Tuesday, 17 July 2018
"We have seen that the term holy calls attention to the transcendence of god, the sense in which he is above and beyond the world. We have also seen that god can reach down and consecrate special things in this world and make them holy. His touch on the common makes the common suddenly uncommon . Again we say that nothing in this world is holy in itself. Only God can make something holy. Only God can consecrate".
"When we call things holy, when they are not holy, we commit the sin of idolatry. We give to common things the resepct, awe, worship, and adoration that belong only to God. To worship the creature instead of the Creator is the essence of idolatry."
Sproul then goes on to illustrate this with the picture of a man fashioning something out of wood or stone in his workshop then bowing down to it in worship and adoration. "Yet people" he writes, "would ascribe holy power and worship to these objects."
It struck me reading this, calling holy what is not holy and therefore turning it into an idol, as something the church is attempting to do with regards to Gay Marriage. First, the marrying of a man and woman is described as Holy Matrimony. It is 'holy' because God has clearly ordained it in the Scriptures. Anything other than such a marriage is not holy. And second, if we recreate marriage in our own terms, we are in essence creating an idol every bit as man-made as that made of wood or stone in the aforementioned workshop. How can we commit such a transgression and think that we can get away with it? How can God bless an institution that makes what is unholy 'holy' and what is man-made into an object for reverence?
I was very struck by the actions and words of Rico Tice recent who quit the Archbishop of Canterbury and York's task group on evangelism because others on the committee follow a "different religion" to him. The article about him on Premier Christian reported:
The author of the Christianity Explored course and minister at All Souls Langham Place in London has been speaking from the GAFCON conference in Jerusalem where around 2,000 conservative Anglicans have gathered.
In an interview published on the GAFCON website he said he had "profound disappointment" over the way some within the Church have pushed for complete inclusion for those in same sex relationships.
Tice has served on the evangelism advisory team to Justin Welby and John Sentamu for a number of years.
Addressing why he stepped down, he said: "While I was on the Archbishop Task Group's for Evangelism - and I've been to see him in person on this - Bishop Paul Bayes of Liverpool was affirming same sex relationships, which is putting people on the road to destruction. I don't know how you could submit to his leadership? I had to leave that committee.
"It's a different religion. Bishop Paul Bayes and I have a different religion and it's around whether scripture is authoritative in terms of human sexuality."
I hugely admire the step Rico has taken which, he says, he wept over. He did not take the step lightly but he was spot on in saying that the Angligan Church in moving in this direction is slowly becoming "a different religion". I agree. "You shall have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3) forcefully reminds us that any form of idolatry that denies that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the One True God is not the religion of the Bible, the saints and Christian Tradition and must be rejected. Any attempts at making 'holy' what is not holy is heresy and to be rejected.
Thursday, 12 July 2018
The following youtube presentation is a fascinating look at part of the Old Testament by Professor Jordan Peterson who, although not a Christian, nevertheless offers some valuable insights which are well worth listening to: https://youtu.be/b_gG8_z9wVo
Tuesday, 10 July 2018
"Although I had been delivered from trust in works a long time before, by reading The Sincere Convert (by Thomas Shepherd), I was wounded by close re-examination of myself, especially as he went on to show that we must trust in our faith. Good works, though they are good in their place, yet to rely on them is idolatry. True salvation is in Christ's Blood only.
Though I had the seed sown in my soul four years before, and had daily feelings of God's love in my heart, yet the awakenings that I felt this time made so deep an impression on my heart that I could hardly bear them. Yea, I can say that my spirit was greatly distressed with deep anguish of soul for some days together, until I was refreshed by the text in Revelation chapter 22:17, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." It sustained me, and I felt I was willing to let God do what He pleased with me.
But still I was troubled with some reasoning about going directly to Christ in every condition. Then a woman came to me, to relate how all the night she had been in distress and perplexity, reasoning with the enemy, whether she was a child of God or not, and that she could have no rest or satisfaction till it came to her mind to go to Christ just as she was. She had thereupon found peace and victory.
Upon hearing this, and some preaching afterwards - that people should come to Christ as they are, without reasoning in themselves - I was made to cease from reasoning, and to go with all my troubles and fears and lay them before the Friend of sinners, who loved me freely, and not for any good in me. Now, that legal principle of fitting myself for Christ, and of being afraid to go to Him when I was not in a good frame, was rooted out of my heart. Then I learned to look and go directly to Christ at all times, and in all circumstances".
Howell Harris: In his own words pages 33-35
Friday, 6 July 2018
Phillips Brooks (1835-1893) from Lectures on Preaching (1877)
Thursday, 5 July 2018
1. I am a poor preacher. This tends to be the first thought that assails me whenever someone makes a comment. Such is my complete lack of self-belief and self-confidence, that the devil knows where to strike and the thoughts that come take away any sense I may have had of having laboured successfully in the vineyard of my study. As I grow older I have become more and more careful in my preparation and typically a sermon can take about 8-10 hours to prepare including several re-writes. So I can come to terms with being considered a poor preacher - I have no delusions otherwise and in fact rejoice, for God's power is made perfect in weakness (2 Corinthians 12:19) - as long as I am not accused of being an unprepared preacher because that is not true.
2. The attention span of your average parishioner is a lot shorter than it used to be years ago. I can believe this of the younger generation brought up on social media and soundbites, but the average age of an Anglican congregation is in the high sixties and seventies which means that they should be more used to concentrated listening. Having said that do we pander to the culture? I was brought up in the evangelical wing of the church which taught that "sermonettes make Christianettes" meaning that the truth of the Gospel is so important that it cannot be taught in small bites without losing something crucial in the telling. It seems straightforward to us to learn what God says about loving Him with all we are. That takes a fraction of time to tell. But what does it mean? And how can I do it? What does that look like and what does God expect us to do and the Scripture teach? That, as any serious student of the Bible and the Christian faith will tell you, takes far longer to explain and think through.
3. The congregation is not spiritually hungry. Jesus says that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will be satisfied. When you are truly hungry the size of a meal will not dissuade you but encourage you to eat your fill. If you are not hungry however, no matter how enticing the meal you will not want to eat beyond one or two mouthfuls.
4. Spiritual warfare. In the parable of the sower the seed bounces off the hard ground which Jesus uses to illustrate the fact that the Devil does all he can to snatch the truth away from the mind before it has a chance to penetrate and bring forth a harvest. Similarly are there minds among the congregation who are closed to the gospel, hardened by years of resistance to Biblical truth and preaching?
5. Priorities. Sometimes the same people who baulk at giving thirty minutes to listening to a sermon will think nothing of sitting up to an hour at a classical concert or watching over an hour long film or listening to a lecture or political speech. Interesting and as important as they may be, besides the spiritual food offered in a sermon they are less so. But it depends on what your personal priorities are.
Whatever the reason the preacher must make a decision. Does he cave in to demands for bite-size sermons and give in to the demanding voices of a vocal minority or remain true to the Gospel imperative to preach, teach and make disciples? If the latter, then surely that will take time, care and attention and cannot be diminished into small portions.
I have been recently reading the life of John Newton, slave-trader, sinner and blasphemer turned Vicar in the Church of England. In a chapter on his parish ministry is a passage about his preaching. In it he is critical of long sermons and writes:
"Overlong sermons break in upon family concerns and often call off the thoughts from the sermon to the pudding at home which is in danger of being overboiled."
He also wrote:
"Perhaps it is better to feed our people like chickens, a little and often, than to cram them like turkeys till they cannot hold one gobbet more."
Here we find great encouragement for those who complain about overlong sermons. Surely Newton is right and long sermons are not appropriate. Except we read that he was in fact being critical of two-hour and three-hour sermons! In which case even the most laborious of today's preachers would probably agree. Also as the writer Jonathan Aitken comments, 60 minutes was an average length sermon in those days.What of today?
You could argue that each age is responsive to it's own social context and makes adjustments accordingly. What was the norm of an hour a century or so ago is much too long now. But at this rate attention spans will eventually make 3 minutes appear too long. Does that mean we should follow the trend and reduce the length of sermons in consequence? Surely not. And doesn't Paul counsel against allowing the world mould us to its own standards (Romans 12:1ff)?
In responses then I made a quick survey of sermon lengths in the churches that are growing. When we do this we will find some thought-provoking results.
St. Ebbe's, Cambridge a thriving evangelical Anglican Church in Cambridge has average sermon lengths of over 30 minutes.
St. Helen's, Bishopsgate in London another thriving evangelical Anglican church also averages 30-40 minute sermons.
In Holy Trinity, Brompton, London, home of the Alpha Course, we see that sermons are about 30 minutes long.
The same for All Souls, Langham Place, London home of the Christianity Explored Course.
Moving across to America we find sermons are slightly longer, about 40 minutes (Passion Church, Atlanta - a typical Mega Church and Tim Keller, Redeemer Church); 50 minutes( Mars Hill with Mark Driscoll) or varying between 30-50 minutes (Francis Chan from We Are Church a church-planting network) to name a few.
If we were to shift across to other denominations in Wales we will find average sermons lengths as 40 plus (Steve Levy, Mount Pleasant Baptist Church, Swansea and Cornerstone, Swansea) or 30 plus (Elim Pentecostal Church, Swansea and St. Michael's, Aberystwyth an Evangelical Anglican Church)
The question arises "Is the length of a sermon a contributing factor to a church's growth?" Not necessarily as it all depends on the content of the sermon as well as other contributing factors. But it is worth noting that where there is good content and good length - meaning 30 or more minutes - there tends to be a growing church. I have yet to see a growing church where sermons are just 7 minutes long and which are spiritually healthy.
Conclusion? Although long sermons - by which I mean 30-40 minutes - are not in and of themselves the key to a growing church, yet they do at the very least underline the importance that the preacher and the congregation give to the Word of God. Both take very seriously the word of Jesus that "man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:1-11). If it is that important then - which I sincerely believe it is - why should I give any less of it to my congregation who need it, or to God, who has called me to preach?
Let me leave you with some words from one of my great Anglican heroes of the faith, Thomas Cranmer:
"Wherefore, in few words to comprehend the largeness and utility of the scripture, how it containeth fruitful instruction and erudition for every man; if any things be necessary to be learned, of the holy scripture we may learn it. If falsehood shall be reproved, thereof we may gather wherewithal. If any thing be to be corrected and amended, if there need any exhortation or consolation, of the scripture we may well learn.
In the scriptures be the fat pastures of the soul; therein is no venomous meat, no unwholesome thing; they be the very dainty and pure feeding. He that is ignorant, shall find there what he should learn. He that is a perverse sinner, shall there find his damnation to make him to tremble for fear. He that laboureth to serve God, shall find there his glory, and the promises of eternal life, exhorting him more diligently to labour. ...
Here may all manner of persons, men, women young, old, learned, unlearned, rich, poor, priests, laymen, lords, ladies, officers, tenants, and mean men, virgins, wives, widows, lawyers, merchants, artificers, husbandmen, and all manner of persons, of what estate or condition soever they be, may in this book learn all things what they ought to believe, what they ought to do, and what they should not do, as well concerning Almighty God, as also concerning themselves and all other.
Briefly, to the reading of the scripture none can be enemy, but that either be so sick that they love not to hear of any medicine, or else that be so ignorant that they know not scripture to be the most healthful medicine."
Tuesday, 3 July 2018
In Ezekiel 33 the Lord has some strong words to say about those he has raised up as watchmen over his people. If they fail in their responsibility they will be under severe judgement by Him and held to account for the dangers in which they have placed the people of God.
With this in mind I include the following article written in 2003 by a man of God, Rev Dr J.I.Packer who made a stand with others when the Church in Canada voted for same sex marriage and walked away from God. Here he gives a clear exposition of the biblical texts which speak so unambiguously on the subject:
Why I Walked. Sometimes loving a denomination requires you to fight. by J. I. Packer
In June 2002, the synod of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster authorized its bishop to produce a service for blessing same-sex unions, to be used in any parish of the diocese that requests it. A number of synod members walked out to protest the decision. They declared themselves out of communion with the bishop and the synod, and they appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican primates and bishops for help.
J. I. Packer, an executive editor of Christianity Today, was one of those who walked out. Many people have asked him why. Though one part of his answer applies specifically to Anglicans, his larger argument should give guidance to any Christians troubled by developments in their church or denomination.
Why did I walk out with the others? Because this decision, taken in its context, falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and betrays the church in its God-appointed role as the bastion and bulwark of divine truth.
My primary authority is a Bible writer named Paul. For many decades now, I have asked myself at every turn of my theological road: Would Paul be with me in this? What would he say if he were in my shoes? I have never dared to offer a view on anything that I did not have good reason to think he would endorse.
In 1 Corinthians we find the following, addressed it seems to exponents of some kind of antinomian spirituality:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (6:9-11, ESV).
To make sure we grasp what Paul is saying here, I pose some questions.
First: What is Paul talking about in this vice list? Answer: Lifestyles, regular behaviour patterns, habits of mind and action. He has in view not single lapses followed by repentance, forgiveness, and greater watchfulness (with God’s help) against recurrence, but ways of life in which some of his readers were set, believing that for Christians there was no harm in them.
Second: What is Paul saying about these habits? Answer: They are ways of sin that, if not repented of and forsaken, will keep people out of God’s kingdom of salvation. Clearly, self-indulgence and self-service, free from self-discipline and self-denial, is the attitude they express, and a lack of moral discernment lies at their heart.
Third: What is Paul saying about homosexuality? Answer: Those who claim to be Christ’s should avoid the practice of same-sex physical connection for orgasm, on the model of heterosexual intercourse. Paul’s phrase, “men who practice homosexuality,” covers two Greek words for the parties involved in these acts. The first, arsenokoitai, means literally “male-bedders,” which seems clear enough. The second, malakoi, is used in many connections to mean “unmanly,” “womanish,” and “effeminate,” and here refers to males matching the woman’s part in physical sex.
“In this context, in which Paul has used two terms for sexual misbehaviour, there is really no room for doubt regarding what he has in mind. He must have known, as Christians today know, that some men are sexually drawn to men rather than women, but he is not speaking of inclinations, only of behaviour, what has more recently been called acting out. His point is that Christians need to resist these urges, since acting them out cannot please God and will reveal lethal impenitence. Romans 1:26 shows that Paul would have spoken similarly about lesbian acting out if he had had reason to mention it here.
Fourth: What is Paul saying about the gospel? Answer: Those who, as lost sinners, cast themselves in genuine faith on Christ and so receive the Holy Spirit, as all Christians do (see Gal. 3:2), find transformation through the transaction. They gain cleansing of conscience (the washing of forgiveness), acceptance with God (justification), and strength to resist and not act out the particular temptations they experience (sanctification). As a preacher friend declared to his congregation, “I want you to know that I am a non-practicing adulterer.” Thus he testified to receiving strength from God.
“With some of the Corinthian Christians, Paul was celebrating the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in heterosexual terms; with others of the Corinthians, today’s homosexuals are called to prove, live out, and celebrate the moral empowering of the Holy Spirit in homosexual terms. Another friend, well known to me for 30 years, has lived with homosexual desires all his adult life, but remains a faithful husband and father, sexually chaste, through the power of the Holy Spirit, according to the gospel. He is a model in every way. We are all sexually tempted, one way or another, yet we may all tread the path of chastity through the Spirit’s enablement, and thereby please God.
“Missing Paul’s point
“As one who assumes the full seriousness and sincerity of all who take part in today’s debates among Christians regarding homosexuality, both in New Westminster and elsewhere, I now must ask: how can anyone miss the force of what Paul says here? There are, I think, two ways in which this happens.
One way, the easier one to deal with, is the way of special exegesis: I mean interpretations that, however possible, are artificial and not natural, but that allow one to say, “What Paul is condemning is not my sort of same-sex union.” Whether a line of interpretation is artificial, so constituting misinterpretation, is, I grant, a matter of personal judgment. I do not, however, know how any reasonable person could read Robert A. J. Gagnon’s 500-page book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001), and not conclude that any exegesis evading the clear meaning of Paul is evasive indeed. Nor from now on can I regard anyone as qualified to debate homosexuality who has not come to terms with Gagnon’s encyclopaedic examination of all the relevant passages and all the exegetical hypotheses concerning them. I have not always agreed with James Barr, but when on the dust jacket he describes Gagnon’s treatise as “indispensable even for those who disagree with the author,” I think he is absolutely right.
The second way, which is harder to engage, is to let experience judge the Bible. Some moderns, backed by propaganda from campaigners for homosexual equality, and with hearts possessed by the pseudo-Freudian myth that you can hardly be a healthy human without active sexual expression, feel entitled to say: “Our experience is˜in other words, we feel˜that gay unions are good, so the Bible’s prohibitions of gay behaviour must be wrong.” The natural response is that the Bible is meant to judge our experience rather than the other way around, and that feelings of sexual arousal and attraction, generating a sense of huge significance and need for release in action as they do, cannot be trusted as either a path to wise living or a guide to biblical interpretation. Rhyming the point to make what in my youth was called a grook: the sweet bright fire / of sexual desire / is a dreadful liar. But more must be said than that.
Two views of the Bible
At issue here is a Grand Canyon-wide difference about the nature of the Bible and the way it conveys God’s message to modern readers. Two positions challenge each other.
One is the historic Christian belief that through the prophets, the incarnate Son, the apostles, and the writers of canonical Scripture as a body, God has used human language to tell us definitively and transculturally about his ways, his works, his will, and his worship. Furthermore, this revealed truth is grasped by letting the Bible interpret itself to us from within, in the knowledge that the way into God’s mind is through that of the writers. Through them, the Holy Spirit who inspired them teaches the church. Finally, one mark of sound biblical insights is that they do not run counter to anything else in the canon.
This is the position of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and of evangelicals and other conservative Protestants. There are differences on the place of the church in the interpretive process, but all agree that the process itself is essentially as described. I call this the objectivist position.
The second view applies to Christianity the Enlightenment’s trust in human reason, along with the fashionable evolutionary assumption that the present is wiser than the past. It concludes that the world has the wisdom, and the church must play intellectual catch-up in each generation in order to survive. From this standpoint, everything in the Bible becomes relative to the church’s evolving insights, which themselves are relative to society’s continuing development (nothing stands still), and the Holy Spirit’s teaching ministry is to help the faithful see where Bible doctrine shows the cultural limitations of the ancient world and needs adjustment in light of latter-day experience (encounters, interactions, perplexities, states of mind and emotion, and so on). Same-sex unions are one example. This view is scarcely 50 years old, though its antecedents go back much further. I call it the subjectivist position.
In the New Westminster debate, subjectivists say that what is at issue is not the authority of Scripture, but its interpretation. I do not question the sincerity of those who say this, but I have my doubts about their clear-headedness. The subjectivist way of affirming the authority of Scripture, as the source of the teaching that now needs to be adjusted, is precisely a denying of Scripture’s authority from the objectivist point of view, and clarity requires us to say so. The relative authority of ancient religious expertise, now to be revamped in our post-Christian, multi-faith, evolving Western world, is one view. The absolute authority of God’s unchanging utterances, set before us to be learned, believed, and obeyed as the mainstream church has always done, never mind what the world thinks, is the other.
What are represented as different “interpretations” are in fact reflections of what is definitive: in the one view, the doctrinal and moral teaching of Scripture is always final for Christian people; in the other view, it never is. What is definitive for the exponents of that view is not what the Bible says, as such, but what their own minds come up with as they seek to make Bible teaching match the wisdom of the world.
Each view of biblical authority sees the other as false and disastrous, and is sure that the long-term welfare of Christianity requires that the other view be given up and left behind as quickly as possible. The continuing conflict between them, which breaks surface in the disagreement about same-sex unions, is a fight to the death, in which both sides are sure that they have the church’s best interests at heart. It is most misleading, indeed crass, to call this disagreement simply a difference about interpretation, of the kind for which Anglican comprehensiveness has always sought to make room.
In addition, major spiritual issues are involved. To bless same-sex unions liturgically is to ask God to bless them and to enrich those who join in them, as is done in marriage ceremonies. This assumes that the relationship, of which the physical bond is an integral part, is intrinsically good and thus, if I may coin a word, blessable, as procreative sexual intercourse within heterosexual marriage is. About this assumption there are three things to say.
First, it entails deviation from the biblical gospel and the historic Christian creed. It distorts the doctrines of creation and sin, claiming that homosexual orientation is good since gay people are made that way, and rejecting the idea that homosexual inclinations are a spiritual disorder, one more sign and fruit of original sin in some people’s moral system. It distorts the doctrines of regeneration and sanctification, calling same-sex union a Christian relationship and so affirming what the Bible would call salvation in sin rather than from it.
Second, it threatens destruction to my neighbour. The official proposal said that ministers who, like me, are unwilling to give this blessing should refer gay couples to a minister willing to give it. Would that be pastoral care? Should I not try to help gay people change their behaviour, rather than to anchor them in it? Should I not try to help them to the practice of chastity, just as I try to help restless singles and divorcees to the practice of chastity? Do I not want to see them all in the kingdom of God?
Third, it involves the delusion of looking to God ‘actually asking him’ to sanctify sin by blessing what he condemns. This is irresponsible, irreverent, indeed blasphemous, and utterly unacceptable as church policy.
How could I do it? Changing a historical tradition
Finally, a major change in Anglicanism is involved: Writing into a diocesan constitution something that Scripture, canonically interpreted, clearly and unambiguously rejects as sin. This has never been done before, and ought not to be done now.
All the written standards of post-Reformation Anglicanism have been intentionally biblical and catholic. They have been biblical in terms of the historic view of the nature and authority of Scripture. They have been catholic in terms of the historic consensus of the mainstream church.
Many individual eccentricities and variations may have been tolerated in practice. The relatively recent controversial permissions to remarry the divorced and make women presbyters arguably had biblical warrant, though minorities disputed this. In biblical and catholic terms, however, the New Westminster decision writes legitimation of sin into the diocese’s constitutional standards.
It categorizes the tolerated abstainers as the awkward squad of eccentrics rather than the mainstream Anglicans that they were before. It is thus a decision that can only be justified in terms of biblical relativism, the novel notion of biblical authority that to my mind is a cuckoo in the Anglican nest and a heresy in its own right. It is a watershed decision for world Anglicanism, for it changes the nature of Anglicanism itself. It has to be reversed.
Luther’s response at Worms when he was asked to recant all his writings echoes in my memory, as it has done for more than 50 years.
Unless you prove to me by Scripture and plain reason that I am wrong, I cannot and will not recant. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe [it endangers the soul]. Here I stand. There is nothing else I can do. God help me. Amen.
Conscience is that power of the mind over which we have no power, which binds us to believe what we see to be true and do what we see to be right. Captivity of conscience to the Word of God, that is, to the absolutes of God’s authoritative teaching in the Bible, is integral to authentic Christianity.
More words from Luther come to mind.
If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point that the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages is where the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.
Was the protest in order? Was “no” the right way to vote? Did faithfulness to Christ, and faithful confession of Christ, require it? It seems so. And if so, then our task is to stand fast, watch, pray, and fight for better things: for the true authority of the Bible, for the “true truth” of the gospel, and for the salvation of gay people for whom we care.
Taken from Christianity Today, January 21, 2003.
Tuesday, 26 June 2018
At the end of GAFCON 2018 the following statement was read and published and I, for one, wholeheartedly endorse:
"You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. (Acts 1:8)"
Greetings from the land of the birth, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. The third Global Anglican Future Conference (Gafcon) was held in Jerusalem in June 2018, a decade after the inaugural Gafcon in 2008. Gafcon 2018, one of the largest global Anglican gatherings, brought together 1,950 representatives from 50 countries, including 316 bishops, 669 other clergy and 965 laity. A unanimity of spirit was reflected throughout the Conference as we met with God in the presence of friends from afar. We celebrated joyful worship, engaged in small group prayer and were inspired by presentations, networks and seminars.
We met together around the theme of “Proclaiming Christ Faithfully to the Nations”. Each day began with common prayer and Bible exposition from Luke 22-24, followed by plenary sessions on God’s Gospel, God’s Church and God’s World.
PROCLAIMING GOD’S GOSPEL
We renewed our commitment to proclaim the gospel of the triune God in our churches and in all the world. Our Chairman reminded us in his opening address: “God’s gospel is the life-transforming message of salvation from sin and all its consequences through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is both a declaration and a summons: announcing what has been done for us in Christ and calling us to repentance, faith and submission to his Lordship.” It involves the restoration and reaffirmation of God’s original creative purposes. It is addressed to men, women and children and it is our only hope in the light of the final judgment and the reality of hell.
This is God’s gospel, the gospel concerning his Son (Romans 1:1–3). The centre of the gospel message is this one person, Jesus Christ, and all that he has done through his perfect life, atoning death, triumphant resurrection and glorious ascension. In our daily expositions, we followed Jesus’ path from the judgments by Pilate and the Jewish leaders, to his death for us on the cross, to his breaking the bonds of death on Easter morning and to his commission to the disciples to proclaim “repentance for the forgiveness of sins in his name to all nations” (Luke 24:47). The uniqueness of Jesus Christ lies at the heart of the gospel: “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The gospel confronts us in the midst of our confusion and sin but it does not leave us there. It includes a summons to repentance and a call to believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15), which results in a grace-filled life. The ascended Christ gave his Spirit to empower his disciples to take this gospel to the world.
Yet faithful proclamation of this gospel is under attack from without and within, as it has been from apostolic times (Acts 20:28-30).
External attacks include superstitious practices of sacrifices and libations that deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. Some religions deny the unique person and work of Christ on the cross, and others are innately syncretistic. Secularism seeks to exclude God from all public discourse and to dismantle the Christian heritage of many nations. This has been most obvious in the redefinition of what it means to be human, especially in the areas of gender, sexuality and marriage. The devaluing of the human person through the advocacy of abortion and euthanasia is also an assault upon human life uniquely created in the image of God. Militant forms of religion and secularism are hostile to the preaching of Christ and persecute his people.
Internally, the “prosperity gospel” and theological revisionism both seek in different ways to recast God’s gospel to accommodate the surrounding culture, resulting in a seductive syncretism that denies the uniqueness of Christ, the seriousness of sin, the need for repentance and the final authority of the Bible.
Tragically, there has been a failure of leadership in our churches to address these threats to the gospel of God. We repent of our failure to take seriously the words of the apostle Paul: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number, men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:28-30).
We dedicate ourselves afresh to proclaiming Christ faithfully to the nations, working together to guard the gospel entrusted to us by our Lord and his apostles.
REFORMING GOD’S CHURCH
The gospel of God creates the church of God. Through the invitation of the gospel, God calls all people into fellowship with his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. As the word of the gospel goes forth in the power of the Holy Spirit, they respond through the work of the Holy Spirit to repent, believe and be baptised, and are thereby joined to Christ’s body which is his church (Acts 2:37-44; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13). As members of Christ’s body, they are sanctified in him, called to live lives of holiness and to be salt and light in the world.
One Conference speaker reminded us: “In the councils of the church, we should not mimic the ways of the world but gather to pray, to praise (i.e., to be eucharistic), to consult, to decide, and if necessary to discipline. These gatherings should be properly conciliar in nature, decisive in moving the church forward in its mission and common life. There should be the will to exercise loving but firm discipline to bring sinners to repentance and restoration.” Likewise at the Communion level, there are times when the leadership must come together to exercise its responsibility to discipline an erring member province.
For some time, our Communion has been under threat from leaders who deny the Lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture. In the late 20th century, human sexuality became the presenting issue.
The 1998 Lambeth Conference by a huge majority (526 to 70) approved Resolution I.10 on Human Sexuality, which affirmed the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 19 that there are only two expressions of faithful sexuality: lifelong marriage between a man and a woman or abstinence. The resolution rightly called for pastoral care for same sex attracted persons. At the same time, it described homosexual practice as “incompatible with Scripture” and rejected both the authorisation of same sex rites by the Church and the ordination of those in same sex unions.
Lambeth Resolution I.10 reflected the rising influence of the Global South in the Communion. The ground for the Resolution had been prepared by the 1997 Kuala Lumpur Statement of the Global South Anglican Network. Our collaboration with the Global South Network has been ongoing, and its leaders took an active part in this Conference.
The subsequent rejection of Lambeth I.10 in word and deed by the Episcopal Church USA and later by some other Anglican provinces led to a “tear [in] the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”, followed by ten years of futile meetings in which the four Instruments of Communion failed to exercise the necessary discipline. The Primates’ Meeting repeatedly called upon these provinces to repent and return to the faith. Yet their efforts were undermined by other Instruments of Communion, culminating in the failure of the Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury to carry out the clear consensus of the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam in 2007.
In the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration, the 2008 Global Anglican Future Conference took up the challenge of restoring biblical authority (and the teaching on human sexuality in particular) by affirming the primacy of the Bible as God’s Word written and going back to the other sources of Anglican identity – the Creeds and Councils of the ancient church, the 39 Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. The Conference also constituted a Primates Council and authorised it to recognise Anglican churches in areas where orthodox Anglicans had been deprived of their church property and deposed from holy orders.
During the past twenty years, the Instruments of Communion have not only failed to uphold godly discipline but their representatives have refused to recognise our concerns and have chosen instead to demean Gafcon as a one-issue pressure group and accuse it of promoting schism, where in fact the schismatics are those who have departed from the teaching of the Bible and the historic doctrine of the Church. Slogans such as “walking together” and “good disagreement” are dangerously deceptive in seeking to persuade people to accommodate false teaching in the Communion.
We grieve for the situation of our global Communion as it has been hindered from fulfilling its God-appointed task of reaching the world for Christ. We repent of our own failures to stand firm in the faith (1 Corinthians 16:13). But we do not lose hope for the future, and note that there is strong support for the reform of our Communion. Prior to Gafcon 2018, delegates overwhelmingly affirmed the following propositions:
Lambeth Resolution I.10 reflects the unchangeable teaching of the Bible; the Gafcon movement should continue to be faithful to the Jerusalem Declaration; the Primates Council should continue to recognise confessing Anglican jurisdictions. Over the past twenty years, we have seen the hand of God leading us toward a reordering of the Anglican Communion. Gafcon has claimed from the beginning: “We are not leaving the Anglican Communion; we are the majority of the Anglican Communion seeking to remain faithful to our Anglican heritage.” As Archbishop Nicholas Okoh stated in the inaugural Synodical Council: “We are merely doing what the Communion leadership should have done to uphold its own resolution in 1998.”
We give thanks for the godly courage of our Gafcon Primates in contending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. We applaud their decision to authenticate and recognise the provinces of the Anglican Church in North America and the Anglican Church in Brazil, to recognise the Anglican Mission in England and to consecrate a Missionary Bishop for Europe. This has become necessary because of the departure from the faith by The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church of Brazil and the Scottish Episcopal Church. At Gafcon 2018, we heard many testimonies of faithful Anglicans who have been persecuted by those holding office in their respective provinces, merely because they would not surrender to, nor be compromised by, the false gospel that these leaders profess and promote. We also recognise the Gafcon Primates’ willingness to assist faithful Anglicans in New Zealand where the Anglican Church has recently agreed to allow bishops to authorise the blessing of same sex unions.
As the Gafcon movement matures, it has also seen the need for a more conciliar structure of governance. We endorse the formation of Gafcon Branches where necessary and of a Panel of Advisors, comprising bishops, clergy and lay representatives from each Gafcon Province and Branch, to provide counsel and advice to the Primates Council. Together with the Primates, the Panel of Advisors form a Synodical Council to bring recommendations to the Gafcon Assembly. The Synodical Council met for the first time at this Conference.
In light of the recommendations of the Synodical Council, we respectfully urge the Archbishop of Canterbury
to invite as full members to Lambeth 2020 bishops of the Province of the Anglican Church in North America and the Province of the Anglican Church in Brazil and
not to invite bishops of those Provinces which have endorsed by word or deed sexual practices which are in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture and Resolution I.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, unless they have repented of their actions and reversed their decisions.
In the event that this does not occur, we urge Gafcon members to decline the invitation to attend Lambeth 2020 and all other meetings of the Instruments of Communion.
REACHING OUT TO GOD’S WORLD
Our conference theme has been “Proclaiming Christ Faithfully to the Nations.” We have received the gospel through the faithful witness of previous generations. Yet there are still billions of people who are without Christ and without hope. Jesus taught his disciples: “this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations” (Matthew 24:14).
We repent for the times and seasons when we have only preached to ourselves and not embraced the difficult task of reaching beyond our own cultural groups in obedience to God’s call to be a light to the nations (cf. Acts 13:47). In faith and obedience, we joyfully recommit ourselves to the faithful proclamation of the gospel.
In order to expand our ability to proclaim Christ faithfully to the nations in both word and deed, we launched nine strategic networks.
Theological Education: To promote effective theological training throughout the Anglican Communion
Church Planting: To expand church planting as a global strategy for evangelisation
Global Mission Partnerships: To promote strategic cross-cultural mission partnerships in a globalized world
Youth and Children’s Ministry: To be a catalyst for mission to young people and children of all nations so that they may become faithful disciples of Jesus Christ
Mothers’ Union: To expand the potential of this global ministry to promote biblical patterns of marriage and family life
Sustainable Development: To establish global partnerships which work with the local church to bring sustainable and transformative development
Bishops Training Institute: To serve the formation of faithful and effective episcopal leadership throughout the Communion
Lawyers Task Force: To address issues of religious freedom and matters of concern to Anglican lawyers and Chancellors and to further the aims of the Jerusalem Declaration
Intercessors Fellowship: To inspire and develop globally connected regional and national intercessory prayer networks
In the world into which we go to proclaim the gospel, we shall encounter much which will need us to walk in paths of righteousness and mercy (Hosea 2:19; Micah 6:8). We commit to encouraging each other to give strength to the persecuted, a voice to the voiceless, advocacy for the oppressed, protection of the vulnerable, especially women and children, generosity to the poor, and continuing the task of providing excellent education and health care. As appropriate, we encourage the formation of other networks to assist in addressing these issues.
OUR GLOBAL ANGLICAN FUTURE
To proclaim the gospel, we must first defend the gospel against threats from without and within. We testify to the extraordinary blessings on this Conference, which leads us to call upon God even more, that the Anglican Communion may become a mighty instrument in the hand of God for the salvation of the world. We invite all faithful Anglicans to join us in this great enterprise of proclaiming Christ faithfully to the nations.
Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine,
according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church
and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
Conciliar – Working as a council of the church
Gafcon Branches – A Branch may be established by application to the Gafcon Primates Council in a province whose Primate is not a member of the Gafcon Primates Council.
Gafcon Primates – Primates who have endorsed the Jerusalem Declaration and have been admitted to the Gafcon Primates Council.
Gafcon Provinces – Provinces whose House of Bishops or Provincial Synod have endorsed the Jerusalem Declaration and whose Primate is a member of the Gafcon Primates Council.
Instruments of Communion – There are four Instruments: The Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/structures/instruments-of-communion.aspx
Jerusalem Statement and Declaration – The Statement agreed by the inaugural Gafcon Assembly in 2008. https://www.gafcon.org/resources/the-complete-jerusalem-statement
Kuala Lumpur Statement – approved by the Global South Anglican Network in 1997. http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/blog/comments/the_kuala_lum...
Lambeth Resolution I.10 – approved by the Lambeth Conference in 1998. http://www.anglicancommunion.org/resources/document-library/lambeth-conf...
Panel of Advisors – consists of one bishop, one clergy and one lay representative from each Gafcon Province and Gafcon Branch, who give counsel and advice to the Gafcon Primates.
Primates’ Meeting – A meeting of Primates called by the Archbishop of Canterbury
Synodical Council – Consists of the Panel of Advisors and the Gafcon Primates Council meeting together to make recommendations to the Gafcon Assembly
Wednesday, 13 June 2018
An overview of Frank Laubach’s Letters by a Modern Mystic
Dallas Willard Dallas Willard on February 12, 2018 (orig. 1988)
A Pennsylvanian trained at Princeton, Union Theological Seminary, and Columbia University (Ph.D. in sociology, 1915), Laubach went to the Philippines under the American Board of Foreign Missions. After fourteen years of successful teaching, writing, and administration at Cagayn and Manila, he realized in 1929 his long-standing ambition of settling among the fierce Moros, an Islamic tribe on Mindanao. There, in the village of Lanao, he underwent a remarkable series of experiences of God, and simultaneously developed a technique for reducing the Moro language to writing, with symbols closely correlated to their spoken words. This not only made it possible to teach them to read in only a few hours, but permitted them immediately to teach others. The famous “Each One Teach One” program was born, and with the generalization of his linguistic methods the foundation was laid for his worldwide efforts to promote literacy, beginning with India in 1935. During his last thirty years Laubach was an international presence in literacy, religious, and governmental circles. His personal contacts with President Truman were thought to be partly responsible for “point four” in Truman’s inaugural address of 1949, sponsoring a “bold new program… for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas” of the world.
Two years prior to his transforming experiences of 1930, Laubach found himself profoundly dissatisfied in the realization that after fifteen years as a Christian minister he still was not living his days “in minute by minute effort to follow the will of God.” He then began trying to “line up” his actions with the will of God every few minutes. His confidants at the time told him he was seeking the impossible. But in 1929 he began to try living all his waking moments “in conscious listening to the inner voice, asking without ceasing, ‘What, Father, do you desire said? What, Father, do you desire done this minute?…’” In his view, this is exactly what Jesus did.
Laubach did not fall into the trap of merely trying to achieve his goal. Rather, he understood the necessity of learning how, of spiritual method. He was, in fact, a very subtle and realistic experimentalist, and regarded himself as fortunate to be living in a “day when psychological experimentation has given a fresh approach to our spiritual problems.” Thus he experimented for a few days by taking enough time from each hour to give intensive thought to God. Again, “disgusted with the pettiness and futility of my unled self,” he experimented with “feeling God in each movement by an act of will — willing that He shall direct these fingers that now strike this typewriter — willing that He shall pour through my steps as I walk.” Again, he wished to “compel his mind” to “open straight out to God.” But to attain this mental state often required a long time in the morning. Therefore he determined not to get out of bed “until that mind set, that concentration upon God, is settled.” He found that great determination was required to keep the mind on God. But he also found it quickly getting easier, and hoped that “after a while, perhaps, it will become a habit, and the sense of effort will grow less.”
In the most subtle passage in these letters — so far as the “mechanisms” of holding God before the mind are concerned — Laubach deals with the question of whether it is possible to have contact with God all the time. Can we think his thoughts all the time? Must there not be periods when other things push God out? Laubach’s response to this issue should be fully quoted, for it gives us the heart of his understanding of the constant conscious hold on God. Admitting that he once thought there must be periods when God is excluded, he continues:
… But I am changing my view. We can keep two things in mind at once. Indeed we cannot keep one thing in mind more than half a second. Mind is a flowing something. It oscillates. Concentration is merely the continuous return to the same problem from a million angles. We do not think of one thing. We always think of the relationship of at least two things, and more often of three or more things simultaneously. So my problem is this: Can I bring God back in my mind-flow every few seconds so that God shall always be in my mind as an after-image, shall always be one of the elements in every concept and percept? I choose to make the rest of my life an experiment in answering this question.
The tremendous results of this experiment are found in the narrative of these letters. They are elaborated more systematically and practically in the Game with Minutes (1961), where the method was reduced to calling God to mind for at least one second out of each minute. But the quotation given contains the psychological principles back of Laubach’s method for achieving active union with God, constantly abiding in the abundant life.
Within weeks of beginning his experiments he began to notice differences. By the end of January 1930, and with much still to learn about his method, he had gained a sense of being carried along by God through the hours, of cooperation with God in little things, which he had never felt before. “I need something, and turn around to find it waiting for me. I must work, … but there is God working along with me.” He discovered by March 9 that “This hour can be heaven. Any hour for any body can be rich with God. In a manner familiar to the mystics of all ages, we find him saying to God: “And God, I scarce see how one could live if his heart held more than mine has had from Thee this past two hours.” He experienced difficulties and failures in maintaining his consciousness of God, but in the week ending May 24 he began to experience a further dimension in his conversations with God. In a moment of immersion in natural beauty, “I let my tongue go loose and from it there flowed poetry far more beautiful than any I ever composed. It flowed without pausing and without ever a failing syllable for a half hour.” This brought him a deeper awareness of God in beauty and in love.
Reflecting upon the results of two months of strenuous effort to keep God in mind every minute, he exclaims: “This concentration upon God is strenuous, but everything else has ceased to be so!” … The inner transformation was substantial and with real outward effects. “God does work a change. The moment I turn to him it is like turning on an electric current which I feel through my whole being.” There is a “real presence” that affects other people directly, and that also makes intercessory prayer an exercise of substantial power in cooperation with God.
Because of Laubach’s immense involvement with worldwide social problems, he came to be generally known for his work, not for his inner life. Many of those who have written about him say little about his spiritual side, and obviously do not know what to make of it. But his own words and writings (he published more than fifty books) reveal that he remained primarily a spiritual man — fundamentally living from his moment-to-moment relation to God — to the end of his days. He knew this relation in a way that did not bear many of the external trappings conventionally associated with spirituality. But to observe his effect is to see that he was truly one of those born of the spirit, of the “wind” that invisibly produces visible results (John 3:8).
Read complete article on dwillard.org. Originally published in Christian Spirituality, Edited By Frank Magill And Ian Mcgreal, (San Francisco: Harper And Row, 1988, Pp. 516- 520).
Monday, 11 June 2018
Thursday, 22 February 2018
In his excellent book "The Holiness of God" respected theologian R.C.Sproul, talking about the holiness of God writes: "W...