Standing or Falling

Any of my readers who are married may know the painfully slow process of working out who to invite to the wedding. If we invite this X, then we have to invite several other people from the same circle of friends, and so on. Of course, the most angst and emotion comes from discerning which family members to invite. Do we invite great uncle Fred who I haven't seen in ten years? Yes? No? My parents had a nasty habit of doing this - which was a rather drawn out process because they kept changing their mind every few weeks.

But it is an important issue - who do we invite to our wedding celebration? And I would suggest that it is an important issue in the bible as well. Who would God invite to his feast? OR if you say it more theologically, who is part of the covenant family (and how can you tell)? It is an issue that we see Israel's prophets wrestling with (cf. Habakkuk, Isaiah 1-12). It is an issue that the early church struggled with (cf. Acts 15, Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, etc.).

This is still an issue that the church in the 21st century is still grappling with. The lack of resolution to the current (and ever-continuing) crisis in the Anglican Communion can be traced back to a failure to tackle this crucial issue.

Crucial? It is only the doctrine which, to paraphrase Luther, the Church stands or falls. Luther's quote has been troubling me for some months. It is often thrown around to support the idea that Justification by Faith (JBF) is the Christian gospel. I don't agree with that anymore. Which is say that I would want to refine the statement and say that JBF is the major implication of the gospel, taking the gospel to mean that Jesus Christ is Lord.

However, I realized last week on the train (which is were I do all my thinking) that JBF is the doctrine by which the church really does stand or fall because is the great ecumenical doctrine. It is JBF that determines the character of the church - what it is to look like. It is JBF that says "If you're saved by grace, then you need to church by grace too" (cf. Romans 15.7) If you get JBF wrong, then your church may indeed just fall over.

If this is true, then church unity is not something to be thrown away lightly. We are united together through the faithfulness of Christ. We are united together in Jesus, who loved us so much that he died for each and every one of us. Upon this does the church stand or fall.

There is more to come...

No Sense of Community

"Evangelicals have nothing to say about community." This is what I was told in a seminar on the rise and fall of liberal theology that I attended last week. Evangelicals are so concerned about the atonement, that they have nothing to add to current debates about community. If you were to classify all the great Christian doctrines, they would fit into three categories: 1. The doctrine of God; 2. The doctrine of Salvation; and 3. The doctrine of the church. And I was told that evangelicals, for the sake of being able to get along with each other, neglect the first and third doctrines and concentrate solely on the second category. (With the effect that the first category has become the domain of Romans and Greeks, and the third category is becoming the domain Pentecostals).

Why is this a problem? Well, with the decline of liberalism and modernity (and it's quest for epistemology) post modern concerns are becoming more and more prevalent. These concerns are not so much about authority (as modernism has been), but a desire for justice, authenticity, and community. And evangelicalism, as a cultural and historical product of modernism, has little to say to these postmodern concerns.

Part of our problem, as I see it, as the way we think of church. In reaction against high churchman-ship, and in order to support fellow evangelicals from variant ecclesiology, we are willing to label almost anything as a church if it has more than one person and a bible involved. I can be sitting in a cafe with a friend, one of us pulls out a bible and - BAM - we've turned into church. It is just too reductionist.

I've felt the solid boot to the head from this reductionism this week as debate as swirled around about the up coming CMS Summer School (start here, then go here).* You see, for two nights there will be a speaker with over 30 of mission experience giving talks on the current state of world mission. Although the bible may be refereed to - these aren't bible talks, John Woodhouse will be giving those in he mornings. The problem of course is that the speaker is female, and if you reduce everything to church, then heaven forbid that you should have a women teaching in a mixed congregation.

From what I understand, CMS, Summer School, Eu et al aren't churches in and of themselves. Although they may have the same essence as a Church (presence of our Lord Jesus Christ through the ministry of Word and Spirit), they have a different purpose. And may I add, that it would be a pretty lousy church that met only once a year. no, there is much more that could be said about this. What I want to know is can evangelicalism have something to say about authenticity community and justice? I would have thought that a biblically robust doctrine of the atonement would have something to say ie welcome one another as Christ welcomed you etc. Or is evangelicalism as the cultural and historical movement that has existed for the past two centuries doomed to die with the great beast of modernism. I for one, certainly hope not.**


* These link from Craig's blog are only intended to be an example of the type of debate that is currently happening, and are not a comment on Craig himself, who has received several personal attacks over his views this week.

**Although I have to admit that I would like to see reform in several areas of evangelicalism - hence this post.

Reformation Polka

This comes on the recommendation of Tim Roberetson, supposedly to celebrate Reformation Day on October 31. Enjoy:

Celebrating a year of HEBEL

On 10 October 2006 a young punk, in reaction to an adverse decision about his career, started this blog - not with too much purpose in mind. It survived the high infant mortality rate for blogs, despite never finishing any of the series of posts it started (i.e. James, British hymns + nationalism, etc.). It had lots of NT Wright, a bit of O'Donovan, and one quote about a Moore College mission that was posted somewhat illegally. It has been a blog that has had to survive a poor sense of grammar, vocabulary and an inept spell checker. Often it has been a pale imitation Michael Jensen, Justin Moffatt, and Byron Smith, and suffered from the rise of Facebook and my lack of internet access this past six months. Hebel has been a blog that has taken a healthy interest in ecclesiastical doctrine, and to celebrate (if indeed there is anything worth celebrating), Hebel will feature this month a series on Church unity - a Gospel truth.

If someone comes up with a snappy title for this series (like Byron's Not the end of the World series), let me know. And stay tuned for the first post of the series: Church Unity = Jesus is Lord.

"...and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Jesus - Matthew 16.18

Church History and Unity

"We spend most of our time studying the history of the reformation. This is in turn informs the way we do church and relate to poeple from other churches. We have a whole heap of baggage from the reformation, when the church was literally at war with each other. Instead, we should spend more time reading and studying early church history. It's an overlooked part of our history, but extremley important. It is when many of our major doctrines were first articulated and developed. And church leaders did so in unity and consultation with leaders from other church cultures and contexts. Maybe we should look to the history of the early church to inform how we should relate to Roman Catholics and other groups."

- Peter F. Jensen, at a recent gathering of MTS people for the Newcastle region of NSW.

Well, I was impressed by this statement that Peter made.

Colin Chapman on Islam and Christianity

I was able to go to Colin Chapman's Cross and the Cresecnt course that was run by Colin a few weeks ago in Sydney. It was a great time exploring both religions, and although there were a few things Colin said that I disagreed with (such as where Muslims fit into salvation) , the big thing that I was struct by is this:

The Qu'ran is not a muslim version of the Bible. It is actually the muslim equivalent of Jesus.

That explains a lot I think in regards to apologetics etc.

Living out Scripture meme

Andrew tagged me a fair while ago in the 'living out scripture meme'. This is my first ever meme, and I'm supposed to: “that verse or story of scripture which is important to you, which you find yourself re-visiting time after time”. So here goes.

My piece of scripture isn't as amazing as some other selections have been, but it represents a fond time in my life, when I was enjoying the ministry I was in and growing, I think, quite significantly as a christian (which isn't to say that I am not growing or enjoying life today). And my selection of scripture is a piece of the Bible that is terribly important.

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, ²³⁴⁵⁶

7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints:

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

I find Paul's introduction to his letter to the church in Rome as the piece that I time and again come back to. It was through studying this passage that I really came to understand the Christian gospel. It was such a breakthrough for me to realize that the gospel isn't first and foremost a message (or a philosophy), but the event of Jesus life, death and resurrection - the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Having been raised to understand the gospel to be a couple of stick-figures in a box, this was quite refreshing for me. And it was by studying this passage that all whole heap of other things fell into place. such as the context and structure of the epistle to the Romans, and the significance of 'The Resurrection' to both the early church and Christian thought and life.

However, what my friends and I found most liberating was to understand that the gospel isn't justification by faith first and foremost, but Jesus Christ is Lord. As great a doctrine as JBF is, I think we found ourselves breathing a sigh of relief when we discovered the gospel is what it is. It was significant for us then to also think through the implications of the all-encompassing Lordship of Jesus - that he really is Lord, lord of all the universe (the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name) with implications not just for me just for now; and lord of my life. What a paradigm shift it was to realize that living the Christian life is to live out the lordship of Christ in every aspect of my life.

These are some of the theological reasons why I love this passage, but I also love it because I was studying it at a time of 'peak experiences in my life': studying Romans at uni in small group leaders training, the eu mission that year, hearing some great talks on Colossians in Public Meetings and running the PM team at the time, and reading a great book that also helped change my life and praxis. I think Romans 1.1-7 is a great passage. And I praise God for his faithfulness in acting to restore his creation in and through his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

I tag Alison, Michael, Andrew R, Tim, and Iain.

Parish Boundaries in the Inner West

View Larger Map

St Bart's Day

Today is St Bartholomew's Day (the only apostle who doesn't have an Anglican church in Sydney named after him). Being the feast of St Bart makes today the anniversary of the massacre in France 435 years ago (1572), when thousands upon thousands of protestant Christians (the Huguenots) were massacred by their fellow French-men. Although occurring at the height of the French religious war, which was to linger on almost to 1600, the massacre was the straw that broke the camel's back for French protestantism. Although winning official tolerance with the ascension of Henry IV, the Huguenots were became weak, divided and within one hundred years of the Edict of Nancy, the French Protestants were outlawed and force to flee to other European countries and South Africa.

Remember the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre. It was so horrendous that even Ivan the Terrible of Russia is said to have denounced it.

France today is a country that has a deep need Spirit of God to work at work in transforming people's lives. 70% of the national is (nominally) Roman Catholic, 10% is Muslim, and less than 3% would describe themselves as evangelical Christian. Please pray for the Lord of the Harvest to raise up laborers to work in the Harvest. Please pray that communities of the risen Lord Christ would be gathered together and shine the light of the gospel into France - the gospel that brings new life, new meaning, new hope and new creation.

O'Donovan on resurrection

In proclaiming the resurrection of Christ, the apostles proclaimed also the resurrection of mankind in Christ; and in proclaiming the resurrection of mankind, the proclaimed the renewal of all creation with him. The resurrection of Christ in isolation from mankind would not be a gospel message. The resurrection of mankind apart from apart from creation would be a gospel of a sort, but of a purely Gnostic and world-denying sort which is far from the gospel that the apostles actually preached.[…] So the resurrection of Christ directs our attention back to the creation which it vindicates.

- Oliver O'Donovan. Quoted by Rob Forsyth, AnCon 1998 "Resurrection - the dawning of hope...".

lay ministry part 2

It's been a while since my last past on this subject. Since then I have had some time to think about what I wrote, talk to the 3 people who still read this blog, and try and come up with a way forward.

To recap, I think the very fact that churches can afford to pay several people to do either full or part time ministry is a great gift from God. In fact, given the way that we constitute the church today, many churches wouldn't be able to survive without them. 

However, employing a large staff team does present the church with some challenges - namely, it shoots down ministry by "lay" people (many of whom are committed to church longer than two years). When I was co-ordinating Public Meetings for the EU, I was excited by the second purpose of public meetings, which is to involve as many Christians in the uni as possible in the PM ministry by doing simple tasks such as welcoming or postering. My staff worker, Mike Kwan, would tell me that this would help Christians take ownership, not just of PMs, but of the EU too. My point here is that churches don't nurture and grow lay people and their gifts, it will adversely affect the ownership the feel towards their church, and hence the church's ministry at large.

So my first point here is don't smother lay ministry - work (in partnership) with them, but don't smother them. Their is one church I have in mind where the members have stopped welcoming new people, because early on in the church life it appeared that only the staff members were allowed to. They would push into conversations church members would have with new people, and act as though "only they had the gift of welcoming." Don't smother the laity. Another church is full of young, innovative ministry strategists who see the needs of the church, and would like to start new ministries where there is nothing. However, as all ministry decisions are made by the staff team only, very few of these ideas come to fruition. This has only lead to angst and dissatisfaction with the church. Don't smother the lay ministry.

My second point, which may now require another post, is that the key to lay ministry lies in developing lay pillars. This is a term Andrew Katay used at Grads Con 2005. Katay described lay pillars as the secret  behind every ministry, i.e. churches can't live without them (I write this line from memory. I'm at AnCon right now working for CMS, so don't have paper on me). I think that Katay has a point here. Churches need lay pillars. And in Sydney and other places around the globe, we need to nurture, grow and develop these people. So my question is, what would a lay pillar look like in a congregation where the average age is under 30. What would a lay pillar look like at 7pm St John's? Or in 7.15pm at Barney's? Or in retro-church Leichhardt? Or wherever? 

Let me know what you think.

PS As I  mentioned, I'm writing this from AnCon today. It's being an interesting experience in student ministry and in looking at how the EU has changed since I was a student (this time last year).

PS 2. 15 points for explaining the relevance of the picture to this post

A spot of Volf

'In situations of conflict Christians often find themselves accomplices in war, rather than agents of peace. We find it difficult o distance ourselves from our selves and our own culture and so we echo its reigning opinions and mimic its practices. As we keep the vision of God's future alive, we need to reach out across the firing lines and join hands with our brothers and sisters on the other side. We need to let them pull us out of the enclosure of our own culture and its own peculiar set of prejudices so that we can read afresh the "one Word of God." In this way we might become once again the salt of the world ridden by strife.'

Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, p 54.

I like Volf's concept of ecumenical catholicity. Reading it in book club with some MTC students, some of whom thought Volf was arguing for holding hands with Hindu's and Jedi's, it was great for me to clarify his thesis: that the church needs to keep listening to other parts of the body (the church in other cultures) to make sure it doesn't turn the proclamation of 'Jesus Christ is Lord' into the Australian dream, or American democracy, or the German nationalism that Volf used as an example (that Barmen Declaration is ace).

Coming from a church culture that doesn't always receive top marks for listening to Christians who are 'different', particularly in light of the mess that our international network is in (which you can about here), we need to make sure that we keep listening to and engaging with our brothers and sisters around the globe. A declaration of independence from each other - to whom we belong in and through Jesus has done to us and for us (Bonhoeffer) - would be disastrous.

"Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind." 1 Peter 3.8

1 in 10 Christians live with persecution

For as many as 200 million people, being a Christian can mean:

• You live in daily fear of violence, abuse, rape or even death
• Just talking to a non-Christian friend about Jesus could land you in jail
• You carry a social stigma affecting the jobs you can get, or how your children are treated in school

These people are our family. While they are the one in ten, we are the other nine. We live with freedoms they are often denied, such as to worship together in public, own a Bible or even repair the roof of the church building.

That’s why Barnabas Fund is launching this new campaign – to call on the other nine to care more for their persecuted brothers and sisters.

Because we are the ones with the power to make a difference.

Use the links below to discover how, through Barnabas Fund, you and your church can be there for your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Order your The Other Nine resource pack which includes a DVD, Ideas Booklet, Leaflets and prayer cards together with a poster. All designed to help you get your church on board. Order your pack today.

Pray - Join thousands in lifting the persecuted Church before God. And enhance the prayer life of your church or home group.

Understand - Knowledge is essential if we are to love our neighbours as Jesus showed us. Barnabas Fund provides resources, training and information to help you and your church respond to Islam in an intelligent, compassionate, Christian way. Find out more…

Give - Through Barnabas Fund you and your church can do so much for Christians who suffer for their love of Jesus. Donate online now.

World maps of persecution

Africa (3.6 MB)
Central Asia (3.6 MB)
South Asia (3.8 MB)
The Middle East (3.6 MB)

Church leadership and the laity

Something that I and a few friends who have recently moved into Sydney have noticed is that churches in the city presently have a lack of lay leadership. Instead, they have an ever increasing staff team - mostly made up of mts type workers or catechists or something. I have noticed this in several churches I have visited recently, and a friend of mine has noticed it in the particular AFES group that he belongs too.

What this would appear to say about our churches is that we think all problems can be solved by the hiring of new staff. Sadly, this prevents the development of lay leadership within congregations. Actually, and potential leadership from the laity with churches fails to blossom becauser they are the people most likely hired as staff.

for my mind, the most obviosu (but not only) example of this is the fact that I have seen very few (ie none at all) lay people lay service or preach in the city. Coming from the mountains, I and a friend of mine have found it quite bizarre.

Of course, I am sure that churches in the city provide excellent training and experience for their staff. But it is a short term solution, because it fails not only to train all people in the church to exercise their gifts, but also stops people from taking responsibilty. My AFES friend mentioned that some faculties have felt the lack of pastoral care in their group, and have created a pastoral care team for the faculty. And whilst it has marginally increased the amount of pastoral care that is happening, it has also discouraged everyone else from doing pastoral care because they are not on the pastoral care team.

There is another church that springs to my mind way out west that has quite a respectable reputation in being able to train and equip their plethora of apprentices. The only problem was that the church had a string of these people come in for two years and then disappear as quickly as they arrived back to Sydney. And this left many people within the church with a lack of ownership.

I'm sure there is a solution out there, especially in Sydney of all places, the new home for the "priesthood of all believers." I'm just not sure what it is yet.

"The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, the Holy Ghost incomprehensible, the whole thing incomprehensible!"

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Now say that another 12 times this year and you're set.

A slow day at the office

There is an interesting post over at Alistar that is worth checking out. Here is a snippett:

"We live in a youth-driven society. Whether in the media or on the web, older people are hardly visible. For instance, the very fact that most of our theological discussions occur online prevents most elderly people from having any active voice in the conversation. When older people appear in the media, they are often ridiculed. Their style, their tastes, their knowledge of the world, their ethics and their values are all out of date. The new and the young are to be celebrated and the old is to be sidelined and dismissed.

The Church should be one place where a radically different culture prevails. It should be a place where older generations are honoured and treated with respect, even when they are wrong. Biblical societies are generally ruled and led by elders, not by young turks. Many contemporary evangelicals have forgotten this and their churches are driven by the desires of their young people and the most influential leaders are under the age of 40 (ideally, it seems to me, churches should not be led by people under the age of 50)."

This is also worth checking out, especially for the Barthians out there.

Safer to pig a pin in King Herod's court...

I grabbed this on the SMH site:

An Israeli archaeologist has found the tomb of King Herod, the legendary builder of ancient Jerusalem and the Holy Land, at a hilltop compound south of the city, the Hebrew University has announced.

The tomb is at a site called Herodium, a flattened hilltop in the Judean Desert, clearly visible from southern Jerusalem.

Herod built a palace compound in the hill, and researchers have discovered his burial site there, the university said late on Monday local time (Tuesday morning AEST).

The university hoped to keep the find a secret until Tuesday local time (Wednesday AEST), when it planned a news conference to disclose the find in detail, but the Haaretz daily found out about the discovery and published an article on its website.

Herod became the ruler of the Holy Land under the Romans around 74 BC. The wall he built around the Old City of Jerusalem during the time of the Jewish Second Temple is the one that can be seen today.

He also undertook massive construction projects in Caesaria, Jericho, the hilltop fortress of Massada and other locations.

Haaretz said the discovery was made at Herodium, the hilltop compound, by archaeologist Ehud Netzer, a Hebrew University professor who has been working at the site since 1972.

It has long been assumed that Herod was buried at Herodium, but decades of excavations failed to turn up the site until now. The first century historian Josephus Flavius described the tomb and Herod's funeral procession.

Haaretz reported that the tomb was found in an area that had not been explored, between the two palaces Herod built on the site. Herod died in 4 BC. in Jericho.

Herodium was one of the last strong points held by Jewish rebels fighting against the Romans, and it was conquered and destroyed by Roman forces in AD 71, a year after they destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem.

Rowan Williams on the State

"The modern state needs a robust independent tradition of moral perception with which to engage. Left to itself, it cannot generate the self-critical energy that brings about change – change, that is, for the sake of some positive human ideal. As a guarantor of security, internal and external, and increasingly as a broker and provider of people’s ‘market’ requirements, it is not equipped to work as moral forum. The increasing assimilation of the state, in ways that would have startled Wilberforce’s contemporaries, to the provider of goods demanded by a population means that the primary question is likely to be about the means of provision rather than the ideology cal desirability of what is demanded. Quite understandably, the experience of command economies in the twentieth century and the appalling oppressiveness of systems that have had clear definitions of ideological desirability have strengthened the case for a severely neutral state apparatus and have reinforced the growth of the ‘market state’. But this leaves it with a set of questions about its moral legitimacy that cannot be left indefinitely ignored."

Rowan Williams

English Hymns and meta-narrative

England is a story. Is a story that has come define the sceptered island and to a large part, the English speaking western world. It is a story that is full of contradictions. Notably, this story is founded upon the principles of freedom, liberty and equity; however it is fed and sustained by the story of empire.
The English story is constituted and defined by its own meta-narrative - which is most commonly expressed in the national and anthems of England.
This story tells of England, the divinely appointed vicegerent who is allotted as the steward on this globe of freedom and right, of morals and justice. Not only is this the "White Man's burden", it is every decent Englishman's burden - to bring "civilisation to the uncivilised"; to resist the tyranny of European tyrants, whether it be 1940, 1805, 1588, or 60AD; to set men free and stave off the encroaches of popery; to challenge the ugly power off rule at home (1215, 1641, 1688), and give power to those who don't have it (begrudgingly in 1830 and 1833). This is the story of Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the Armada, Waterloo, the Charist movement and so much more. This is a land of hope and glory, where the people shall never be slaves, and the King, crowned as Solomon to the splendour of Handel, shall be sent victorious and reign happy and glorious over his new Israel.
This is the English story, well, at least what we've been told for the past three centuries. This next series of posts will analyse how famous English Hymns and Anthems were written as an embodiment of this story. Until then, ponder these words:

When Britain first at Heav'n's command

Arose from out the azure main;

Arose, arose from out the azure main;

This was the charter, the charter of the land,

And guardian angels sang this strain:

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!

Britons never, never, never will be slaves!

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!

Britons never, never, never will be slaves!

10 points for the identity and location of the statue. Another 10 points for the irony in the symbolism of the statue.

This is my Father's World

This is my Father’s world, and to my listening ears
All nature sings, and round me rings the music of the spheres.
This is my Father’s world: I rest me in the thought
Of rocks and trees, of skies and seas;
His hand the wonders wrought.

This is my Father’s world, the birds their carols raise,
The morning light, the lily white, declare their Maker’s praise.
This is my Father’s world: He shines in all that’s fair;
In the rustling grass I hear Him pass;
He speaks to me everywhere.

This is my Father’s world. O let me ne’er forget That though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father’s world: the battle is not done:
Jesus Who died shall be satisfied,
And earth and Heav’n be one.

This is my Father’s world, dreaming, I see His face.
I ope my eyes, and in glad surprise cry, “The Lord is in this place.”
This is my Father’s world, from the shining courts above,
The Beloved One, His Only Son,
Came—a pledge of deathless love.

This is my Father’s world, should my heart be ever sad?
The lord is King—let the heavens ring. God reigns—let the earth be glad.
This is my Father’s world. Now closer to Heaven bound,
For dear to God is the earth Christ trod.
No place but is holy ground.

This is my Father’s world. I walk a desert lone.
In a bush ablaze to my wondering gaze God makes His glory known.
This is my Father’s world, a wanderer I may roam
Whate’er my lot, it matters not,
My heart is still at home.

Malt­bie D. Bab­cock, 1901.

H/T the OC Supertones.

Augustine on love and worship

What do I love when I love you? Not the beauty of any body or the rhythm of time in its movement; not the radiance of light, so dear to our eyes; not the sweet melodies in the world of manifold sounds; not the perfume of flowers, ointments and spices; not manna and not honey; not the limbs so delightful to the body’s embrace: it is none of these things that I love when I love my God. And yet when I love my God I do indeed love a light and a sound and a perfume and a food and an embrace – a light and sound and perfume and food and embrace in my inward self. There my soul is flooded with a radiance which no space can contain; there a music sounds which time never bears away; there I smell a perfume which no wind disperses; there I taste a food that no surfeit embitters; there is an embrace which no satiety severs. It is this that I love when I love my God
And yet, when I love him, I do indeed love a certain kind of ligh, a voice, a fragrance, a food, an embrace; but this love takes place in my inner person, where my soul is bathed in light that is not bound by space; when it listens to sound that time never takes away; when it breathes in a fragrance which no breeze carries away; when it tastes food which no eating can diminish; when it clings to an embrace which is not broken when desire is fulfilled. This is what I love when
I love my God.

Confessions 10.6

H/T Byron. 10 points for the location of the picture

Going Beyond Evangelicalism (part 1 of 2)

This interview with John Stott was originally published in 'Working
Together', the magazine of the Australian Evangelical Alliance. The
second half will be included in the May 2007 issue of Oz-e-Con.



QUESTION (TIM STAFFORD): AS YOU SEE IT, WHAT IS EVANGELICALISM, AND
WHY DOES IT MATTER?



JOHN STOTT: An evangelical is a plain, ordinary Christian standing in
the mainstream of historic, orthodox, biblical Christianity. So we can
recite the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed without crossing our
fingers. We believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ and in the
Holy Spirit. Having said that, there are two particular things we like
to emphasise: the concern for authority on the one hand and salvation
on the other.



For evangelical people, our authority is the God who has spoken
supremely in Jesus Christ. And that is equally true of redemption or
salvation. God has acted in and through Jesus Christ for the salvation
of sinners.



What God has SAID in Christ and in the biblical witness to Christ, and
what God has DONE in and through Christ, are both, to use the Greek
word, 'hapax', meaning once and for all. There is a finality about
God's word in Christ, and there is a finality about God's work in
Christ. To imagine that we could add a word to his word or add a work
to his work is extremely derogatory to the unique glory of our Lord
Jesus Christ.



YOU DIDN'T MENTION THE BIBLE, WHICH WOULD SURPRISE SOME PEOPLE.



STOTT: I did actually but you didn't notice it. I said Christ and the
biblical witness to Christ. But the really distinctive emphasis is on
Christ. I want to shift conviction from a book, if you like, to a
person. As Jesus himself said, the Scriptures bear witness to me.
Their main function is to witness to Christ.



PART OF YOUR IMPLICATION IS THAT EVANGELICALS ARE NOT TO BE A
NEGATIVELY INSPIRED PEOPLE. OUR REAL FOCUS OUGHT TO BE THE GLORY OF
CHRIST.



STOTT: I believe that very strongly. We believe in the authority of
the Bible because

Christ has endorsed its authority. He stands between the two
testaments. As we look back to the Old Testament, he has endorsed it.
As we look forward to the New Testament, we accept it because of the
apostolic witness to Christ. He deliberately chose and appointed and
prepared the apostles, in order that they might have their unique
apostolic witness to him. I like to see Christ in the middle,
endorsing the old, preparing for the new. Although the question of the
New Testament canon is complicated, in general we are able to say that
canonicity is apostolicity.



HOW HAS THE POSITION OF EVANGELICALS CHANGED DURING YOUR YEARS OF MINISTRY?



STOTT: I look back – it's been sixty-one years since I was ordained –
and when I was ordained in the Church of England, evangelicals in that
church were a despised and rejected minority. The bishops lost no
opportunity to ridicule us. Over the intervening sixty years, I've
seen the evangelical movement in England grow in size, in maturity,
and certainly in scholarship, and therefore I think in influence and
impact. We went from a ghetto to being on the ascendancy, which is a
very dangerous place to be.



CAN YOU COMMENT ON THE DANGERS?



STOTT: Pride is the ever-present danger that faces all of us. In many
ways it is good for us to be despised and rejected. I think of Jesus'
words, 'Woe unto you when all men speak well of you.' Going back to
the 'hapax', it's a very humbling concept. The essence of
evangelicalism is very humbling. You have William Temple saying, 'The
only thing of my very own which I contribute to redemption is the sin
from which I need to be redeemed.'



WE HAVE ALSO SEEN AN IMMENSE GROWTH OF THE CHURCH WORLDWIDE, LARGELY
AMONG EVANGELICAL LINES. WHAT DO YOU SEE AS ITS SIGNIFICANCE?



STOTT: This enormous growth is a fulfilment of God's promise to
Abraham in Genesis 12:1-4. God promised Abraham not only to bless him,
not only to bless his family or his posterity, but through his
posterity to bless all the families of the earth. Whenever we look at
a multi-ethnic congregation, we are seeing a fulfilment of that
amazing promise of God. A promise made by God to Abraham 4,000 years
ago is being fulfilled right before our very eyes today.



YOU KNOW THIS GROWING CHURCH PROBABLY AS WELL AS ANY WESTERNER DOES.
I WONDER HOW YOU EVALUATE IT.



STOTT: The answer is 'growth without depth'. None of us wants to
dispute the extraordinary growth of the church. But it has been
largely numerical and statistical growth. And there has not been
sufficient growth in discipleship that is comparable to the growth in
numbers.

Guest Rant by Michael Wells

Today, John Woodhouse said that acceptance of the bible as the only word of God IS Christianity. Not evangelical, not christian, but Christianity.

Hows about that Jesus fella huh?

Wilberforce

It has now been 200 years since the British stopped trading African slave around the Globe. 200 years since Wilberforce, one of the founders of my new employers, was victorious in the British Parliament. The Anglican church out at Wilberforce is celebrating, but I wonder how we modern evangelicals would react in similiar circumstance today. I heard several times during uni in conversation at from the pulpit that peolpe don't have a problem with slavery and so if they were placed in similiar circumstances, wouldn't attempt to end slavery..."because the bible doesn't say to".

Of course, the problem has seemed only to have become worse in these past 200 years. According to CMS UK, there is now some 27 million people ensalved. 27 million people in slavery! And as a christian in a western succesor state to the British Empire, I don't know how to approach this problem, because the story I've grown up with is that slavery stopped in the 19th Century. How can I bring the Lordship of Jesus and the achievment of his resurrection to bear on this question?

Let me mull over this for a few days. But you may like to cheek out this publication from CMS-UK.

10 points for telling me where the statue is and who lies next to Wilberforce.

Theological loving

Some of you may remember this little incident from last month. I received a fair bit of feed back, both on and off the blog. I've done some thinking, read a bit, thought and talked about it, felt like crying, laughed with my friend at Moore when he repeated the story of being told he goes to an emerging church by a college lecturer, and even reached an epiphany on a train trip with Alison (which I'm starting to forget).

What I've been thinking through is that: a. Jesus Christ is Lord, and everything that statement means is true; b. my basis for identity is in Christ; c. as is everyone else who confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believes God raised him from the dead (Romans 10); d. the basis for our relationships within the church (and indeed to the world) is grace - welcome one another just as Christ welcomed you. Given all this one should: i. make sure you tongue is always seasoned with salt (Matt. 5, Col. 4); ii beware of reducing people in "us" and "them"; iii avoid using labels. They can scar people for life, and are a cheap tactic for winning arguments; and iv be wise and make sure you know what the current labels are. It is useful to know what the present "doggiest" theology is when you deny it, or on the odd occasion, affirm it.

Anyway, here is a small quote from Gunton I found yesterday (when speaking on the method of historical and systematic theology):

"Our doctrinal past is best understood if its representatives are taken seriously as living voices with whom we enter into theological conversation. We shall sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with what they say, and that is what it means to take them seriously. In his Church Dogmatics Karl Barth is able to treat even opponents of the Christian faith as theological partners in conversation. Accordingly it can be argued that historical theology should be a theological discipline not because we have decided in advance what to find, but because we approach our predecessors as theologians who have something to teach us."

Colin Gunton, "Historical and systematic theology", The Cambridge Companion to Christian Theology, pp. 6-7. Words in red originally italic.

PS. I start a new job this coming Monday, working for CMS NSW in mission education.

10 points for the picture. Hint: Think Benelux.

Alvin Plantinga on the God Delusion

Alvin Plantinga, writing in Books and Culture, has this to say:

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins' main argument seriously.

Anglicanism 7: What could have been

Diarmond MacCulloch dreams of the Church of England under Queen Jane Grey:

"What would the Church of England have looked like if, instead of Queen Mary's triumph, Queen Jane's quite reasonably hereditary claim to the throne had succeeded in establishing her regime? The Lady Mary would have had to have been effectively neutralized before Edward's death, and one fears that neutralizing before Edward's death, and one fears that her forr good would have involved the block, in a return to Henrician savagery. The Lady Elizabeth could have been married off to Lord Robert Dudley, a good catch for a royal bastard, and a good chance for them both of a happy love-match. Archbishop Cranmer, living his allotted three-score years and ten or beyond, could have produced the third version of his Prayer Book, in the light of friendly criticism from Continental reformers whom he respected, like Martyr, Bullinger and Calvin; he would have been succeeded as Archbishop by Nicholas Ridley or Robert Holgate, with energetic younger reformers like Edmund Grindal ready to make their mark and pick up good ideas from the best reformed churches of Europe. John Knox, mellowed by an increasingly successful career in the Church o Engkand, would have been appointed Bishop of Newcastle, benevolently taking no notice of the advanced congregations in his diocese who received congregation sitting; this was a practice in any case increasingly common throughout Jane's Church, despite Archbishop Cranmer's grumbles. The reform of canon law would have been achieved, the 1553 primer and catechism would have become the standard, the Forty-Two Article would have been unmodified by Elizabethan sacramentalist hesitations.
Out in the parishes, the meterical psalms in the style of Geneva would quickly have spread: these were the best secret weapon of the English Reformation making its public worship and private devotional practice genuinely popular throughout increasing areas of the kingdom. This congregational music would also have taken over in the cathedrals, now devoid of choirs or polyphony, and with their organs (where they survived) used mainly for entertaining for entertainmnet, in the Dutch fashion. The conservative nobility would have continued the sullen public compliance with religious change which they had shown under Edward VI, their private celebration of ceremonial worship tolerated ass eccentricity, like the Lady Elizabeth's patronage of choral music in her own chapel. The traditionalist higher clergy would have died off in senior Church offices and in the universities, with no possibility of like-minded replacement: since the universities produced no major haemorrahage of exiles in the 1560's, the Jesuits and other religious orders would have found it difficult to recruit potential clergy to train for their attempt to treat Jane's England as a mission field. England would have become the most powerful political player in the reformed camp, with Cranmer a cordial if geographically distant partner with John Calvin. There is a potent symbolism in the fact that it was Cranmer's son-in-law who translated Calvin's Institutes into English, and Cranmer's veteran printer who published it. With a Cranmer-Calvin axis, the profile of Reformed religion across the whole Continent would have been changed, and with the help and encouragement of Bishop Knox, the Reformation in Scotland might have followed a close path to that in the Reformed Church of England.
That is the history that never happened."

Anglicanism 6: Cranmer, or Laud, or...part ii

Cranmer and the "via media".

"Standing as he did in the developing Reformed tradition of Europe on the 1550's, Cranmer's conception of a 'middle way' or via media in religion was quite different from that of later Anglicanism. In the nineteenth century, when the word 'Anglicanism' first came into common use, John Henry Newman said of a middle way (before his departure for the Church of Rome) that 'a number of distinct notions are included in the notion of Protestantism; and as to all these all our Church has taken via media between it and Popery. Cranmer would violently have rejected such a notion: how: could one have a middle way between truth and Antichrist? The middle ground which he sought was the as Bucer's: an agreement between Winttenburg and Zurich which would provide a united vision of Christian doctrine against the counterfeit being refurbished at the Council of Trent. For him, Catholicism was to b found in the scattered church of the Reformation, and is was his aim to show forth their unity to prove their Catholicity."

Thomas Cranmer, Diarmaid MacCulloch, p. 617.

Anglicanism 5: Cranmer or Laud, or...part i

Well, having posted several quotes from the likes of Archbishop Williams and Bishop Ryle, and having re-read part of MacCulloch's work on Cranmer last night, I may have thought of a new way to look at the question of Anglican identity. It may just be that the answer lies, in part, in who we understand to be the true founders of "Anglicanism". From my own reflection, I think there are at least 3 possible sources for the legitimate Anglican identity.
Firstly, there is the 16th Century Anglicanism of Cranmer, Parker and Hooker. This is the Anglicanism of the Tudors, Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I (not so much Mary I, because she had a tendency to burn them). This source is most likely to be termed "Classical Anglicanism", associated as it is with the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and three orders, and the Articles of Religion. And it has been this source that has until recently influenced the direction of Anglicanism most.
Secondly, there is the Anglicanism of the early Stuart period - the Carolinian Church. This is where Archbishop Laud and his descendants in the High Church and Oxford Movements would feel most at home.
And thirdly, there is the Anglicanism influenced not so much by an English theologian or Lord of Cantur, but the Anglicanism imitating Calvin, and even Richard Baxter. Although not mutually exclusive form the first source, if not used well, this third source may ride rough shot of the first source.
There is potentially a fourth source in the various incarnations of liberal protestantism. And although this may claim to large (cashed up) sections of the Anglican Communion, I don't think it can hold a legitimate stake in Anglican identity.
Now all that is left to do is describe the three sources and try and determine which source is bona fide.

Anglicanism 4

To have a break from Rowan Williams, here is a warning to the "true church"
from JC Ryle.

"On this rock I will build my church, and the gates
of hell will not overcome it" (Matthew 16:18)

This is that Church to which belong the Lord's precious promises of
preservation, continuance, protection, and final glory.  "Whatsoever,"
says Hooker, "we read in Scripture, concerning the endless love and
saving mercy which God shows towards His Churches, the only proper
subject is this Church, which we properly term the mystical body of
Christ."  Small and despised as the true Church may be in this world, it
is precious and honorable in the sight of God.  The temple of Solomon in
all its glory was nothing, in comparison with that Church which is built
upon a rock.

Men and brethren, see that you hold sound doctrine on the subject of "the
Church."  A mistake here may lead to dangerous and soul-ruining errors.
The Church which is made up of true believers, is the Church for which
we, who are ministers, are specially ordained to preach.  The Church
which comprises all who repent and believe the Gospel, is the Church to
which we desire you to belong.  Our work is not done, and our hearts are
not satisfied, until you are made new creatures, and are members of the
one true Church.  Outside of this Church there can be no salvation."

I wonder how many of today's evangelicals would be uncomfortable with the last line and be tempted to change it to "Outside of this faith..."? mmm.

10 points if you can tell me how many people were bishop of Liverpool prior to Ryle.

Some pictures of my fingers one week, and ten stitches later.

These are the least gory pictures...

bring on the resurrection.

Anglicanism 3

Williams once again on Anglican Identity:

"The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place – to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices – with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable."

I know one theo-blogger doesn't consider just posting quotes to be blogging, but here you go.

MDIX

The Calvin Quincentenary is an international, interdenominational, and interdisciplinary commemoration of the life and work of John Calvin (b. 1509), which left such an indelible impression on the modern world. Climaxing with conferences in multiple locations in 2009, this celebration combines history, spirituality, and culture to recall appropriately the life and work of the Genevan Reformer.

Esteemed leaders, scholars, and ministers will serve as your guides to learning about this influential man, his vibrant city, and the cultural, religious, political, and economic impact flowing from a movement. This multi-faceted approach seeks to introduce many people to one of the most important thinkers (links to Calvin bios) in history.

It looks like a lot of "big names" are involved in the conference, and if you're in Europe in June 2009 it will probably be a useful event to go to.

"I can't quite put my finger on it" (or why I'm looking forward to a bodily resurrection)

I've been a bit busy over the last few weeks, so busy that it has curtailed my frequent blogging. They have been a few reasons for this, which are:

1. I finally moved. After 20 + years living in the same house with the same family (my own) in scenic Katoomba, I am now living on my own in Hurlstone Park, Sydney. It's a nice place, on the Cooks River (aka Cooks Sewer), and is close to church, Alison and Uni. Moving has been a fascinating experience, particularly with many people gracefully making the move easier by giving me book shelves, dinner sets, fridges and so forth. This has given me a great opportunity to reflect on our Lord, who came no to be served but to serve and gave his life as a ransom for many.

2. Getting engaged. Finally. After several months of planning, Alison and I announced our engagement last week, with great relief. And many months of possibly stressful planning ahead of us, it is nice to finally stop and think about what marriage is. What does loving your wife look like? How much did Christ love the church? I guess I kind of know these answers, but it is and will be helpful to keep reflecting on them this year.

3. I chopped my finger off last night. I was making a fold-out bed last night when it collapsed, crushing my left index finger under the bed and severing the tip of my finger. After 4 injections, working out that I'd lost a bit of bone, 7 stitches with the drugs not working, and losing a fair bit of blood, I had a skin graft on my finger which has a 50/50 success rate and leaves my finger almost at normal length. Which gives all the more to look forward to in the bodily resurrection of dead, when evil is judged, the world is renewed and transformed, the body will be raised incorruptible, and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Come, Lord Jesus.

10 points for naming picture and artist.

Charles I - Martyr or Tyrant

January 30, the anniversary of the execution of Charles I of England, Ireland, (Alba) Scotland (and France). A feast day in the Anglican communion, he was hailed as a saint and martyr throughout the English speaking world until the Victorian era, when the special "Feast of Charles I" homily and morning/evening prayer was removed from the BCP. Charles is the only person to have been canonized by the Church of England since the reformation.

But do you agree with the Carolingian Restoration propaganda? Or do you agree with the puritans accusation of him as a tyrant? Let me know.

Here are some of favourite Carolingian pictures:

Important piece of non-absurd (hebel) news

Alison and I got engaged today...
(I asked, and she said yes).
(At Rose Bay).