COURSE GROOMING WOMEN FOR TOP CHURCH JOBS UNMASKS RAMPANT CAREERISM

Episcopal churches are not the only denominations to be marred by careerism. But they have a huge problem with it.

Nowhere is this illustrated more disturbingly than in Friday's Church Times feature by Rebecca Paveley about a coaching course to groom selected women for the top jobs in the Church of England.

Run by the Dean of Salisbury, the Very Revd June Osborne, it is aimed at encouraging women to 'imagine' themselves in senior posts.

But the course does not just do imagining. A professional coach - Claire Pedrick who wrote a book about how to make 'good' ecclesiastical appointments - is laid on to guide the participants through the application process and give advice on interviewing technique.

According to Ms Paveley, Ms Pedrick also

touches on the tricky question of the social-interaction part of the interview process - otherwise known as "death by quiche".

The course has funding from grant-making trust the Panacea Society but Ms Paveley reports ominously that the organisers hope that it might get central funding from the Church.

Certainly, the attendees display a strong sense of entitlement. One said:

We're in the habit of not selling ourselves, aren't we? But there are some here whose stars are going to fly very high indeed.

Another said:

I suppose most of us are called to senior leadership, or we wouldn't be here.

Sadly, it would appear that this coaching course, fired by feminism, simply unmasks the rampant careerism that has long been a feature of the 'preferment' process.

The spiritual reality is that ordained ministry is a vocation and not a career. To angle and position oneself for promotion is therefore an appalling betrayal of a minister's calling to be a servant of Christ and of the flock for whom the Lord shed his precious blood.

That is true whether the angling is done by a man or by a woman.

PREACHING WITH LOVE FROM GRACE CHURCH DULWICH

How can you tell whether a preacher loves people rather than preaching per se?

The best judges are surely the people he preaches to. Their judgement is of course not infallible but only those who listen to the preacher week by week and see him as a minister in other contexts are properly placed to testify to his integrity and whether he has the love of Jesus in his heart for his hearers.

There will also be signs of love in the sermons themselves that he delivers.

Cranmer's Curate has known the Revd Simon Dowdy, minister of Grace Church Dulwich, a south London church plant from St Helen's Bishopsgate, for around 25 years. Your curate recalls the then unrev'd Dowdy giving a talk on the Lord's Prayer as an undergraduate at a school and the promise was certainly there of an effective Bible teacher and a man of God in the making.

Mr Dowdy could not be described as a Spurgeon-esque pulpiteer - his delivery is measured and he eschews oratorical flourishes - but a sermon he recently preached on Romans 5v12-21, entitled 'A new identity', is exemplary of loving preaching in its effort to:

1). have a clear pastoral aim

2). be clear as can be in explaining the biblical text

3). have an easy to follow structure

4). graciously counter erroneous views and misunderstandings

5). use apt illustrations well suited for a congregation in south London.

The pains taken over these things are a good indicator of love for the listener.

The evangelistic appeal with which Mr Dowdy ended this particular sermon evidenced an authentic love for the lost, all the more so for the understated passion of its delivery.

If the Church of England had more loving biblical preachers like that, it would be in a much better state.

AVOIDING EVANGELICAL CLASS WAR

Evangelist Roger Carswell's front-page article in this month's
Evangelicals Now exposing elitism in evangelistic strategy is a significant intervention and could be a game-changer. But the issues he rightly raises could flare up into class war if we evangelicals are not prayerfully careful.

Mr Carswell writes:

It seems to me that, in the UK, the parts which need the most attention as far as the gospel is concerned are receiving least. Frankly, I am burdened that there is an evangelical elitism which steers us away from less appealing corners of the harvest fields.

He then describes an attempt to recruit helpers for a mission at Bradford University compared with a similar effort at Oxford:

A few years ago I was asked to speak at a week-long mission at Bradford University. They appealed for helpers - CU guests as they are called - but had no responses. Bradford University is extremely multi-cultural, dominated by Islam. A tiny group of Christians worked hard to reach the thousands in the university, but we were very limited in what we could do. The week after the mission in Bradford I moved on to Oxford University for their tri-annual mission, where there were 64 college guests for the week. Praise God for them and their willingness to help, but why were there none in Bradford?

The answer to Mr Carswell's question lies in the history of English evangelicalism. Late Victorian evangelical leaders, such as Bishop JC Ryle, focussed on Oxbridge as a way of counter-acting the rise of Anglo-Catholicism in the academy in which the English ruling elite were being educated.

In the 20th century this 'reach-the-few-to-reach-the-many' strategy led Oxbridge-educated evangelicals to focus on evangelism in the English public schools since these institutions were, and to a significant extent still are, the main feeders into Oxbridge. Though the Revd EJH Nash who founded the Iwerne ministry to the top public schools in the 1930s was not from an elite background himself, that does not alter the fact that he was pursuing the logic of Ryle's strategy. And anyway the evangelical leaders 'Bash' nurtured were from the requisite social background.

Now, however, evangelical leaders educated and converted post the social revolution of the 1960s are emerging who are seriously challenging the received late Victorian strategy while others remain tied to it. Therein lies the potential division.

Evangelicals who move out of the comfort zones could start feeling proud of themselves, looking down Pharisee-like on their brothers and sisters who continue to minister in the evangelical strongholds of the 'strategic' areas.

Evangelicals ministering in better-resourced settings could start feeling defensive, arguing that their brothers and sisters do not appreciate the complexities of larger set-ups or even accusing them of professional envy.

For the sake of evangelical unity, we need to remind ourselves of some non-negotiables:

1). The growth of Christ's Kingdom is what we should be passionate about, not the growth of our little kingdoms of influence whether up north or down south.

2). God's gospel of eternal salvation is for every sinner whom Christ calls to repentance, whether they live in Bradford or Battersea, Mayfair or Middlesborough.

3). No part of the harvest field is superior to another.

4). Gospel ministry is a vocation not a career.

On a practical front, it would enormously help to build a stronger culture of transferability in English evangelicalism if our ministers moved away from the practice of staying for a long time in large churches in affluent areas whilst ministering for a short time in small churches in less affluent areas.

An evangelical incumbent of a large university or suburban church who moved to a smaller church and led it into growth would set a really helpful precedent.

There is certainly no reason for curates staying in a large church for longer than three or four years before moving to a turn-around incumbency.

This issue is not going to go away. There is no excuse for the current inequity in resourcing Mr Carswell eloquently highlights. But we evangelicals do need to pray that we do not degenerate into an ungodly and damaging class war over evangelistic strategy.

Cranmer's Curate is blogging off for the next week or so to concentrate on the task of delivering his church's new magazine to every home in the parish. Youth group prayers for the effective functioning of cc's feet would be appreciated.

IRONY OF ARCHBISHOP GUEST-EDITING LEFT-WING MAGAZINE

There would appear to be a three-fold irony in the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, guest-editing today's edition of the left-wing magazine the New Statesman.

1). Back in 2009 the magazine was guest-edited by Alastair Campbell, the head of communications for former New Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. It was under Mr Blair's premiership that Dr Williams was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury in 2002.

2). Today's issue is a broad church featuring articles by Mr Blair's successor as Prime Minister Gordon Brown; the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks; the atheist novelist Philip Pullman; and UK Foreign Secretary William Hague. Such a diversity of opinion makes for interesting reading in a secular magazine. But an intellectual penchant for embracing contradictory opinions on Christian faith and morals does not make for coherent leadership of a national Church charged with bringing the biblical gospel to the nation.

3). According to the the anonymous liberal Anglican blog the Church Mouse:

A lovely touch comes in Mehdi Hassan's article on sharia law. Hassan asks why the British are so obsessed with it, saying "It’s time to lay the sharia bogeyman to rest". Mouse is sure Rowan was delighted with that.

The irony here is that it was Dr Williams's comment in 2008 about the inevitability of certain aspects of sharia law being adopted in the UK that caused such consternation in parts of the Anglican Communion suffering Islamist persecution, such as Nigeria. Nigerian Anglicans argue that the absolutist, theocratic nature of Islam means that once secular governments give the softer aspects of sharia law legal recognition they open the door to the incremental imposition of the more brutal aspects.

It would certainly not be a lovely touch if sharia law were adopted in parts of the UK where Muslims who convert to the saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ are already suffering violent intimidation.

Sadly, this foray into magazine editing reveals precisely the fault-lines in Dr Williams's archbishopric.

CONFESSION OF A THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIALIST

Those of us called to engage in theological controversy for Christ do meet with disapproval, even and sometimes especially from Christians who would be sympathetic to our convictions.

Culturally, controversialists are in the dog-house. The people whose opinions we controvert might get upset. Or they might have sons and daughters who are doing the things we say God forbids.

We are neither 'people-friendly' nor 'pastorally sensitive', it is alleged.

But our calling to argue for the truth of the gospel against error in the press or on the internet is a ministry serving the cause of the Servant King, His people and a lost world. So it is as intrinsically people-friendly and pastoral as any other ministry of the Word.

As with the exercise of any spiritual gift by fallen human beings, there are dangers attending the ministry of controversy. Published controversialists face falling into the same grave sin as platform preachers - pride.

The manifestations of pride for the controversialist include:

* a sinful desire to win the argument for the sake of self-satisfaction rather than winning it for the sake of the people we are called to love and serve

* feeding off the sins and failures of others rather than constantly repenting of the depravity in our own hearts

* enjoying the fallen world in which controversy is necessary rather than longing for the Day when it no longer will be.

Any one involved in public ministry can fall into the appalling sin of pride. And it is appalling to use the cause of Christ's gospel for an ego-trip and to use God's Church as a platform for it.

Cranmer's Collect for the Sunday next before Easter is vitally necessary for all involved in public ministry including those of us called to contend for the gospel of the Lord Jesus:

Almighty and everlasting God, who, of thy tender love towards mankind, hast sent thy Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ to take upon him our flesh and to suffer death upon the cross, that all mankind should follow the example of his great humility: Mercifully grant, that we may both follow the example of his patience, and also be made partakers of his resurrection; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord.

ZOAR, THE BLOOD-BESPRINKLED SANCTUARY & BIBLICAL IGNORANCE TODAY

The fact that we are not in the middle of an evangelical revival of 18th century dimensions is surely no excuse for us regular church-goers' not knowing our Bibles.

The Bible is not yet illegal in 21st century Britain and it is available in English as it was in the 18th century.

Cranmer's Curate has been re-reading after 25 years JC Ryle's Christian Leaders of the 18th Century (a great spiritual tonic as one hits the middle laps of middle age). The thought struck cc: how many of us clergy today would be able to identify all the biblical references in the following quotation from the Address to a serious reader who enquires what he must do to be saved by John Fletcher of Madeley (1729-1785)? -

And now, what meanest thou, sleeper? Why tarriest thou? Arise, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Lose not time in conferring with flesh and blood; much less in parleying with Satan, or consulting thy unbelieving heart. These delays lead to ruin; the Philistines are upon thee, instantly shake thyself; if thou art not altogether blinded by the god of this world, and led captive by him at his will, this moment, in the powerful name of Jesus, burst the bonds of spiritual sloth - break, like a desperate soul, out of the prison of unbelief - escape for thy life - look not behind thee - stay not in the plain. This one thing do; leaving the things that are behind - Sodom and her ways - press forwards toward Zoar, and escape to the mount of God, lest thou be consumed (Banner of Truth, p420).

The astonising fact is that this was an evangelistic appeal based, as Ryle convincingly believes, on sermons Fletcher had preached in his parish. Its richness in biblical allusion reveals how much the evangelical revival had led to an increase in biblical knowledge in the 18th century. But still one wonders how many people regularly in churches of all types today would know whether the epistle of Jude was in the Old or the New Testament, let alone get the reference to Zoar.

Certainly, a revival of Christianity in 21st century Britain would happen on a very different spiritual, moral and cultural ballpark from the England of the 18th century. The similarities between the dire state of church and society now and then, or even the sense that the 18th century was worse, can be overstated.

But Fletcher gets the last word as an encouragement to those yearning for an outpouring of God's gracious Word of life in our generation:

Through the veil, that is to say, his flesh, torn from the crown of his head to the sole of his feet - through this mysterious veil, rent from the top to the bottom, rush into the blood-besprinkled sanctuary; embrace the golden horns of the altar; lay all thy guilt on the head of the sin-atoning victim; read thy name on the breast of thy merciful high-priest. Claim the safety, demand the blessings, receive the consolations bestowed on all that fly to him for refuge, and begin a new, delightful life, under the healing and peaceful shadow of his wings

Rory Shiner's article in June's edition of the Australian evangelical monthly The Briefing - Union with Christ - is soul-refreshingly good. UK members of the youth group who are not regular Briefing subscribers can order the issue from the Good Book Company (0333 123 0880) for £3.25 including postage.

The youth group may also be interested in this lively blog by the Revd Hugo Charteris of Christ Church Newcastle. His blog is on the church's website.

DURHAM PROMOTION NO CAUSE FOR EVANGELICAL JUBILATION

The appointment of the current Dean of Liverpool Cathedral, the Very Revd Justin Welby, as the new Bishop of Durham looks on the face of it like a significant boost for Anglican orthodoxy. But evangelical jubilation needs to be tempered by sober and indeed humble reflections by all of us who call ourselves orthodox Anglicans in the Church of England.

Justin Welby's preferment to a senior bishopric would seem to support Church Commissioner the Revd Stephen Trott's view, articulated recently at a Reform regional consultation, that the balance of the House of Bishops is now tipping in a more orthodox direction.

Prior to ordination when he worked for the oil industry, Mr Welby, 55, had a very sound spiritual background as a member of Holy Trinity Brompton, the evangelical charismatic flagship church in central London, and also as a leader in the more conservative evangelical Iwerne Minster ministry to England's top private schools.

There are no concrete signs in the conduct of Mr Welby's ordained ministry so far that he has forsaken the biblical convictions of his youth on Christian faith and morals. So working with the Anglican charitable assumption one can take it that the Bishop of Liverpool’s presidential address at diocesan synod last year put him in a very awkward position.

According to Liverpool diocese’s own website, Bishop Jones ‘proposed that we can move “towards allowing a variety of ethical conviction about people of the same gender loving each other fully” and that he believes “the day is coming when Christians who equally profoundly disagree about the consonancy of same gender love within the discipleship of Christ will in spite of their disagreement drink openly from the same cup of salvation”.’

What should Mr Welby have done in response to this astonishing statement that righteousness and wickedness can happily co-habit in the visible Church of the Lord Jesus Christ? Publicly repudiated the statement by his diocesan bishop?

That would certainly have been a commendable and courageous response given the gravity of Bishop Jones's departure from biblical authority. But had Mr Welby done so what is the likelihood that he would have been appointed a diocesan bishop?

Cranmer's Curate would be the last person to suggest that such a response would be easy. For any of us frontline clergy publicly to declare that our bishop has departed from sound doctrine puts us in a very difficult situation.

And that situation is going to get more difficult. Ministry reviews are now compulsory for clergy moving onto the new Common Tenure arrangement. A Bible-believing Anglican minister who refused to participate in a ministry review with a bishop he considered to be a false teacher would put himself in the territory of the Clergy Discipline Measure.

The Liverpool affair prompts the sobering thought that Mr Welby’s preferment to the third most prominent See in the Church of England is very far from being a cause for triumphalism about the inside strategy for Anglican Evangelicals.

MINISTERIAL MINEFIELD NEEDING EARLIER WARNING SIGNS

This is a difficult subject to blog about but these reflections are prompted by the seminar on working with women at last month's Proclamation Trust senior ministers' conference. God willing they will be of service to the godliness of all of us in the youth group, called as we are as disciples of Christ to 'flee from sexual immorality' (1 Corinthians 6v18 - ESV).

Things can go wrong in ministers' relations with female members of their congregations long before they actually tread on a mine and get blown up. A rigorous pastoral policy on one-to-one meetings with women - eg never meeting with them when alone in our homes or only having conversations in public places - does not automatically mean we are in the clear.

Given the reality of vulnerable people in our churches and the fact that low level abuses can rapidly escalate in a sexually permissive society, Christian ministers are already in the minefield if they are:

• engaging in prolonged eye-contact in conversations with women before or after services and meetings

• reciprocating or even initiating excessively tactile handshakes on the church door or even during the Peace at Holy Communion

• angling for emotional support in conversations about the running of the church

• asking leading questions about their relationship with their husbands.

Some feminists may argue that it is demeaning to modern women to suggest that they would allow themselves to be aroused by such means by cheesy vicars of all people.

Vicars who wish to negotiate their way safely through this particular minefield, however, would be advised not to listen to feminist complacency but rather to face up to the biblical reality of fallen human nature - our own and the women we minister to.