Church Society Responds to The Bishop of Oxford

Rev. Dr. Lee Gatiss, Director of Church Society.

03 July 2024.

This important Response to the Bishop of Oxford has been released Church Society.

It’s worth quoting in full:

In June, the bishops of the Church of England told us what their way “forward” is on the vexed issues of same-sex marriage for clergy and the introduction of blessing services for people already in such relationships. Church Society responded to these proposals.

On 26th June, eleven bishops called on their colleagues to re-think their proposals, to do some actual doctrinal work, and bring back proposals that could be properly considered under the governance of the necessary canons.

That same day, The Alliance (which describes itself as “a broad coalition of leaders of networks across different traditions supported by more than 2,000 clergy within the Church of England”) released a public letter supporting those bishops “in their endeavours to remain faithful to the orthodox teaching of the Church of England.” They made it clear that “What is proposed is clearly indicative of ‘a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England in an essential matter,’” and expressed disappointment that the House of Bishops had reneged on their previous decision to follow the correct canonical processes. Further, they said that:

“If the further departure from the Church’s doctrine suggested by the Synod papers does go ahead, we will have no choice but rapidly to establish what would in effect be a new de facto “parallel Province” within the Church of England and to seek pastoral oversight from bishops who remain faithful to orthodox teaching on marriage and sexuality…. We are not leaving the Church of England or the Anglican Communion. We wish to stay loyal to the one holy catholic and apostolic Church throughout the world rather than be part of a schismatic move which departs from the teaching received and upheld not only by the vast majority of the Anglican Communion (representing around 75% of the Anglican Communion’s 80 million members), the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches but also the vast majority of other churches around the world.”

“We urge you,” they said, “even at this late stage, to honour your oaths as archbishops and bishops in England and to follow the lawful constitutional path to preserve the unity of the Church throughout the Anglican Communion.” The letter was signed by leaders from the Church Commissioners, General Synod, Archdeacons, New Wine, the HTB Network, the Evangelical Group on General Synod, the CEEC, ReNew, church planting networks, the Orthodox Female Clergy Group, Living Out, and Church Society. See their whole letter.

The Alliance also contains several bishops, and some Anglo-Catholic leaders, who wrote their own statement in support. 

Numbers

There has been a certain level of pushback to the Alliance letter, not least from the Bishop of Oxford who angrily rejects what they say and calls on everyone to “unite behind our compromise”.  In a rather undignified and aggressive response, he questions whether there really is support from 2000+ clergy for the Alliance stance, asking in a somewhat belittling way for the evidence of this. The Alliance, as many will know, has a website(https://alliancecofe.org/) and the first thing one is confronted with there is a “Join with us” button. That is where they have been able to gather signatures and church details for such a large group of clergy. I think the bishops who dismissively question the support the Alliance has would be taken aback by the breadth of this and the number of parishioners (including a very sizeable proportion of the under 18s in the entire Church of England) who are represented here. It is not for me to release such figures, but it is also not clear to me why the bishop feels the need to suggest that we are lying about the numbers who have expressed concern and joined with us.

The Bishop also disparagingly questions whether the Anglo-Catholic members of the Alliance (with whom I had good conversations at the last meeting of The Alliance, and with whom I am in regular touch) are really behind it. They themselves have released a statement about this for the avoidance of any doubt there.

The Bishop condescendingly suggests that those concerned about the Bishops’ proposals are really a very small number. That is not so. He says there is “literally no risk whatsoever that churches and ministers who support the Church’s current teaching would have to act against their conscience or depart from that doctrine.” But this is naive at best, or disingenuous, and neglects to tell us how we might obey Scripture’s very clear injunction to avoid those who introduce false teaching into the church. We all know that today’s compromise is tomorrow’s baseline for further changes. The Bishop even tells us what his end goal is: full acceptance of gay marriages in church.

Not a change of doctrine

The Bishop claims that “This is not a watershed moment”, and that introducing blessings for same-sex marriages and allowing clergy to marry their same-sex partners, is not (as the Canons state) a departure from or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter. It takes a huge amount of chutzpah to assert such a thing and expect to be taken seriously. The fact that people in authority are doing so, is one of the main reasons why there is a huge dearth of trust in our church at the moment. Institutional gaslighting is an abuse of power.

The Bishop of Oxford lecturing a group of concerned individuals for meeting in a closed room (it wasn’t actually, the door was never locked) is a bit rich given that the House of Bishops (which is a legislative body of the General Synod) routinely votes explicitly to close off all its discussions and doesn’t release any of the legal advice on which its revolutionary diktats to the rest of us are supposedly based.

Using power to arbitrarily push novel practices against long-established and repeated laws, is a form of tyranny — that our bishops would no doubt complain about if it were the Government or a foreign president doing it. So what is the long-established and repeated law here? What is our doctrine? Surely if these things are written down in constitutionally valid documents, then no temporary majority of bishops could simply override it in an attempted coup, as part of a bid for control? Surely they don’t think that whatever they want is Anglican doctrine, regardless of what is written down for us all to abide by?

Ten things can be said. Forgive the length and repetition here, but that is actually part of the point:

1. Canon Law says that our doctrine is defined by Scripture, the teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils which are accordance with Scripture, and the 39 Articles, Prayer Book, and Ordinal. There is literally zero support for blessing same-sex marriage or allowing clergy to be in such relationships, in those documents.

Article 20 indeed states that “The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” This is what the bishops are literally hell-bent on doing. 

Article 7  says that no Christian is free to disobey the moral commandments of God. Jesus declared all foods clean for us, but he did not declare all sexual practices clean; indeed he stated that sexual immorality (along with other sins) defiles us (Mark 7). Even schoolboys would hoot at the impudence of anyone who tried to claim Jesus meant to exclude same-sex relationships from his definition of sexual immorality. 

2. The Book of Common Prayer depicts marriage as between one man and one woman. It also says: “be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God.”

How it can be asserted now that same-sex marriages are lawful and good according to God’s word, we are not told. Apparently we have to wait until the Faith and Order Commission can do some theology and let us know, or until we’ve had the compromise in place for a 3 year period of “discernment”. As we’ve already said, this is a curious thing. It is normally considered more prudent to discern whether something is right or wrong before you do it. When crossing the road it is wise to check there is no traffic before you step out. True, just heading onto the road and being struck by a car would help you discern it was not safe, but would it not be better to have looked for traffic first? Especially when others on the pavement are shouting: “Stop”!

3. Canon B30 says “The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”

If the Church of England now also declares that marriage between two people of the same sex is fine, how on earth is that not a change of doctrine? Why does the law of non-contradiction not apply? Is this really what those who passed Canon B30 meant?

4. The motion passed overwhelmingly by General Synod in November 1987 states:

“This Synod affirms that the biblical and traditional teaching on chastity and fidelity in personal relationships is a response to, and expression of, God’s love for each one of us, and in particular affirms:

1. that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship;

2. that fornication and adultery are sins against this ideal, and are to be met by a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;

3. that homosexual genital acts also fall short of this ideal, and are likewise to be met with a call to repentance and the exercise of compassion;

4. that all Christians are called to be exemplary in all spheres of morality, and that holiness of life is particularly required of Christian leaders.”

How is LLF not a change of this doctrine? Surely to assert that what the bishops are suggesting is no big deal, requires such casuistry, such mental gymnastics, that it could almost be an Olympic sport.

5. The 1991 House of Bishops report Issues in Human Sexuality argues that what it calls a ‘homophile’ orientation and attraction could not be endorsed by the Church as:

“…a parallel and alternative form of human sexuality as complete within the terms of the created order as the heterosexual. The convergence of Scripture, Tradition and reasoned reflection on experience, even including the newly sympathetic and perceptive thinking of our own day, make it impossible for the Church to come with integrity to any other conclusion. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equally congruous with the observed order of creation or with the insights of revelation as the Church engages with these in the light of her pastoral ministry.”

How is LLF therefore not a change of doctrine? If it isn’t a change of doctrine, why are activists and bishops furiously trying to get rid of Issues in Human Sexuality?

6. Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference (of all bishops in the Anglican Communion) declares that the Conference: “in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage.” It also declares that the Conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.”

How can legitimising same sex unions by blessing them and allowing clergy to be in them, not be a change of doctrine at odds with the mind of the worldwide church?

7. The 1999 House of Bishops teaching document Marriage states that: “Marriage is a pattern that God has given in creation, deeply rooted in our social instincts, through which a man and a woman may learn love together over the course of their lives”, and that “Sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy belongs within marriage exclusively.”

Surely this is contradicted by what the bishops now propose? 

8. The Preface to the modern Common Worship marriage service marriage tells the congregation that: “Marriage is a gift of God in creation through which husband and wife may know the grace of God. It is given that as man and woman grow together in love and trust, they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind, as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.”

If marriage is also for husband and husband, or wife and wife, surely Common Worship is wrong, and that would be a change of doctrine? You can see why intelligent people might be confused.

9. The 2005 House of Bishops Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships states:

“It has always been the position of the Church of England that marriage is a creation ordinance, a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace. Marriage, defined as a faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman, is central to the stability and health of human society. It continues to provide the best context for the raising of children.”

“The Church of England’s teaching is classically summarised in The Book of Common Prayer, where the marriage service lists the causes for which marriage was ordained, namely: ‘for the procreation of children, …for a remedy against sin [and]…. for the mutual society, help, and comfort that the one ought to have of the other.”

“In the light of this understanding the Church of England teaches that ‘sexual intercourse, as an expression of faithful intimacy, properly belongs within marriage exclusively’… Sexual relationships outside marriage, whether heterosexual or between people of the same sex, are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings.”

This teaching was reiterated (word for word) in the December 2019 Pastoral Statement on same-sex and opposite sex civil partnerships.

What is now being proposed is directly the opposite of that. Who could say it is not a change of doctrine, and keep a straight face?

10. Finally, the House of Bishops Pastoral Guidance on Same-sex Marriage (2014) stated that the same principles should apply with same-sex marriages as with Civil Partnerships and that in consequence: “Services of blessing should not be provided. Clergy should respond pastorally and sensitively in other ways.” It also stated that “Getting married to someone of the same sex would, however, clearly be at variance with the teaching of the Church of England… it would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same sex marriage.” 

How is it a “modest” change, to reverse this completely? How? We must be forgiven for being somewhat bemused. The Bishop of Oxford wants us to believe this is a modest step to bring things in line with what is actually happening. But it is actually a wholesale reversal of everything above. Besides, if it was a modest change as he suggests, and he really did care about preserving unity and avoiding schism, surely the most statesmanlike and pastoral response would be to not go ahead with the proposals causing all the problems. Anyone in ordinary parish ministry would certainly consider such a diplomatic course if they were pushing something so controversial against the established laws and the strong opposition of a sizeable number of their most active members.

In the light of all these doctrinal statements and repeated declarations, the only way that the Church of England could permit with integrity services of blessing for same-sex couples, including same-sex marriages for clergy  — would be to repudiate all the statements just listed above and declare that it now believes something else instead. Only in this way could the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi, that the Church of England prays as it believes, be maintained. Only in this way could anybody believe anything the bishops tell us. It would at least be honest.

Trying to openly overturn it all, honestly and clearly, would have some integrity, even if it would be seriously in error. But that’s clearly not what they want to do. They want to pretend that nothing has changed, and that the new proposals simply regularise what’s been happening for years anyway, according to the Bishop of Oxford, and which we have been “content” with, he astonishingly claims. Despite the fact that even a secular employment tribunal has recognised that the Church’s doctrine of marriage is clear and does exclude same-sex marriages for clergy (and therefore upheld the withholding of a license from a clergyman who entered into one). If clergy have been ordained and permitted to live outside the current guidelines listed above, it is the fault of those very bishops who are now trying to get us to accept all this as not a change of doctrine. We should not be coerced into passively accepting their past (and possibly deliberate) failures in disciplinary safeguarding, which is one of their core tasks as bishops. Who knows what other guidelines and doctrines they might fail or be failing to uphold. 

The world

Both GAFCON and The Global South Fellowship of Anglicans have repudiated the bishops’ proposals. Indeed, the GSFA said that it “deeply regrets the decision of the Church of England’s General Synod today, supporting the House of Bishops’ proposals to ‘bless’ Same Sex Unions – which goes against the overwhelming mind of the Anglican Communion.”

To claim as the Bishop of Oxford tries to that many provinces contain a variety of views or that there is no consensus, is tendentious in the extreme, and ignores the blatantly clear consensus of the vast majority of the Anglican world that what our bishops are doing is wrong. And this, the Global South says, “has now triggered a widespread loss of confidence” in the Church of England’s leadership of the Communion. It is very hard to resist a charge of western elitism, when one notes where all the pressure is coming from to liberalise on these matters. The snobbish, Anglo-centric, and dictatorial behaviour that my non-Western friends tell me they observed at recent Lambeth conferences and meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council is not reassuring.

Crisis, what crisis?

The Alliance letter is criticised by the Bishop of Oxford for “catasrophising language” because it talks of “incalculable damage to the structure, integrity and mission of the national church”. Only the most blinkered could fail to see that this is exactly what is happening because of LLF. According to the Church of England’s own figures, attendance is down 29% since 2015, ordinand numbers are down 40% since 2019, and most dioceses are now in a structural deficit position. Though obviously there are several factors at play here, the confusion and catastrophic loss of trust caused by LLF is certainly responsible for a great deal of this. One would have to be trapped in a deluded bubble not to see that. Major leaders and networks within the growing and thriving parts of the church have consistently and publicly expressed deep regret and concern at developments. The global Anglican Communion has even rejected the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

On what definition is this not a leadership crisis, of the most epic proportions? Surely the bishop needs to get his head out of the sand. It’s like the House of Bishops are trying to build a massive extension without planning permission, in the hope that everything will be alright once it’s up, fait accompli. But as Captain Tom’s family discovered recently, that isn’t always what happens.

The early church flourished in a time of confusion and persecution by being clear on the gospel, refuting heresy, and acting to counter it ecclesiologically where necessary, even if that seemed “irregular”. That’s the way forward here.

Schism?

The Bishop of Oxford labels The Alliance approach “a deep and disproportionate schism”. Schism is a heavily-loaded term that is too easily thrown about in the current debate. Some theology or history might be of assistance in helping to understand what it actually means. Obviously I would point to Fight Valiantly: Contending for the Faith against False Teaching in the Church if anyone wants to explore this whole area in detail. But there’s also Gerald Bray’s very useful book, Heresy, Schism, and Apostasy.

The Lutheran Confessions are very helpful on this. They say:

“The impiety and tyranny of bishops cause schism and discord. Therefore, if the bishops are heretics, or will not ordain suitable persons, the churches are in duty bound before God, according to divine law, to ordain for themselves pastors and ministers. Even though this is now called an irregularity or schism, it should be known that the godless doctrine and tyranny of bishops is chargeable with it. Paul commands that bishops who teach and defend a godless doctrine and godless services should be considered accursed (Galatians 1:7-9).”

Further, they add:

“The adversaries also quote Hebrews 13:17, ‘Obey your leaders.’ This passage requires obedience to the Gospel. It does not establish a dominion for the bishops apart from the Gospel. Neither should the bishops enact traditions contrary to the Gospel or interpret their traditions contrary to the Gospel. When they do this, obedience is prohibited, according to Galatians 1:9, ‘If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.’”

In addition, the Augsburg Confession says clearly that when bishops “teach or establish anything against the Gospel, then the congregations are forbidden by God’s command to obey them… The Canonical Laws also command this… And Augustine writes: ‘Neither must we submit to catholic bishops if they chance to err, or hold anything contrary to the canonical Scriptures of God.’ (Contra Petiliani Epistolam).”

The biblical book of Jude is quite clear where schism originates. “But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, ‘In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.’ These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.”

So if there is schism, it is caused by those who do not follow the Bible. It is emphatically notcaused by those who seek to uphold it and follow it and reject innovations. This must be especially the case where the teaching and practices being proposed are said by the Scriptures to exclude people from the kingdom of God, as is the case here (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-7). Surely to redefine the sins mentioned here as things which are actually good and appropriate for Christians, would be the very definition of a salvation issue, one on which our eternal destiny turns? It would be, as Jude puts it, to “pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord” (Jude 4). 

The Bishop uncharitably accuses The Alliance of a lack of perspective and of neglecting “mercy, love and joy and the priority of gospel proclamation.” He and I would not agree on what the gospel is that we are proclaiming, because we preach different versions of Jesus. It is not Anglican to preach just the mercy, love, and joy bits of scripture and ignore these stark warnings. Indeed, the mercy, love, and joy spoken of in the Bible are always in the context of God’s holiness and judgment, and don’t make sense without those. He is merciful to sinners who repent. He loves those who turn back to him from rebellion. He gives joy to those who turn from their disordered desires and embrace him by faith alone. That’s the whole reason for “gospel proclamation” in the first place, to save us from our sin. Unless one believes that everybody is saved in the end anyway. Which I suspect many clergy and bishops actually do, quite contrary to what the Bible and the Articles say. That’s not an Anglican theology.

Tolerance of disagreement and error here would not be “wisely allowing a diversity of interpretations in a disputed area” as some might say, a sign of Anglicanism’s supposedly secure ability to embrace a diversity of views. It would not be spiritually loving or pastorally accommodating: it would be literally soul-destroying. We should no more tolerate this than we would tolerate a drop or two of poison in our afternoon tea. No-one with compassion for those caught in sin can simply affirm it unquestioningly without showing the better way — peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ who calls us to “Repent and believe.” With him there is forgiveness, a fresh start, and the power of the Spirit to enable us to live for him.

I have quoted this before, more than once, but it remains relevant: as the theologian John Calvin put it, “How can any one have the effrontery to expect that God will aid him in accomplishing desires at variance with his word? What God with his own lips pronounces cursed, never can be prosecuted with his blessing.” (Institutes 3.7.9).

So, no, bishop; we will not be uniting behind your compromise (even if it was more pleasantly and graciously presented). Instead, we will pray:

Almighty God,
you show to those who are in error the light of your truth,
that they may return to the way of righteousness:
grant to all those who are admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s religion,
that they may reject those things that are contrary to their profession,
and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same;
through our Lord Jesus Christ, who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.
Amen.*

 * The Church of England’s collect for the 2nd Sunday of Lent (Year C).

Dr Lee Gatiss is the Director of Church Society.

First published at Church Society, 3rd July 2024.

Remembering D-Day

Today marks the 80th anniversary of D-Day on 6th June 1944.

Five years ago, Joe Carter wrote this potted summary for The Gospel Coalition.

Students of history know that D-Day represented a massive effort to win freedom from Nazi tyranny, and there was great personal sacrifice. In a world where so many take for granted the freedoms we enjoy, it is good – and sobering – to remember.

Yet Christians know that our liberation from sin and death came at an even higher price. Incalculably so.

As we remember and give thanks for those who laid down their lives to defend our freedom and civilisation, let’s never take for granted what the Lord Jesus has done for us.

Related:

Hear the NBC radio broadcast announcing the D-Day invasion.

A D-Day story: Part One – The crossing – Tom McCarthy at The Conservative Woman.

Freedoms of West make our culture worth defending – John Anderson

Image: 1977 photo of a stone marker in Saint-Malo, France – part of La Voie de la Liberté – the Road to Liberty – opened in 1947. It commemorates the route of the Allied forces as they fought to liberate Europe.

A Response to the Primates Meeting in Rome

Archbishop Dr. Laurent Mbanda, Chairman of the Gafcon Primates Council, has released this response, 6 May 2024:

“To my dear Anglican brothers and sisters contending for the faith once delivered to the saints,

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Last week, at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, 32 Primates of the Anglican Communion gathered in Rome to meet with one another and to hold a private audience with Pope Francis. In their Communiqué, published on May 2, they highlighted the pope’s admonition to them to “embrace our disagreements without fear” and issued their own call “to mutual respect and accompaniment with one another.” They also expressed their own renewed commitment to “make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

As the Communiqué itself acknowledges, however, multiple Anglican Primates did not attend the gathering. To be specific, 12 primates did not attend this meeting in Rome, which means that those who did attend represented 30 of the 42 recognized provinces of the Anglican Communion. Such numbers are misleading, however, since the Primates of the three largest Anglican provinces (Nigeria, Uganda, and South Sudan) were among those absent. Those Primates who did attend represent a minority, perhaps 30%, of active Anglicans worldwide. The Communiqué makes no mention of how unrepresentative a gathering this meeting was, nor does it explain the reason that multiple Primates declined the invitation to participate.

The truth is that most of those who refused to attend are leaders of Gafcon and the Global South, and our absence was not accidental, but intentional. Though we do pray for the unity and health of the Anglican Communion, we chose not to attend because, as last year’s Kigali Statement made clear, the current divisions within the Anglican Communion are neither minimal nor new. These divisions have arisen from more than 25 years of “repeated departures from the authority of God’s Word” that, despite the persistent warnings given by the majority of Anglican Primates, have continued unabated.

We know how dear the unity of the church is to the heart of our Lord. For it is he who prays to his Father that we might be one, even as he and the Father are one (John 17:21). At the same time, we also recognize that such unity is not simply a matter of institutional belonging or cultivating attitudes of “mutual respect.” The unity of the Father and the Son consists in a harmony of will and mind, of mission and message (John 8:16-18, 10:37-38, 12:49-50, 17:25-26). Jesus came speaking the word of his Father and he wanted us to be sanctified in the truth of that word (John 17:17). It is only as we agree on the truth and authority of Scripture, therefore, that we can be one as Jesus prayed.

It is unfortunate when the orthodox remnant within the Anglican Communion are portrayed as the source of disunity. To the contrary, as Bishop J.C. Ryle once said,

If people separate themselves from teaching which is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue rather than a sin…He is the schismatic who causes the schism…Unity which is obtained by the sacrifice of truth is worth nothing. It is not unity that pleases God.

The proposals made by the Anglican Primates at the Rome meeting, which consist of minor revisions to the description of the Anglican Communion and modifications to its existing structures, will do nothing to mend the torn fabric of our Communion. Nothing apart from a return to the Lord through deep repentance and renunciation of false teaching by erring provinces will suffice. To quote the Kigali Statement once more, “without repentance this tear cannot be mended.”

In Christ, I am your servant,

The Most Rev. Dr. Laurent Mbanda
Chairman of the Gafcon Primates Council
Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Rwanda
Bishop of Gasabo.”

Also at the Gafcon website.

Related:

The Kigali Commitment – GAFCON IV, 21 April 2023. (PDF file)

“The Surprising Genius of Jesus” — Peter Williams

Tyndale House Principal Peter Williams gives three lectures at the Southern Baptist Seminary.

The title for his talks, “The Surprising Genius of Jesus“, is drawn from his forthcoming book.

Fascinating and enlightening. Well worth setting aside the time to watch and listen.

Three lies of Pride Month

“From a Biblical perspective, there are remarkable parallels between Pride Month and idol worship under King Nebuchadnezzar II. Just as the Babylonians were mandated to worship the golden image, LGBT activists demand that we pledge allegiance to the rainbow flag. While the stakes aren’t as high as they were under Nebuchadnezzar, there are real risks involved in refusing to bow the knee.

If my suspicion is correct, most Australians are not particularly concerned about Pride Month. In fact, many are beginning to feel uncomfortable with how politicised and intolerant the LGBT movement has become. In response, many people have flocked to culture warriors like Jordan Peterson for answers.

While figures like Peterson are insightful and worth listening to, their answers are ultimately psychological rather than spiritual. They don’t acknowledge that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only truth that sets people free. It is only the grace of God in the person and work of Jesus that gives answers and hope to a world lost in sexual confusion.

What follows are three of the lies paraded during Pride Month, along with the gospel answers Jesus provides. …”

– A very helpful article by James Jeffery in AP, the National Journal of the Presbyterian Church of Australia.

GAFCON Day 4: Remarkable Repentance

The American Anglican Council’s Canon Phil Ashey continues his encouraging reports from Kigali.

Here, he discusses Thursday’s events. The final day of GAFCON IV begins this evening, Australian time.

“The Gospel is the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16-17) and, therefore, it is worth paying whatever cost to stand up for and share this power-of-God Gospel with the world. Along the way, we need to ask ourselves about this cost. What lessons can we learn from the Church of Uganda, and others, about breaking Communion with Anglican Churches that will not uphold the Gospel? What is the cost of breaking Communion with the Mother Church of England? How can we reset the Communion on a Gospel basis? What can GAFCON and Global South do in this new reset to address the needs of African Anglicans in proclaiming the Gospel of Christ faithfully to all nations? These are among the questions the Rev. Canon Dr. Alison Barfoot (Church of Uganda) and I discussed in our Anglican Perspective Podcast yesterday evening. [See below]

We need the power of the Gospel more than ever in the cultures we are evangelizing where identity politics and divisions are deepening. This morning, we heard the power of the Gospel in the exposition of Colossians 3:1-17 by Archbishop Kanishka Raffel (Sydney) who contrasted the identity politics and divisions of the world with the identity of the Church and the unity we experience as followers of Jesus Christ. The identity of the Church finds its source in Jesus Christ and his saving work alone (Col. 3:1-4). “Therefore,” said Archbishop Raffel, “let Jesus be the counselor whose advice and approval is our sole focus.” The identity of the Church is shaped by the character of Christ (Col. 3:5-14) whose death on the cross calls us to “put to death whatever belongs to our earthly (sinful) nature” and “clothe ourselves” with the new nature Christ has given us, his very life, especially his forgiveness and love. Finally, the identity of the Church is formed by Christ-centered habits of the heart (Col. 3:15-17) especially the practice of peace as we gather around God’s word with thankfulness for all Christ has done for us. “Therefore,” he said, “there is no room for grumbling or pride or self-congratulation when we gather together.”

Archbishop Raffel also focused on two things at the heart of identity politics and divisions in our cultures: sex and speech. “Put to death therefore…sexual immorality,” and “rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander and filthy language…” (Col. 3:5, 8-9). Because of these two things, the wrath of God is coming (Col. 3:6). Why? Because God cares about relationships, and sexual immorality and destructive speech are at the heart of unraveled relationships in our secular cultures.

He then turned the spotlight on the Church and said we, too, must repent of the same things. He noted that our championing of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (1998) often only focuses on one aspect of sexual immorality, whereas the Resolution also includes the following expressions of sexual immorality:

“Promiscuity, prostitution, incest, pornography, paedophilia, predatory sexual behaviour, and sadomasochism (all of which may be heterosexual and homosexual), adultery, violence against wives, and female circumcision. From a Christian perspective these forms of sexual expression remain sinful in any context.” (Called to Full Humanity, Section 1 Report, subsection 3)

Noting the voices of the victims of these forms of sexual immorality especially victims of predatory sexual behavior, prostitution, and violence in marriage, and our failure to address these dimensions in our focus on homosexuality, Archbishop Raffel concluded that “there is a self-serving blind spot for which we must repent lest the wrath of God fall upon us.” He was followed immediately by Archbishop Peter Jensen (Sydney, ret.) who invited all GAFCON members to first repent of our sins and to turn away from our own impurity before we call others to repent.

A remarkable moment of repentance followed—a time of quiet self-examination for repentance of our own sins and prayers for forgiveness. I was reminded of the challenges we are facing in ACNA in responding to accusations of clergy misconduct by victims of predatory sexual behavior and other abuses of position and power. To what degree are we experiencing the cutting edge of God’s wrath for our failures? What can we do to repent?

Our time of prayer was followed immediately by an unexpected presentation by GAFCON leaders regarding the financial challenges facing GAFCON. It was very surprising and sobering. The leadership challenged those present to respond with extraordinary giving to raise a multi-million dollar endowment to fund the ongoing operations of GAFCON. This “ask” raises questions about the operations of GAFCON. But in the spirit of Archbishop Raffel’s challenge from Colossians 3, is this financial crisis one of the ways God is trying to speak to and shape GAFCON in its operations, vision, and mission? Is there a blind spot in the way GAFCON has functioned for which there needs to be some repentance?

At the heart of true repentance lies the heart of God and the heart of sinful people like you and me. This was the subject of the Rev. Dr. Ashley Null’s plenary presentation on “The power to love: the heart of historic Anglicanism.” Dr. Null reminded us that the human heart requires repentance because it is at the center of human sin. It is also at the center of humanity’s restoration. Our insecurities lead us to act in sinful ways driven by the disordered desires of our hearts. The only way out of sin is to discover a burning love for God that turns us outward away from self.

Medieval Catholic repentance was a combination of fear and hope, but the English Reformers like Thomas Cranmer thought the love of God, rather than the fear of God, leads to true change. The Reformers realized that the sins we struggle with draw us away from the love of God and act as replacements for it. They recognized that the devil’s principal strategy is to make us doubt that God really loves us, to turn away from God’s love, and to feel good about ourselves through “the devices and desires of our own heart.” By ourselves, we do not have the capacity to love God rather than sin.

In returning to the power of the Gospel, the Reformers rediscovered the truth of I John 4:19: We love God because he first loved us. So, Cranmer makes this the central theme of our liturgies and prayers in the Book of Common Prayer! God’s love comes first and always, not our own works and efforts. Through these prayers, we are reminded constantly of the love of God for us whose voice in our hearts can never be extinguished.  Only God’s love for sinners can inspire sinners like you and me to love God more than sin!

This is the heart of remarkable repentance and the heart of true discipleship. This is what GAFCON stands for and what also must be at the heart of a reset Anglican Communion. We need GAFCON not only to remind us of this remarkable repentance but also to lead by example.”

– Received via e-mail.

Top photo: GAFCON.

What exactly happened at Synod on the Prayers for Love and Faith?

At Psephizo, Dr Ian Paul gives some much-needed clarity on what the Church of England General Synod voted for –

“In reflecting about anything in the Church of England, and especially in relation to General Synod, it is worth bearing in mind this mantra from the Troubles in Northern Ireland:

‘If you are not confused, you don’t really know what is going on.’

The newspapers seemed to be very clear what had happened:

‘The Church of England has approved blessings for gay couples for the first time. In a historic vote, the General Synod, the Church’s legislative body, voted to officially recognise same-sex couples on Thursday.’

You can understand why they would understand the vote in that way—since the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have both used that language. Unfortunately, that is not what happened!

The proposals that the bishops brought to Synod were that the doctrine of marriage, as a lifelong union between one man and one woman, would not change, but within the constraints of that they would propose some ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ which might be used to bless those people in same-sex relationships of some forms or other (as yet unspecified), but not function as a proclamation of God’s blessing on the relationship itself. (Please refer to my opening mantra!).

What Synod narrowly voted for, after about eight hours of debate on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning, was for the bishops to continue to work on this, with some serious qualifications. For ecclesiastical nerds, this is the wording of the final motion as amended …”

Later, he sums up,

“If this is any kind of ‘victory’ for those who wanted to moved forward, it looks very much like a Pyrrhic victory. ‘If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined’ (Plutarch’s account of Pyrrhus of Epirus).

The motion was passed, with a significant addition which explicitly limits the scope for manoeuvre, so the work will continue. But I think the cost has been immense damage to the reputation and standing of Justin Welby, the final nail in the coffin of the Anglican Communion, damage to ecumenical relations, a further loss of confidence in the leadership of bishops within the Church, and the first signs of fracture at local and diocesans levels. And for what gain?”

– Read it all here.

Image: Dr Paul speaks at General Synod on Wednesday.

Evangelism – A Priority in Your Parish?

by Neil Prott

There is nothing more wonderful we can do for anyone than introduce them to Jesus Christ.

However, this is not reflected in the programme of many parishes today.

No doubt there are numerous reasons for the current state of affairs. Our analysis should take in the Scriptural factors as well as the obvious ones.

Firstly, churches easily lose sight of the need to proclaim the gospel to the world. Whereas evangelism has often been regarded as a fringe activity, the Bible portrays it as a top priority involving every congregation, and every Christian. In a real sense, when God sent His Son into the world, He set our agenda.

Paul says,

“We proclaim Him, admonishing every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ.” (Colossians 1:28)

Secondly, there is supernatural opposition to Biblical evangelism. When the seventy returned to Jesus He said, (Luke 10:18) “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.” When the seed of the Word of God is sown, Satan is the one who “comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they may not believe and be saved.” (Luke 8:12)

Those who make evangelism a priority are at war! We dare not underestimate the enemy. We need to familiarise ourselves with his tactics, and with the powerful weapons that ensure his defeat.

Thirdly, effective evangelism requires prayer, commitment, training, spiritual toughness and resilience. Those who expect a comfortable, costless, and conflict-free experience, are not prepared to be the light of the earth.

It is worth asking whether our parishes are addressing these issues in their teaching and planning. Unless the leadership is aware of the real situation and taking steps to improve it, it is unlikely that it will change for the better.

 

THOUGHT BEFORE ACTION

Recognition of evangelism as a parish priority is a starting-point. Then we must resist the temptation to adopt a ‘quick-fix’ solution. Too often, church leaders latch onto ideas and implement programmes without considering the reasons and the content. Bible principles are primary. The methods are secondary.

It is helpful to think of evangelism as a mindset before it is anything else. Unless the activity is based on informed conviction, it will not continue. It is through careful and accurate Bible teaching that men and women become committed to the task.

 

WHAT IS EVANGELISM?

This question must be answered accurately to avoid the pitfalls.

If evangelism is presenting the Christian message in such a way that people will find it appealing and decide for Jesus, that will indicate a certain kind of strategy. If success and effectiveness is to be measured by numbers of decisions, we will gear our programme accordingly. Rather, we should understand that evangelism is the clear and faithful proclamation of the gospel to people where they are. This should govern our outlook, our training, and our programme.

To many in our generation, “evangelism” is an emotive word. Many put it in the same category as “indoctrination”, “propaganda” and “brainwashing”. Even among churchgoers, the idea of evangelism can bring on an attack of nerves. They have set ideas about what it is and how it is done. Such ideas are not always accurate.

Instead of assuming that everyone understands the concept, parish leaders should ensure that careful teaching is given. In Sunday services and other meetings it is necessary to spell out what evangelism is, and what it is not.

 

WHO DOES IT?

In the Bible, the local church – the Body of Christ – is a living organism whose members affect one another’s lives. It is an assembly of diverse but united people who have a common responsibility: “to declare the wonderful deeds of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvellous light”.

Some think of it as a kind of static religious association. Others put the chief emphasis on “worship”, or on nurture of the members. The Bible portrays “worship” as a life of grateful service. A major responsibility is the proclamation of the gospel. One of the chief reasons for nurture ministry is that Christians are being made strong for service. Therefore the local church is also a training-ground for those who have “the work of ministry”.

We need to remember that evangelism is God’s idea. It challenges the common assumptions in the church as well as the community. Only through the Word are Christians constantly reminded of their need to evangelise. Too often, church groups and activities go on year after year without evangelistic emphasis. This only encourages ‘survival mentality’.

Every Christian should be able to explain the faith to those who ask (1 Peter 3:15). Teachers need to be recruited and trained – 2 Timothy 2:12. Here the pattern is not ‘the minister’ adding to the congregation one-by-one, but members of the congregation being trained so that they in turn become trainers. In the instruction of the congregation there is a built-in principle of evangelism by extension. 

 

SEQUENTIAL THINKING

Much church activity has been ineffective because it was not well founded. Each one of us needs to get the order right. If the presuppositions are wrong, we must expect the final results to reflect that.

A given activity or a whole church programme may be evaluated by the following points. They are in order.

  1. Submission to, and right understanding of the Bible.
  2. Clear convictions.
  3. Careful analysis of the situation. Formulation of policy.
  4. Determination on long-range strategy.
  5. Goal setting and detailed planning.
  6. Choice of method.
  7. Action.

As we go through this process we must expect to take risks. If we do not, it is unlikely that we are exercising faith!

There must be a review of current activity and a willingness to make changes. In order to do something new and additional, we must relinquish something already in the programme. Fresh initiatives are seldom possible without sacrifice of some existing commitments.

The value of the new work may not be obvious for some time. We can expect a ‘tunnel period’ when it will seem to many that the parish is ‘winding down’. It is important to explain the situation and to labour on faithfully.

There should be special input to the core group. We must teach, encourage, enthuse, and support them. (The old Chinese proverb says: “If you are planning for ten years, plant trees. If you are planning for a hundred years, plant men.”)

 

OUTREACH IDEAS

Thought and encouragement should be given as to how Christians can reach out to others. Bridge-building ideas can be shared around. Individual efforts can be complemented by corporate projects designed to bring together Christians and their neighbours (e.g. “Focus on the Family” film series).

The Bible indicates that hospitality is everyone’s ministry. It is easy! Anyone can serve coffee and cake. Some have made it their specialty by inviting newcomers and visitors for lunch on Sunday. Who is looking for the opportunities in our church? Why worry about outreach strategies when we aren’t relating to the people who come under their own steam? 

 

SUSTAINED EVANGELISM

In general we think of evangelism as being either intense and short-term (confrontational), or long-term and less intense (relational). Most parishes cannot sustain confrontational evangelism. (e.g. you cannot visit the same houses every three months, or have a parish mission every six months.) In any case, the effectiveness of special evangelistic efforts is heavily influenced by the ongoing ‘climate’ in a given parish. When the special ‘one-off’ effort is over, it is important to maintain the momentum by putting the emphasis on relational evangelism. 

 

CLIMATE

History shows that whenever groups and organisations become absorbed in their own interests, they hinder evangelism in the church. The evangelistic emphasis in the preaching ministry must be echoed in the various groups that meet from week to week. Otherwise we will see the development of pockets of comfortable, introverted Christians. Eventually these effectively work against outreach.

In a church that is serious about evangelism, administration needs to be streamlined to release key people for outreach.

Too many or too large committees have the troops stagnating in the trenches when they should be on the spiritual offensive. A routine, long-standing committee can be vague and time-wasting. By contrast, the short-term committee with a specific purpose will often deliver the goods more efficiently. We need to use people-resources wisely.

At the same time we must make allowance for evangelism as an item of parish expenditure.

We can make great decisions and uphold evangelism as one of our top priorities. The Parish Council may come under heavy conviction about the importance of evangelism, but if it doesn’t feature in the budget, it is not seen to be important in the scheme of things. Literature, stationery, gifts to guest speakers, training films and booklets, and follow-up materials, all cost money.

 

SUNDAY SERVICES

Opinion varies as to whether evangelistic services are appropriate. Few would question the likelihood of unbelievers attending from time to time. What do they find? For many of them, a Sunday service is like another world. Those who have recently come to Christ through personal evangelism may also have reservations.

There is no virtue in unnecessarily complicated services. We should be at pains to encourage those who have been evangelised to feel welcome in the congregation. The welcome at the door is significant. We should have some of our best people doing this. There should be a personal expression of gladness and welcome. Thought should be given to minimising the number of books used by attenders. One should not need to be a librarian in order to follow and enjoy a service.

There should be a real desire to make the service intelligible to all present. As far as possible, ordinary language should be used in songs, sermons and prayers. Unnecessary jargon should be avoided and technical words briefly explained. Regulars should be ready to help those around them in finding their way through the prayer book. The use of overhead projectors can minimise the problem of finding song words.

We need to develop the habit of putting ourselves in the shoes of the ‘outsider’ who ‘just dropped in’. Preachers need to use suitable illustrations and generally sharpen communications skills. The effectiveness of communication might be checked with suitable people from time to time. Whenever a large number of visitors is expected, special attention should be given to the content and style of the service.

An evangelistic emphasis should often be evident in the Sunday services. We can never assume that all present are in the kingdom. The challenge is to present the gospel in a variety of ways so that those who need to repent will be encouraged to do so.

Sunday services should be relevant – as addressing real issues and needs. They should involve the whole person: mind, will, body, and emotions. Our meeting together should be a significant occasion marked by quality in content and personal demeanour. We should avoid the mundane at all costs.

Perhaps the greatest challenge in evangelism is not in discovering or devising suitable methods, but developing that compassion that will inevitably find ways of reaching men, women, and young people with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

– Neil Prott

Neil Prott was Rector of the parish of Kurrajong in Sydney and in his retirement continued to be active in encouraging ministers of the gospel across NSW.

Published in ACL News, February 1989 – and still relevant.

Ordinary Time

Ordinary:

adjective
with no special or distinctive features; normal; ”he sets out to depict ordinary people”.

Similar: usual, normal, standard, typical, stock, common, customary, habitual, accustomed, everyday, regular, routine.

example of usage:
not interesting or exceptional; commonplace.”he seemed very ordinary”

noun
what is commonplace or standard; ”their clichés were vested with enough emotion to elevate them above the ordinary”


I don’t know how may parishes in my beloved Armidale diocese observe the Church Calendar and so I know even less if there are parishes in the Sydney diocese that observe it, (my guess is about ten?). But for those of you who have a vague curiosity about it or foggy recollection of it, we are once again about to enter in what the church calendar refers to as Ordinary Time.

Taken as a unit, the season of Ordinary Time is the longest season of the liturgical year and is composed of 33 or 34 weeks (June to November).

Although it is long, and the liturgical colour is green (which I do not see the same way as everyone else thanks to being colour blind), it is far from ordinary, for it is the time where we strive to grow together as the Body of Christ and His witnesses in the world, to grow in our Love for God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The means to our growth is being grounded in the Word of God, being people of prayer, being nourished spiritually by the sacraments and being encouraged by others and encouraging each other.

So if you are one of those Anglican Christians who observes the church calendar, how are you going to spend the time, the ‘ordinary time’?

Here are some tips:

1. Remember that you follow the risen and ascended Lord of the Universe, the Lord Jesus! Who ascended into Heaven, not to rest, not to relax but to reign!

2. Be consistent in your time with God. This is why I find the Daily Office such a helpful thing. It gives me the rhythm and routine that I am made for and at the same time makes prayer and the word part of that rhythm and routine. (The Daily Office), is to put it simply, a time during the day where Christians prayer and read the Bible. It is based on the ancient practice of prescribed daily times of prayer.  Although the Prayer Book is not in vogue or used by most parishes, the Prayer book has a daily service in the morning and evening for this very purpose. Anglican theologian and author, the late  J.I. Packer says, “None of us will! ever find a better pattern for private prayer and Bible-reading anywhere than that offered by the Prayer Book’s own daily offices.”

3. Be committed to your church. Although since the Covid lockdown opportunities for online church are so much more readily available, there is no substitute for face to face fellowship and physical corporate worship. It is also easier than ever to have a laissez-fair attitude to church, since we can attend anywhere at anytime, with no checks.

4. Be open and honest with God about your sin. Do we have the determination to see ourselves before God as we are, without excuse? We must face “the things what we have done and the things that we have left undone.” How am I participating in the systems of the world and the flesh? In what ways have I given the devil place in my decisions? 

5. Get practical with your faith  None of us can expect to follow the Lord Jesus and simply have our own comforts baptised. Sacrifice has to cut deep. The Lord Jesus calls us all to radical discipleship and it is costly.  It costs to be an agent of the Kingdom in this world. Where are we letting go of the riches we cling to in order to use our time, energy, and resources to serve, the body of Christ and also to help those in need?

6. Be a contagious Christian The Christian faith is contagious, it is to be shared and spread. Pray that God will grant you boldness and opportunities to introduce people to the Lord Jesus. I am praying that this time will open people’s eyes to the folly of the cultural idols that are in our lives and will be receptive to the Lord Jesus and the abundant life he offers.

We may be in ordinary time, but following the Lord Jesus is far from ordinary!

– Joshua Bovis is the Vicar of St John The Evangelist in Tamworth.

Why we should say Yes to Sydney and Anglican!

“Twenty-five years into formal Anglican ministry in the Diocese of Sydney, I am still here because I want to be an Anglican clergyman.

Sure, I’d be equally content serving the Lord Jesus in a different type of work, but there is something marvellously compelling about wearing the badge that says both Sydney and Anglican.

I have identified five distinctive elements that have shaped both me and the church I serve that make it both something to be thankful for and a ministry worth unashamedly embracing for a lifetime. …”

– Nigel Fortescue writes at The Australian Church Record. First published in the ACR’s Winter Journal.

(Image: Christ Church St. Ives.)

The Vulnerables. Our Heritage Builders!

Attending a recent investment seminar with a group of retirees, I was asked whether I was a skier.

I was astonished that many of my fellow attendees said they were skiers! Then the speaker added, ‘a skier is one who Spends the Kids Inheritance’.

Government policy in Australia is that Pension Funds must be spent and not used as a means of passing on an inheritance.

Up till this year this policy has proved a boon for the travel industry.

Our population is ageing and this has led to the construction of many retirement villages (in the US there are whole gated suburbs which allow only limited access of children at certain times of the year). Even Church services have become filleted by the use of ‘traditional’ and ‘contemporary’ as descriptors.

The poet Coleridge wrote ‘what a melancholy world without children, what an in humane world without the aged’.

Today I want to write about the importance the Bible gives to the place of grandparents as heritage builders. The Bible only uses the term grandparent twice, but speaks often of forebears, fathers’ fathers and children’s children.

In Proverbs 4:3-9, Solomon says, ‘when I was a son with my father David, the only son of my mother, Bathsheba, my father, David, your grandfather, said to me and I pass this onto you’.

We may not value David’s fathering, with the affairs of state and defending his throne he must have been distracted, but Solomon remembers his influence and now passes it onto David’s grandchildren.

My father, your grandfather taught me:

Proverbs 4:5, get wisdom and insight whatever the cost. Prize her highly, make her your priority, v.8. Thus when God invited Solomon to ask for anything this urging of his father drove Solomon’s request for wisdom.

Proverbs 4:6, he told me in almost romantic terms, wisdom is to be loved, never forsaken, embrace her and stay faithful to her.

Proverbs 4:8, wisdom is the source of blessings beyond measure, v.9 she will bestow on you a beautiful crown.

That is what Solomon remembers of his father and passes onto his father’s grandchildren.

In his Tyndale commentary on Proverbs, Derek Kidner writes of the influence of the grandparent, that they demonstrate a love of the best things, transmitted by personal influence, along channels of affection!

Urge on our grandchildren that wisdom, referencing God, is the best foundation for a meaningful life.

I offer these reflections:

The most effective youth workers and counsellors at the Katoomba Youth conventions were a couple who were then in their 60’s. Age is no barrier to effectiveness. From my observation this couple remembered names, listened well, spoke but didn’t dominate the conversation and, as far as I know, never criticised the present in the light of the good old days. They were bright and outgoing.

Filleted services are understandable but unfortunate, the young and old are impoverished by this lack of access to one another. The generations need to mix, how else can we fulfil Psalm 78?

I had an elder who used to say, ‘I’m giving while I’m living, so I’m knowing where it’s going’.

The next generation will inherit wealth eventually, so why not direct it their way while you are alive? Encouraging Bible College gap years, short term mission visits, intensive years in Christian colleges, participation in ministry apprenticeship schemes, could all benefit from grand parental financial support.

PRAY! Regular prayer for grandchildren that they will be born from above and that in whatever vocation they choose they will faithful servants of the Kingdom.

In the first 9 chapters of Proverbs there are 4 direct quotations, the criminal gang in 1:11ff, the tragic son in 5:12ff, the seductive harlot in 7:14ff and here, the only positive words quoted, the words of Grandpa, 4:3-9.

They are well worth communicating by personal influence, along channels of affection.

David Cook.

(Image: St. Helen’s Bishopsgate.)

Guarding the faith in a changing world – Archbishop Glenn Davies

“Archbishop Glenn Davies has spoken of the challenges to Christian faith within the Anglican Church in his final Presidential Address to the 2019 Synod of the Diocese of Sydney.

Taking his inspiration from the Pastoral Epistles, which he said had been a regular source of comfort throughout his ministry, Dr Davies said ‘The first priority of the Archbishop of Sydney is to be a guardian of ‘the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). This is true of all those who hold office as a bishop in the church of God.’…”

– Russell Powell has the story on Archbishop Glenn Davies’ Presidential Address.

Read the full text here (PDF file). Well worth reading in full.

or watch the address, courtesy of Anglican Media Sydney.

Donald Robinson on the Origins of the Anglican Church League

by Lionel Windsor

History matters. It makes us question things we take for granted, it helps us to understand who we are, and it gives us a broader perspective on the issues we face today. One example – relevant for evangelical Anglicans, especially in Sydney – is an essay in Donald Robinson Selected Works, volume 4 (recently published by the Australian Church Record and Moore College).

The essay is called “The Origins of the Anglican Church League” (pp. 125–52). It’s a republication of a paper given in 1976 by Donald Robinson (1922–2018), former Moore College Vice-Principal and later Archbishop of Sydney. In the paper, Robinson traces some of the currents and issues that led to the formation of the Anglican Church League in the early twentieth century. The essay is classic Donald Robinson: full of surprises, yet definitely still worth reading today to help us gain perspective on issues for evangelical Anglicans past and present.

One surprise in the essay is that Robinson doesn’t say very much about the Anglican Church League itself! That’s because he’s not too sure about how it started. About two thirds of the way through the paper, after describing in some detail several predecessors to the ACL, he notes:

You will be wondering what has happened to my subject, the Origins of the Anglican Church League. To tell the truth, I am at a loss to give a clear explanation of its origins, or to trace the steps by which it was organised. (144)

So if you’re looking for a detailed history of the ACL over the twentieth century, this essay is probably not for you.[1] But if you’re looking for some key insights into issues that evangelical Anglicans faced in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and some helpful perspectives on where we’re at today, this essay is certainly worth delving into!

1. Issues leading to the ACL’s Formation

At the turn of the twentieth century, evangelical Anglicans were deeply concerned by two issues: an alarming increase in “ritualism”, and a (related) alarming increase in the authority of bishops. This might seem surprising to us today. When we look around at worldwide Anglicanism, we can take for granted that there is a lot of ritual, and that bishops have quite a lot of power. But it wasn’t always so – and in the nineteenth century, these things weren’t a “given”. Nevertheless, they were on the rise, and evangelicals were trying to stop them. Robinson mentions, for example, the Churchman’s Alliance, which was formed in 1893 as a response to increasing “ritualism” and as a counterpoint to societies that had formed to promote Anglo-Catholicism (133–35). The purpose of the Church Alliance was “To maintain and diffuse abroad the principles Catholic and Protestant of our holy religion” (134).

Robinson devotes much of his paper to a group called the Protestant Church of England Union (PCEU), which owed much to the efforts of Canon Mervyn Archdall (135–39). Significant for the PCEU was promotion of Reformation preaching, and regular prayer meetings were a core of their work (139, 142). The key issues the PCEU faced and sought to address were (140):

As I mentioned above, we might feel these things are a “given” for today’s Anglican Communion. But at the time, Lambeth and the power of Canterbury weren’t so central for Anglicanism. And evangelicals saw the increasing power of Lambeth and Canterbury as a real problem. The object of the new PCEU (1898) was:

to maintain and extend the efficiency of the Church of England as the original representative of evangelical truth and apostolic order in our country, and as a witness to the principles of the Reformation. (141–42)

So the PCEU promoted constitutional government over against the authority of bishops (144).

2. The ACL’s Formation

What of the ACL itself? According to Robinson, it was founded at some point between 1909–1912, around the election of Archbishop Wright, though the exact circumstances weren’t easy for Robinson to discern (145).  Constitutionally, the ACL was affiliated with the English National Church League (NCL), who saw prayer book revision and ritualism as key issues that needed to be addressed (146). It appears that the ACL started as a group that was a little more “centrist” than the PCEU. Robinson writes:

In 1914 we find Canon Gerard D’Arcy Irvine saying that the ACL “stood for central churchmanship, which implied spiritual, strong, and scholarly churchmanship, and fought for the principles of the Reformation upon which the character of future generations depended”… His use of the term “central churchmanship”… reflected the view of the evangelicals that their position was not a partisan position, but was true to the central and authentic character of the Church of England as “catholic, apostolic, protestant, and reformed”. (148)

However, as time went on, conservative evangelicals realised the need for the ACL to be even stronger on Reformation principles against a growing trend of liberalism. Thus, by 1933 the ACL had come to a place where it was opposing not only ritualism, but also liberalism (149).

Even though the ACL was (and still is) constituted as a national body, Robinson notes that the ACL’s main influence has always been within Sydney:

It does not seem to have succeeded to any extent as a national body, though it promoted consultation and offered advice in connection with some elections of country bishops in NSW. Without doubt it consolidated the strength of evangelicals in Sydney, and almost all diocesan leaders have been associated with it at some time or other. (151)

3. What can we learn?

Robinson’s paper is not a comprehensive historical treatise, but it is a fascinating historical reflection. What can we learn from this history?

Firstly, we can gain some worthwhile historical perspective. Ritualism, the authority of bishops, and liberalism are not simply “givens” for Anglicanism! They do not define historic Anglicanism; in fact, not too long ago, they were innovations that needed to be protected against. This perspective can give us renewed courage to continue to defend, promote, and maintain historic, evangelical, reformed Anglicanism.

Secondly, this history reminds us that constitutional, rather than episcopal, government, is definitely worth maintaining and promoting. In our own situation in Sydney, where historically the bishops have by and large been friendly to the evangelical faith, we could feel we can relax and hand more power over to the bishops for the sake of efficiency. But bishops, like all of us, are fallible human beings. Increasing episcopal power is something to continue to watch, and we should be alert to the need to maintain constitutional government.

How do we do that? By all of us (clergy and laity) getting in there, doing the work of governance, finding people for committees to help make decisions for the good of the gospel in the Diocese, and not leaving it all up to the bishops. Robinson’s paper reminds us that the work of the ACL continues to be a significant one for the cause of the gospel and the salvation of men and women, in our own city and diocese, and beyond.

The Rev Dr Lionel Windsor
ACL Council Member and Moore College Lecturer.

Endnotes:

[1] Some further research on these matters has been done by others. For a general history of the ACL, see Ed Loane’s talk at the ACL Centenary dinner in 2009. See also Judd & Cable, Sydney Anglicans, Sydney: AIO, 2000 (Stephen Judd’s PhD was on the ACL).

Marriage Remembrances

“As I approach another marriage milestone, it’s worth remembering the journey of family life and the priorities that come with being a family man. I don’t write the ‘Family Matters’ column, but over the weeks ahead I want to offer some insights into family that I hope will prove helpful.

My wife and I, thankfully enjoyed good role models as both my wife’s parents and mine had faithful marriages full of love. We often reflect with thankfulness that we did not experience abuse or violence and we grieve for others for whom abuse and violence was their only experience of home life. In many ways we are products of our up-bringing and we have committed ourselves to walk in the good example of those who raised us. To those less fortunate than us the importance of finding good role models cannot be overemphasised as well as reading good literature on family.

It is why church, among other organisations, can make such a good contribution to family life…”

– Rick Lewers, Bishop of Armidale, begins a series on family for his local newspaper.

The second instalment, on Fathering, has been also been published.

Archbishop of Sydney’s Letter to churches

The Diocese of Sydney has published the text of the letter (dated Wednesday October 11, 2017) from Archbishop Glenn Davies to Sydney Anglican Churches. It was also read at Synod.

We reproduce it here for your convenience. It is also available from SydneyAnglicans.net, and as a PDF download.   Read more

← Previous Page — Next Page →