptable, even commendable in the sight of God.
But that view, contrary to a biblical theology of God the Holy Trinity, the human person and the institution of heterosexual marriage and held almost exclusively in liberal Protestant denominations of the decadent, post-1960s West, is manifestly the poisonous fruit of the cultural compromise the Lord Jesus so emphatically deplores.
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
NOBBLING THE VICAR JUST BEFORE THE SERVICE
Cranmer's Curate wonders whether any other members of the youth group have experienced this phenomenon - an explicit complaint or a thinly veiled one or some bossy injunction immediately before the start of the service.
A prayer before the service with the choir in the vestry obviously provides an opportunity for that kind of bouncer to be bowled. But it would be unfair to claim that choir members are the only ones looking to 'dig the batsman in the ribs', in Geoffrey Boycott's phrase.
Clearly, that sort of delivery needs to be played calmly - left altogether but with a grin at the bowler or grounded with a straight bat - but it can be unsettling depending on the thickness of one's skin.
The gathering of God's people to sing His praises, pray to Him in Christ's name and to hear and receive His holy Word 'with meek heart and due reverence', to quote the intercession at Holy Communion according to the Book of Common Prayer, is such a vitally important time.
Yes, there is the danger of using the concept of 'worship' too narrowly, as if worshipping is only what we do when we gather together in church and, in particular, sing. The Apostle Paul's admonition in Romans 12v1 - 'I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship' (RSV) - teaches us that the whole of our lives is to be lived in worshipful obedience to God in Christ.
But you can go too far the other way and minimise the spiritual significance of our gatherings. I'm just off to 'do church' - which makes it sound like a visit to the chiropractor.
It is surely important that those involved in leading God's people in their corporate worship are in the best frame of mind for doing so.
Any suggestions as to how best to play pre-service bouncers or googlies? Any action replays gratefully received.
This piece about the liberal church being clear on leftist politics but vague on salvation appeared on the US-based orthodox Anglican news service VirtueOnline.
And this about helping smaller churches appeared in the Church of England Newspaper.
A prayer before the service with the choir in the vestry obviously provides an opportunity for that kind of bouncer to be bowled. But it would be unfair to claim that choir members are the only ones looking to 'dig the batsman in the ribs', in Geoffrey Boycott's phrase.
Clearly, that sort of delivery needs to be played calmly - left altogether but with a grin at the bowler or grounded with a straight bat - but it can be unsettling depending on the thickness of one's skin.
The gathering of God's people to sing His praises, pray to Him in Christ's name and to hear and receive His holy Word 'with meek heart and due reverence', to quote the intercession at Holy Communion according to the Book of Common Prayer, is such a vitally important time.
Yes, there is the danger of using the concept of 'worship' too narrowly, as if worshipping is only what we do when we gather together in church and, in particular, sing. The Apostle Paul's admonition in Romans 12v1 - 'I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship' (RSV) - teaches us that the whole of our lives is to be lived in worshipful obedience to God in Christ.
But you can go too far the other way and minimise the spiritual significance of our gatherings. I'm just off to 'do church' - which makes it sound like a visit to the chiropractor.
It is surely important that those involved in leading God's people in their corporate worship are in the best frame of mind for doing so.
Any suggestions as to how best to play pre-service bouncers or googlies? Any action replays gratefully received.
This piece about the liberal church being clear on leftist politics but vague on salvation appeared on the US-based orthodox Anglican news service VirtueOnline.
And this about helping smaller churches appeared in the Church of England Newspaper.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
SUPPORTING OAK HILL - WISELY
One of the most helpful contributions Sydney Diocese has made to UK evangelicalism in the past 20 years has been its moral support for north London theological college Oak Hill.
The Jensen brothers (Peter, Archbishop, and Phillip, Cathedral Dean) have seen the benefits for the gospel of a rigorously Reformed theological college, which Sydney has in Moore.
Cranmer's Curate recalls Phillip Jensen at a Proclamation Trust conference in the mid-1990s, when Moore New Testament scholar Dr David Peterson had just been appointed Oak Hill principal, exhorting conservative evangelical ministers to encourage their ordinands to go there. 'But you won't,' he said, 'because it's not your college.'
That debate is still live in the UK. Influential ministers within the conservative evangelical movement continue to steer ordinands towards the Oxbridge theological colleges where they can help out with university student work and won't get solidly behind Oak Hill.
And they now have something of a victim card to play. Cranmer's Curate has learned that certain hotheads are accusing their conservative evangelical peers who have passed over Oak Hill and gone to Oxbridge of 'compromising their ministries'.
Your curate personally favours getting behind Oak Hill as the best hope for a distinctively Reformed theological college within the Church of England. But those who choose to go to Wycliffe Hall in Oxford and benefit from the excellent evangelical teaching of principal Dr Richard Turnbull and his faculty should not be treated by their Reformed peers as snobbish Judases.
Albeit Oxford is a most inappropriate place for a theological college - cc would favour Doncaster, Leicester or Bradford as better locations - writing off Wycliffites is an arrogant attitude unworthy of Christ's future ministers.
However, it seems most unsupportive to the evangelical cause, given the pressure on residential theological training in the Church of England, to pass over Oak Hill in favour of Cambridge, Durham or Bristol.
The Jensen brothers (Peter, Archbishop, and Phillip, Cathedral Dean) have seen the benefits for the gospel of a rigorously Reformed theological college, which Sydney has in Moore.
Cranmer's Curate recalls Phillip Jensen at a Proclamation Trust conference in the mid-1990s, when Moore New Testament scholar Dr David Peterson had just been appointed Oak Hill principal, exhorting conservative evangelical ministers to encourage their ordinands to go there. 'But you won't,' he said, 'because it's not your college.'
That debate is still live in the UK. Influential ministers within the conservative evangelical movement continue to steer ordinands towards the Oxbridge theological colleges where they can help out with university student work and won't get solidly behind Oak Hill.
And they now have something of a victim card to play. Cranmer's Curate has learned that certain hotheads are accusing their conservative evangelical peers who have passed over Oak Hill and gone to Oxbridge of 'compromising their ministries'.
Your curate personally favours getting behind Oak Hill as the best hope for a distinctively Reformed theological college within the Church of England. But those who choose to go to Wycliffe Hall in Oxford and benefit from the excellent evangelical teaching of principal Dr Richard Turnbull and his faculty should not be treated by their Reformed peers as snobbish Judases.
Albeit Oxford is a most inappropriate place for a theological college - cc would favour Doncaster, Leicester or Bradford as better locations - writing off Wycliffites is an arrogant attitude unworthy of Christ's future ministers.
However, it seems most unsupportive to the evangelical cause, given the pressure on residential theological training in the Church of England, to pass over Oak Hill in favour of Cambridge, Durham or Bristol.
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
WHY NOT A CORNERSTONE TORY PARTY IN THE COALITION?
John Glen MP may or may not be right that being white, married, Home Counties and Christian counts against him in the modern Conservative Party. But the new Salisbury MP's comments raise the question as to whether the impetus could develop for an independent Conservative party within the coalition.
Rallying around traditional Judaeo-Christian values, such a party could possibly attract as many MPs as the other coalition partner, the Liberal-Democrats. The Cornerstone group - 'fighting the corner for traditional Conservative principles' - currently comprises 40 MPs, though not currently Mr Glen.
His comments in the House of Commons journal, The House Magazine, whilst not in any intentional sense leaning in the direction of a new party, did open a chink of possibility on it. He articulated a fairly widespread feeling of disenfranchisement amongst traditional elements of the Conservative Party unfavoured by the A-List:
It is always a mistake in any voluntary organisation to frustrate able people with a transcendent worldview. Because they believe that the next world is more important than this one, such people are liable to be risk-takers, putting principle before promotion and conviction before compromise.
Dismissing as sour grapes Mr Glen's underlying concern about the promotion of politically-correct mediocrity by the leadership of his party is arguably unwise. A man who believes that 'what is important is that you don’t lose your soul along the way' is dangerous in the current spiritual and moral climate.
Though the party machines remain formidable and the practical difficulties of launching a new party considerable, the very concept of a coalition begs the question: why could and should not a group of traditionally minded Conservative MPs form an independent party supportive of the Cameron administration but solidly resisting its politically-correct manifestations?
Those who voted Conservative or Liberal-Democrat in the General Election did not vote for compromise. They voted for the policies of one or other of those parties. So arguably a Conservative group reliably voting against certain measures proposed by the coalition, where they are the fruit of compromise, would demonstate greater electoral integrity.
An electoral deal with UKIP could be beneficial to the Judaeo-Christian Tories. In the last election, the politically-correct Conservative Party failed to gain seats because of a divided vote with UKIP.
Ironically, the new party could also benefit from any moves toward proportional representation in the voting reform favoured by the Liberal-Democrats.
One can understand card-carrying Conservatives concerned about 'schism'. But the Conservative Party is not the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is a temporal movement in a fallen world awaiting renewal. If a Christian MP becomes convinced that 'schism' is the best way of guaranteeing the civic conditions under which the eternal gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ can spread, that is the direction in which he or she ought to move.
It would be great to see Philip Lardner, the Scottish Conservative candidate sacked for sticking up for Christ's teaching on marriage, as a parliamentary candidate for the new party.
This by Cranmer's Curate about the Sheffield Songs of Praise appeared on Heresy Corner.
And this about the largely positive influence of Sydney Diocese on UK conservative evangelicals appeared in October's New Directions.
Rallying around traditional Judaeo-Christian values, such a party could possibly attract as many MPs as the other coalition partner, the Liberal-Democrats. The Cornerstone group - 'fighting the corner for traditional Conservative principles' - currently comprises 40 MPs, though not currently Mr Glen.
His comments in the House of Commons journal, The House Magazine, whilst not in any intentional sense leaning in the direction of a new party, did open a chink of possibility on it. He articulated a fairly widespread feeling of disenfranchisement amongst traditional elements of the Conservative Party unfavoured by the A-List:
I don’t anticipate any early calls to Government. I’m a white, Christian, married bloke from the Home Counties so I probably don’t fit the description of what the leadership wants at the moment.
It is always a mistake in any voluntary organisation to frustrate able people with a transcendent worldview. Because they believe that the next world is more important than this one, such people are liable to be risk-takers, putting principle before promotion and conviction before compromise.
Dismissing as sour grapes Mr Glen's underlying concern about the promotion of politically-correct mediocrity by the leadership of his party is arguably unwise. A man who believes that 'what is important is that you don’t lose your soul along the way' is dangerous in the current spiritual and moral climate.
Though the party machines remain formidable and the practical difficulties of launching a new party considerable, the very concept of a coalition begs the question: why could and should not a group of traditionally minded Conservative MPs form an independent party supportive of the Cameron administration but solidly resisting its politically-correct manifestations?
Those who voted Conservative or Liberal-Democrat in the General Election did not vote for compromise. They voted for the policies of one or other of those parties. So arguably a Conservative group reliably voting against certain measures proposed by the coalition, where they are the fruit of compromise, would demonstate greater electoral integrity.
An electoral deal with UKIP could be beneficial to the Judaeo-Christian Tories. In the last election, the politically-correct Conservative Party failed to gain seats because of a divided vote with UKIP.
Ironically, the new party could also benefit from any moves toward proportional representation in the voting reform favoured by the Liberal-Democrats.
One can understand card-carrying Conservatives concerned about 'schism'. But the Conservative Party is not the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is a temporal movement in a fallen world awaiting renewal. If a Christian MP becomes convinced that 'schism' is the best way of guaranteeing the civic conditions under which the eternal gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ can spread, that is the direction in which he or she ought to move.
It would be great to see Philip Lardner, the Scottish Conservative candidate sacked for sticking up for Christ's teaching on marriage, as a parliamentary candidate for the new party.
This by Cranmer's Curate about the Sheffield Songs of Praise appeared on Heresy Corner.
And this about the largely positive influence of Sydney Diocese on UK conservative evangelicals appeared in October's New Directions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
