Christmas Message from Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney

Peter Jensen's final Christmas message as Archbishop of Sydney speaks on the topic of reconciliation - an important issue for Aussies. He speaks about our need for reconciliation with God and with our neighbours - including indigenous Australians.



Thanks Peter for taking every opportunity to present the good news of Jesus.

Paul Barnett on Raising Financial Support (2 Corinthians 9)

I was thinking recently about how we should approach fundraising for ministry and took a look at Paul Barnett's commentary on 2 Corinthians. The apostle has a lot to say about this matter in chapters 8 and 9, and there is much in Paul Barnett's commentary that is helpful in understanding the context and the issues. (The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997)

While the apostle urges (and cajoles?) the Corinthians to give generously - including using the example of the Macedonian 'beggars' in 8:1-9 - he gives an important rider in 9:7: 

 'Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.'

Paul Barnett comments:

But what criteria does Paul give to assist the Corinthian contributor in deciding the level of his gifts? Paul's guiding principle is that such giving is not made "reluctantly or under compulsion." Here the latter element would contribute to the former; contributions given "under compulsion" would be made "reluctantly". (This would be to "sow reluctantly," as in v. 6.) Such a compulsory contribution would indeed be an "exaction" (v. 5), which to preserve the precious doctrine of grace is the very thing Paul seeks to avoid. God's grace is to be reciprocated "voluntarily" (8:3), "freely" (9:5) and "generously" (9:6); any legalistic impost is inimical to this principle.  (Italics added)

It is interesting that Paul Barnett sees the issue of compulsion in giving as something which can undermine the doctrine of grace and is therefore to be avoided.

What this means in our local situation is that all appeals are voluntary (and anonymous), allowing each individual to respond to God's grace and the particular need as they are able and as they are moved by the Spirit.

I suspect that at the diocesan level we ought to apply the same principles - vigorously promoting the need yet allowing individuals (and churches) to respond as they are moved.

.

Giving Thanks for John Chapman

Anyone who claims to know something about Sydney Anglicans or the strength of the Evangelical church in Sydney in the last quarter of the 20th Century would have to know something about the life and work of John Chapman.

I heard "Chappo" speak many times - including under the big top at Katoomba, at other conferences, in local churches, doing Beach Mission Bible studies and at evangelistic events. John Chapman was one of my teachers at Moore college - teaching the 2nd year preaching subject. More than the lectures I remember his personal feedback sessions after listening to one of my sermons - a real learning experience! He was unique and irreplaceable, but he inspired a generation to be better evangelists, better preachers and better Christians.

It is worth taking the time to watch his memorial service held at St Andrews Cathedral on Saturday 24th November 2012.

The order of service can be found here.

An audio version of Phillip Jensen's sermon can be found here.

The biography by Michael Orpwood, Chappo, For the Sake of the Gospel was published in 1995 and can be ordered from Evangelism & New Churches.

The SydneyAnglicans article about the event can be found here.

Are Sydney Anglicans really Anglican?

There are many Anglicans around the world who would answer no to this question - and there are many outside the church who wonder why we are the way we are. In recent years we have had TV shows, articles and  books that have asked questions, made accusations and painted a picture of a dangerous and deluded sect. Many have suggested we should change our views to conform to the majority or quit Anglicanism altogether! How should we respond? The answer for Michael Jensen was to write Sydney Anglicans: An Apology. (Read the first chapter here.)

Michael Jensen is both a 'son of the Diocese' and a gifted theologian in his own right. He is able to understand  the complaints of the opponents and the views of those inside. He can therefore address the history and the theology of Sydney Anglicans with an insider's knowledge. This 'Apology' is written as a defense of many of the defining features of 'Sydney Anglicanism'.

In his first section on 'the Bible', Jensen addresses whether Sydney Anglicans are fundamentalists, why we read the Bible the way we do, our doctrine of revelation and the importance of preaching. His second section on 'the Church' addresses our doctrine of church, our identity as Anglicans, the church and the world, the ministry of women, lay administration of the Lord's supper and the role of the Anglican Church League.In each chapter he looks at some particular critiques, revises the history, considers the sociology and explains the theology. He also reflects on areas where Sydney Anglicans need to take care that they do not take on the worst aspects of what their critics see.

What I love about this book is the way that Michael ties in the history with the theology. The book is not a simplistic summary of the issues but lays a solid foundation in understanding what is at stake. In this way it serves to advance our theological understanding on many important issues. This is a book that will have a much longer-lasting value than any of the criticisms that prompted the author to write - and for this I think we can thank the critics that have prompted such a helpful 'apology'.

Broughton Knox on Denominations and Churches

I have recently been thinking about the relationship between churches and denomination and was interested to (re-) read some of the writing of Broughton Knox. Definitely worth a read is his article 'Church, Churches and Denominations of the Churches', originally published in The Reformed Theological Review, Vol 48, 1989, pp. 15-25. Reprinted in D. Broughton Knox: Selected Works. Volume II: Church and Ministry. Kirsten Birkett (ed.), Kingsford: Matthias Media, 2003. p85-98. (For a fuller assessment of the 'Knox-Robinson' doctrine of church see Mark Thompson's article: 'Knox-Robinson for Today'.)  I thought I would share this extract is from pp.95-98.

       These days, structures naturally arise to assist the fellowship within the congregation and to assist the fellowship between congregations. When these structures are more than one in any areas they are normally called denominations. But whether one or many, or whatever their name, these structures are not churches or part of the church. They are 'parachurch' organisations, for they exist alongside the churches to facilitate fellowship within and between churches, each one of which is a full and true visible expression of the one holy catholic heavenly church, the fellowship around Christ of all his saints (Heb 12:22-24), for Christ is present and his people are present. Nothing more is needed for a full expression of the gathering, or church, of Christ.

      This parachurch organisation must not exercise the duties of the congregation on behalf of the congregation, for this takes away the responsibilities of the congregation, and so weakens instead of strengthening its fellowship. In particular, a denomination must be careful not to exercise jurisdiction within the congregation, for it is outside the congregation and not in personal fellowship with those in dispute, so its jurisdiction may well lead to schism within the congregation, and obscure the visible unity of the church.

        Instead of elaborate denominational amalgamation, what is needed as a first step is denominational  simplification by handing back to the congregations those functions and responsibilities they had in the New Testament and the early centuries. Then it would not be difficult to unite into one these simplified denominational structures.

        Both Christians and congregations need fellowship to grow in Christ-likeness. The denomination expresses fellowship beyond the congregation. Members and ministers of congregations need to know and consciously remember that they are part of the larger heavenly church of Christ, and to experience that wider fellowship.This is the contribution that denominations make to the spiritual growth and joy of the Christian and the congregation.

Centralised control outside the congregation extinguishes the gospel within the congregation in due course. History confirms this truth abundantly. Even the smallest degree of control has this effect in the long run, for experience shows that the centre, when given a control of the congregation, over the decades increases it, aiming at uniformity and obedience. But the gospel rocks the boat of the denomination! The centre finds this uncomfortable and increases its power until it controls the boat, not by the word of God and prayer, but by organisational rules backed by secular sanctions, so that the word of God and the Spirit of God will hardly be found any more in the denomination, for it will not create nor hold the spiritually minded members.

        Denominations are called 'churches', and this nomenclature misleads many into thinking that they are part of the one holy catholic apostolic church. But the denomination is not a church, inasmuch as the denomination never gathers. Gathering is the only meaning of the word 'church' in the Old and New Testaments. The church building is also called a church. This is the most common use of the word. But no-one confuses the building with the church of Christ. The difference is clear in the English language. 'To go to church' means to go to the local gathering of the church. 'To go to the church' means to go to the church building. The church building is a physical structure to facilitate the fellowship of the church by keeping out the wind and the rain. The denomination is an organisational structure to facilitate the fellowship of the church with Christians in other churches. To call the denomination a church is strictly inaccurate, and in furtherance of clarity of thought ought to be dropped, and the word denomination always substituted.

   . . .   

      The denominational structure exists to facilitate this wider fellowship beyond the congregation as opportunities arise for it to be expressed. It links congregations with one another. It creates and provides facilities to the congregations in matters concerning fellowship, such as suggested liturgies, finance for buildings, superannuation for its ministers, and opportunity from time to time for fellowship in congregations drawn from a wider area than the locality, and so on. Congregations should be in fellowship with one another. They should not  act independently of other congregations. Independency is not a Christian concept. It is contrary to God's nature and to our nature as he has created it. Independency is a contradiction of Christian fellowship. Congregations should not act without respect to other congregations. Denominational structures assist the interdependence of congregation. These links are a natural creation of the fellowship of the Spirit of God. The denomination and its officers have a ministry which is common to all Christians, that is to help, advise, encourage and exhort the congregation and its members. It should not apply sanctions to the congregation or to any of its members, beyond the sanction of severing links of fellowship with that congregation. Coercion destroys fellowship, and a congregation should be free to sever its links with a denomination without penalty, for example, without loss of the property it uses. Coercion is contrary to the character of God and the rule of God, and to fellowship in Christ.

Of course, there is a lot of Biblical and theological background to what he is saying here. . . I hope to give some reflections on what Dr Knox says in a future post.

Would You Stand Up for (the Biblical View on) Slavery??

I was recently reading some comments about the issue of submission - specifically about wives submitting to their husbands - and noticed that several writers seemed to consider the issue of slavery to be a key to the interpretation of the passages, ie. the Bible seems to support slavery, but nowadays we know that slavery is wrong. So if the Bible is out of date about slavery it can be out of date about wives submitting too. (see, eg. Matt Hounslow's blog, and this article by Dorothy Lee on the Melbourne Anglicans website).

It got me thinking about the Biblical teaching on slavery - a subject I have looked at recently in 1 Peter and Ephesians. These thoughts came to mind:


The command for slaves to submit to their masters is found in both Ephesians (6:5ff) and 1 Peter (2:18ff). In the first century most slavery was parallel to imprisonment rather than the kind of chattel slavery we imagine from 18th century American History. Slaves may have been prisoners of war or bankrupts or other kinds of criminals. Many slaves were freed after their allotted time was complete. No doubt there was too much abuse of slaves, but this does not make the system an absolute wrong.

While Paul encourages Christian slaves to gain their freedom if they can (1 Cor 7:21) he also tells them to remain in the situation they were in when they were called. He sends runaway slave Onesimus back to Philemon (with the request that Philemon send the bill for his punishment to Paul and a hint that Philemon should let him go!)  Slavery as such is never outright condemned.

What is condemned in the Bible is 'slave-trading' or kidnapping. (See 1 Timothy 1:10). If we recognise that most 'slaves' were kidnapped and / or sold illegally then this will give us the Biblical argument against institutional slavery.

A very helpful read on first century slavery (and the biblical imagery of slavery) is Murray Harris’ book ‘Slave of Christ’.

This is not to say that I am a supporter of modern slavery - in fact I pray and seek to do what I can to end such slavery - especially sexual slavery. If we define slavery as the denial of freedom and other 'rights' then prisoners fit into that definition - yet I don't hear many people arguing that imprisonment of criminals is wrong per se.

The significance of what I am saying is that I believe we cannot say that the Bible condemns slavery outright. Nor can we say that we condemn everything included under the Biblical category of 'slavery'. If this is so then we can't use the argument outlined above as a 'clincher' in the arguments on submission.

Interested in your comments . . .

Jesus According to John the Baptist.

John the apostle makes a great deal of the testimony of John the Baptist who came to bear witness to the light (1:7).  In the two passages where John the Baptist appears in the gospel (1:19-34 and 3:22-36), John testifies some significant things about the 'coming one':

     1.  He is much greater than John (1:27). John denies that he is the Messiah or Elijah or 'the prophet'. He is merely the voice of one calling in the wilderness 'make straight paths for the Lord'. Despite John's fame as a fearless and genuine prophet, he is not even worthy to untie the laces of his sandals. This is also implicit in his statement that the one who comes after him 'has surpassed me because he is before me' (1:28)

     2.  He is 'the Lamb of God who takes away the Sin of the World' (1:31). This is quite different to the expectation that he will be the Messiah. There are a number of 'lambs' in the background of Israel's history (the sheep that took the place of Isaac, the passover lamb, the 'scapegoat' of Leviticus 16 that takes away the peoples sin, the guilt offering of Lev 16 and Numbers 4 and the lamb lead to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7). While the reference is ambiguous it seems clear that the idea is of a lamb that dies to pay the penalty for sins. This theme will reappear in the gospel.

     3.  He is the One who baptises with the Holy Spirit (1:33).  John insists that his baptism is only with water, but that the coming one - on whom the Holy Spirit descended at his baptism - this one will baptise with the Holy Spirit. While we must wait to fully understand its significance, we can assume that the washing with the Holy Spirit involves both the forgiveness of sins and the beginning of the indwelling of the Spirit which assures us of his presence and our connection with him (14:16-17).

     4.  He is the Son of God (1:34). The term 'Son of God' is equivalent to Messiah, making this a claim that Jesus is the one the Jews have been waiting for - the one they looked for to restore their nation and to rule over God's people forever. (There is a textual variant which makes the reading 'the chosen one of God' - but this would likely point to the same idea in different language).

* When John is questioned at a later time about about Jesus ('why does he baptise?') he again emphasises his priority: 'He must become greater, I must become less' (3:30). He also testifies that:

     5.  He is the One who Comes from Above (3:31). 'The one who comes from above is above all' (3:31) John here implies what has already been said in 1:1-2 and 14, that the Word was with God and was God and that the Word became flesh in the person of Jesus. This is a claim for the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus. This ties in with his statement of 1:30, where John says of his (younger) cousin: 'A man who comes after me is be has surpassed me because he is before me.'

     6.  He is the One who Speaks the Words of God (3:34). If Jesus is the one who 'comes from above' it is not surprising that he speaks the words of God, for he is God the Son and the father has given him the Spirit without limit.

     7.  He is the Beloved Son (3:35). 'The father loves the Son and places everything in his hands'. In 1:14 and 1:18 the word is called the 'One and Only' or the 'only begotten'. Whatever else this phrase means it emphasises the uniqueness of the Son and his special relationship with the Father. The Son is his Father's beloved and God the Father has placed 'everything' in his hands. He rules over all things!

     8.  He is the One who determines our Eternity (3:36). Our response to the Son therefore determines our eternity. If anyone rejects the Son, he will not see life 'for God's wrath remains on him', but anyone who believes (trusts / follows) the son already has eternal life (Having had their sins forgiven and being baptised by the Spirit).

How do we respond to John's testimony? Do we accept what he says? If so, then how will we respond to Jesus - will we believe and have eternal life or reject him and receive God's wrath? 

Reflections on the Levy to Purchase Land for New Churches

On Wednesday night our diocesan Synod decided to impose a Levy (a tax for a specific purpose) on every parish in the diocese of 2.24% of Gross Operating Receipts in order to provide $2 million per year to fund the purchase of land in new growth or 'greenfields' areas of the diocese. (Another article from the decision is on the Sydneyanglicans website.) The money will be given to the Mission Property Committee to purchase land for new churches when it becomes available. While I agree that we should be seeking to buy (at least some) land in these areas, I think the levy was the wrong thing to do for a number of reasons:

1.  A Levy is a blunt Instrument. Although we might say that it is fair because each church pays an equal percentage, it cannot take into account the different situation of each parish – the fledgling versus the established; those that have significant incomes from rentals or trusts versus those that have large debts; those that have good numbers of relatively wealthy members versus those that have a large percentage of unemployed or working poor. There is currently NO provision to exempt or to help those churches that will struggle to pay the levy. While 2.24% might not seem like much it will represent at least $2,000 in the smallest churches and obviously much more in larger churches. All this is extra money that has to be put in the plate!

2.  It will hurt the smallest churches.  There were a number of comments from very small churches - some of which struggle to pay their ministers already (one admitted to only paying their minister 65% of the recommended / minimum stipend) that this could be the last nail in their coffin. Whether a small church is shrinking or growing, if they are struggling to pay their bills already, this will be a cruel blow. It is worth remembering Paul's words in the context of the appeal to the Corinthians for support for the churches of Palestine: 'Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.' (2 Cor 8:13)

3. It will have a negative impact on churches trying to grow. Almost every church has to increase its budget a few percent (perhaps 4 to 5%) every year to cover cost increases (salaries, power bills etc.) Churches that are seeking to grow are often seeking to increase their budget more - especially when they are creating new paid ministry positions or have some other special project. This can often mean an increase of 10% or more from year to year. The extra 2.24% on top of this will make it that much more difficult to reach budget (ie. pay staff) and has (anecdotally) already led some churches not to seek to grow their staff and in some instances not to replace staff that are leaving.

4.  Has the MPC considered alternative models for church planting and land purchases? The MPC did present some examples of what has been achieved, but they seemed to present a simple model of one church per suburb, with a large (350 seat) auditorium and associated spaces. + one residence. The question is whether this is a realistic or even an appropriate model. Should we aim for a few smaller and a few larger churches? Or space the church buildings out more and aim to plant smaller congregations in school halls in between? Or just build a school which will have a community church? Or a retirement village? The models they use will determine the amount of money they need. We at least need the MPC and others to do the research and consider alternatives.

5.  Taxing Churches to support an external ministry vision is un-Biblical. A key passage here is 2 Corinthians 9:7 'Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.' While Paul is trying to urge the Corinthians to give he also emphasises that it should not be under compulsion. Christianity is a religion of grace! Leaders ought to lay the vision and the need before the people and allow them to give out of a generous heart. I wonder if the apostles ever thought of getting Matthew or Zaccheus to use their skills as tax collectors to collect the offertories of the early church? What we ought to have is an appeal done properly with the full support and zeal of our diocesan leadership!

6.  We Need More Money than Can be Raised by this Levy.  We actually need to raise more than $2 million dollars per year to fund not only the purchase of land, but to support church planters, re-vitalise existing ministries, build new church buildings and much more. We haven't yet addressed the fact that our losses in the GFC mean we are now spending at least $2 million per year spread around the diocese (through the regional councils) LESS than we were five years ago!  I think we ought to aim for $5 million per year - and I think that is more likely to be raised through properly coordinated appeals than through levies.

And a late addition:

7.  It Puts Property Before People.   The levy is all about prioritising the purchase of land in new areas. Although we have recently lost much of the money that was being applied to growing ministries (through regional councils etc), our first response at raising new funding is not being applied to people but to property. I for one think it is a bad look!

I would love your feedback - anything here I've got wrong / misunderstood / overstated?

How to Hear God's Word - Video by Andrew Heard

How can I really hear God's voice? How can I really hear him speaking?

This talk by Andrew Heard is part of the Bible Society's 'Live Light in 25 Words' promotion of Bible reading. Very helpful to help us understand (or remind us) why reading the Bible is so important to Christian living.

.
Check out other videos on the Bible Society website.
.

Speaking Lovingly about the impacts of Homosexuality

Following the appearance of Archbishop Peter Jensen on the ABC Q and A program this week there has been a great deal said about his comments on the health risks of the homosexual lifestyle - specifically that he did not repudiate the claim by ACL's Jim Wallace that the homosexual lifestyle has more health risks than smoking.

Today this incredibly brave and loving letter from Haydn Sennitt was published in the Sydney Morning Herald. It is worth a read:

Jensen spoke words of love not homophobia

I am a pastoral worker for Liberty Christian Ministries. I once identified as a gay man and lived actively as one for about five years. In that time I went to Anglican churches where Dr Peter Jensen was the archbishop, and I was frequently warned against living in sin. Though I resisted hearing that at times it never once made me feel suicidal or depressed: rather, I felt loved and safe (Letters, September 12).

I knew living as a homosexual was wrong even independently of what the Bible said because I had to have regular health checks to ensure I hadn't picked up hepatitis, AIDS, or blood toxicity from the things I was doing. That is what the gay life involves - risky sex that puts life on the line. It diminishes life quality and life expectancy.

Health research bears out the reality of the risks of gay sexual practice. The 2010 national STD conference run by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in the US produced evidence that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men is more than 44 times that of other men and that the rate of syphilis among this population is more than 46 times that of other men.

Peter Jensen's words on Q&A were reasoned, reasonable and said in love because he wants, as I do, people to have freedom in Christ and live life to the full now. That's not homophobic, that's love.

Haydn Sennitt East Balmain

There is probably much more to be said and considered on the issue of health impacts of living a non-Christian lifestyle with regard to sex (ie. all sex outside marriage) - including psychological heatlth - but I think Haydn gives a valuable personal testimony.

more can be found here: http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/slashing-funding-undermines-states-wellbeing

Do We Need More Parishes?

In the May edition of the Southern Cross (published by Sydney Anglican Media) there was an article by Paul Davey arguing the need to plant more parishes to reach our rapidly growing city. I thought there was a flaw in the argument, so I sent the following response to the editors:

I agree with Paul Davey's analysis of the need for church planting but disagree with his solution ('Church Planting or Bust', Southern Cross, May). The need for new churches is clear, but I thought we had moved past the idea of equating church planting with creating new parishes. In our Anglican system the overheads of being a parish (administrative, financial and ministry) are too high to expect a parish in every suburb. While a congregation may only need a single pastor, parishes should ideally have team ministries with a number of specialists (such as children's ministers) as well as 'generalists' and trainees. Our 'parishes' should be the administrative hub of a number of congregations and other specialised ministries. Parishes will need to be bigger - as we can clearly see when we look at the more successful parishes in our diocese. The most effective size for parishes will be such that they can effectively reach out to their community and plant new congregations as needed with minimal outside assistance.

In reality we probably have 40 parishes that, in the next two decades, will need to amalgamate with others to allow revitalisation and to effectively minister to their local areas. Perhaps we should aim to replace these with new parishes in growth areas - and possibly add another 40 - but I believe our goal for new parishes should be more modest. Surely most of our church plants should exist under the umbrella of a supportive parish rather than expecting them to be independent from the start? Let's aim to re-develop our parishes into effective ministry units and allow new parishes to develop organically so that they start strong - rather than drawing lines on maps and expecting a healthy parish to appear from thin air.

Richard Blight
Padstow

Don Carson on the Personhood of the Spirit

I have recently been reading Don Carson's Jesus and His Friends: His Farewell Message and Prayer in John 14 to 17. It is a very helpful work on this important passage that not only expounds the text but also draws out some of the implications and applications.

In a 'note' at the end of chapter 3 (On the Coming of the Spirit of Truth, John 14:15-24), Don Carson outlines reasons for believing the Holy Spirit is a person (rather than a force or 'thing'). This is more than a theological exercise, since our understanding of the Spirit will affect how we think about God and this will affect our prayers and our worship. I think it is worth sharing in full:

In the exposition of this passage I have assumed that the Holy Spirit is a person, and that traditional trinitarian formulations are both biblical and true. I have not attempted to defend the doctrine of the Trinity (except perhaps implicitly), nor have I attempted to prove that the Holy Spirit is a person. This is because the passage before us does not have such matters as their chief concerns, even though, in my view, it presupposes their essential ingredients.

It may be helpful to list a few reasons why I believe the Scriptures teach the Holy Spirit is both a person and divine. This list is neither exhaustive nor detailed; but it reflects several quite different lines of reasoning which, combined, are convincing.

First, both in this passage and in many others, the Holy Spirit performs personal actions. The Paraclete is a person who comes as Jesus' successor and, in many respects, substitute: a mere influence, or anything less personal and less divine than Jesus Christ himself, would necessarily be something of a disappointment.

Second, the Holy Spirit enjoys both the distinctness and the oneness with the Father that the Son enjoys. The distinctness (e.g. the Father sends the Spirit in response to the Son's intercession) ensures his separate personality; his oneness (e.g. by the Spirit's indwelling in the believer, the Father and the Son also make their home in the believer) ensures his deity.

Third, according to Mattew 12:31-32, a person may sin against the Holy Spirit. Contextually this is more than sinning against the light, or the like. It suggests again (though it does not prove) that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Fourth, the trinitarian formulae in the New Testament are virtually inexplicable if the Holy Spirit, like the Father and the Son, is not both a person and divine. I refer to such expressions as 'baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' (Matthew 28:19) and 'May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all' (2 Corinthians 13:14). To construe the Spirit as less than person and less than divine when the texts put him in the company of deity and speak of his name would be as foolish as to say, 'I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of lovely influences.' The thought approaches blasphemy.

Fifth, although the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father, such 'sentness' does not reduce the counsellor to the status of a thing. After all, John's Gospel makes much of the fact that Jesus himself was sent (e.g. 3:17); and the Gospels do not think of Jesus as impersonal. More to the point, the new testament writers regularly distinguish between the Holy Spirit and his gifts (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:7-11). Concerning these gifts, Paul writes. 'All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each man, just as he determines' (1 Corinthians 12:11).

Sixth, older theologians sometimes point to embodiments of the Holy Spirit. At Jesus' baptism, for instance, 'the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove' (Luke 3:22). It is possible, I suppose, to think of God sending a dove to represent a divine blessing or influence or the like; but the language suggests something more: the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove. It is difficult to predicate such a thing of an influence. The most natural way to take the passage is to think of the Holy Spirit as a person who normally has no bodily form.

Seventh, there are many isolated passages which do not easily fit into one of the previous categories, but which make the best sense if we presuppose both that the Holy Spirit is a person and that the Holy Spirit is God. One example must suffice. In Acts 5:3-4, Peter asks Ananias, 'Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit . . .? You have not lied to men but to God.' The parrallel is obvious.

from Jesus and His Friends (Leicester: IVP / Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), p64-66

I love the way that Don gives his reasons from scripture. While the broader theological debates are valuable, our theology always needs to be grounded and controlled by the Biblical text.

Only God Can Truly Reveal the Future

The Mind Body Spirit Festival came to Sydney's Darling Harbour at the beginning of May. The Festival is a travelling celebration of New Age and alternative therapies with a sprinkling of motivational coaching, cooking and beauty therapies thrown in. One of the draw-cards of the festival (attended by thousands) is the ready access to a large number of 'Psychics' who promise to 'Delve deep into the things you want to know about your career, love, relationships, family and finances.' While not all would claim to be able to tell the future, that is certainly how they are promoted at the MBS Festival.

The interest in future-telling (or fortune-telling) continues to be widespread and popular. The wikipedia article on the topic suggests there are over 40 different methods practitioners use - from Astrology and Clairvoyance to Tarot Cards and the ancient art of I Ching. While some claim to use the ancient arts you can of course use modern technology to get your fortune over the phone or online!

In ancient Babylon the Kings kept many wise men in their employ who were also expected to be able to 'read the signs' and get insight into the future. Of particular significance were the interpretation of dreams. Archaeologists have found a number of large books that show just how complicated dream interpretation could be.

In the famous story of Daniel and King Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2), the King is said to be disturbed by his dreams and so demands his wise men not only to interpret the dream but to tell him what his dream was. When they protest at the impossibility of the task he orders them to be executed - and it appears that Daniel will be among those who die. So Daniel and his friends pray to God and ask for the dream to be revealed to them. Daniel then reveals the dream to the King and gives its interpretation.

When the King has heard what Daniel has to say he responds in awe, saying: The king's words represent a profound understanding of God's sovereignty. The Lord - Yahweh, the God of Israel - is the God above all other so-called gods. No doubt the wise men of Babylon called on their gods to reveal the King's dream, but they did not. The authority and power of the Lord is far greater than any other god, because he alone determines the future. In the same way the Lord is the Lord of Kings. He holds Kings and kindoms in his hand and he determines when they rise and fall.

"Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery.” (Dan 2:47) 

In the same way, it is the Lord alone who is the 'revealer of mysteries'. Only he can truly reveal the future, because he owns the future. And God has told us everything we need to know about the future through his Son in the Scriptures. Of course, he has not revealed everything that can be known about the future, but he has revealed what is most important - especially the truth about the coming judgment, the eternal reign of the Lord Jesus and the salvation that is available through him. If God hasn't revealed it in his Word, then we don't need to know it.

So why would we go looking for knowledge of the future from anyone other than the Lord, the only 'revealer of mysteries'? Anyone else who claims to have knowledge of the future that does not come from him is a phony!

It is natural for humans to be concerned about the future, but the solution is not to try and find out as much about the future as we can so that we can try and control our own destinies. What God calls us to do is to 'seek first his kingdom' - to listen to his Word and to trust him. Then we can be confident that whatever our future holds we will be safe in him. 

Formation of the New Testament Canon - Self Improvement Wednesday with Chris Forbes

Each week Richard Glover on the ABC Radio 702 Drive program has a segment called self-improvement Wednesday - a short interview and discussion with an Academic expert on a specific subject. This week (April 18th) the subject was the formation of the canon of the New Testament with Dr Chris Forbes, a Senior Lecturer in Ancient History and Deputy Chairman of the Society for the Study of Early Christianity at Macquarie University.

This is how the segment was described on the ABC website:

The Da Vinci Code is a hugely popular work of fiction but it's not historically correct. Find out how the books of the New Testament came to be chosen as the Christian canon on SIW today.

An interesting and helpful 10 minute listen. You can listen online or download here or subscribe to the podcast here.

Hope you find it as interesting as I did.

Don Carson’s ‘Jesus and His Friends’ and Understanding Jesus’ Farewell Discourse in John 14-17

Chapters 14-17 of John’s gospel are sometimes called the ‘farewell discourse’. Set in the upper room as Jesus addresses his friends during (and after) the last supper, John recounts in these chapters some of Jesus’ most significant teaching about his ministry and mission, about his relationship with the Father and the Spirit, about the ongoing work of the Spirit, and concludes with his prayer for the disciples and for all believers. It is a significant passage and worthy of careful study.

A helpful guide in looking at the farewell discourse is Don Carson’s “Jesus and His Friends: His Farewell Message and Prayer in John 14 To 17”. This is not really a commentary (Carson has written one of those as well), but seeks to explain and apply the passage at a more popular level.

The farewell discourse begins with these words from Jesus: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.” (John 14:1-4 NIV 1984)

The following is a quote from pages 19-20 of Jesus and His Friends explaining the significance of Jesus’ words and in general terms what the farewell discourse is all about:

Unable to grasp that Jesus’ departure from them is his return to the glory rightly his, by way of the cross and the tomb, the disciples wallow in their misery, fearing they are about to be abandoned. We, too, may sometimes slither around in the slough of despond and feel abandoned; but the situation in John 13 and 14 is unique. The sense of abandonment experienced by the disciples was prompted by an unrepeatable event in the history of redemption: the physical departure of Jesus by way of the cross. Therefore, although the disciples needed the general exhortation to trust in God and to trust in Jesus, they needed something more: they needed further instruction, more detailed explanation of the significance of the events to take place. Even if they remain unable to absorb all the details until after that epochal weekend had passed, Jesus’ words provided not only some immediate relief, but the framework ultimately made sense of the most important events in all history.

In other words, the Farewell Discourse must not be treated simplistically, as nothing more than Christian comfort designed to console defeated saints. Rather it is first and foremost an exposition of the significance of Jesus’ ‘going away’ to his father via the cross. It is elemental theology; and only as such does it offer encouragement and consolation. For troubled Christians there is little genuine comfort that is divorced from the significance of the events of that one weekend in Jerusalem and its environs almost two thousand years ago. This was especially true for those first believers, whose anguish was made particularly acute by the fact that they themselves participated in those events and were engulfed by them. But modern believers, too, best discover renewed faith and fortitude, not by clinging to isolated spiritual aphorisms and evangelical clichés, but by returning to a deep understanding of the historical and redemptive structure of their faith.

Within this framework, Jesus provides some content for his followers to believe (14:2-7); he enunciates truths they must believe if their faith is to be triumphant, their spirits tranquil. Unfortunately, the disciples grasp little of this, because they have already misjudged who Jesus is. The profound implications of the exhortation, ‘Trust in God; trust also in me’ (14:1) have quite passed them by; and therefore Jesus must review some of his earlier teaching and provide a lesson for slow learners concerning who he really is (14:8-14).

I hope you find this as helpful as I do in gaining an orientation to this passage – and to the Farewell Discourse as a whole.

Responding to Richard Dawkins & the New Atheists

My friends at Outreach Media have just launched a website called DoubtingDawkins.Com to respond to the Global Atheist's Convention in Melbourne this week. The site is based around 22 questions and statements that challenge Richard Dawkins' logic and manner. The 20,000 words of great content have been written by a talented and diverse team of philosophers, theologians and scientists. Why not check out what it has to say.


You can also watch this short video promoting the site (On Vimeo)


Doubting Dawkins from Nicholas Ryan on Vimeo.


Check it out at DoubtingDawkins.com

Oh to see the Dawn (The Power of the Cross) - Song for Easter

A great song for Easter by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend reminding us of the power and victory of the cross: "Christ became sin for us; took the blame, bore the wrath - we stand forgiven at the cross."



Lyrics:

Oh, to see the dawn
Of the darkest day:
Christ on the road to Calvary.
Tried by sinful men,
Torn and beaten, then
Nailed to a cross of wood.

CHORUS:
This, the pow'r of the cross:
Christ became sin for us;
Took the blame, bore the wrath—
We stand forgiven at the cross.

Oh, to see the pain
Written on Your face,
Bearing the awesome weight of sin.
Ev'ry bitter thought,
Ev'ry evil deed
Crowning Your bloodstained brow.

Now the daylight flees;
Now the ground beneath
Quakes as its Maker bows His head.
Curtain torn in two,
Dead are raised to life;
"Finished!" the vict'ry cry.

Oh, to see my name
Written in the wounds,
For through Your suffering I am free.
Death is crushed to death;
Life is mine to live,
Won through Your selfless love.

FINAL CHORUS:
This, the pow'r of the cross:
Son of God—slain for us.
What a love! What a cost!
We stand forgiven at the cross.

The Power of the Cross
Words and Music by Keith Getty and Stuart Townend
Copyright © 2005 Thankyou Music

Reasons to Believe the Biblical Accounts of Easter (Videos)

Last week Dr John Dickson visited UWS Bankstown at the invitation of the department of Social Science to speak about Humility. In these videos he looks at the reasons to believe the Easter story in the Bible is historically reliable.




Reasons to believe Part 2:


To talk more about this topic come to CBM (especially in Easter week): Tuesday 1-2pm in 1.1.223 and Thursday 1-2 pm in 1.1.081

Why All Christians Should get Involved with their Campus Christian Group

Notes from a talk I gave at the CBM launch - March 17th 2011:

1. To get to know your brothers & sisters in Christ on campus – and on other campuses. The church is bigger than your local church! When we come into fellowship with God through Christ we come into fellowship with every other believer. You have an opportunity to experience and express that on campus. Meeting with other believers will help you develop a bigger understanding of the church. Your classmates will also be your future colleagues, and you will probably go through many challenges together.

2. To encourage others and to be encouraged to remain Christian - as you hit the dangerous age bracket (of 18-25) and as you go into the workplace. Both are dangerous times for people to fall away from Christ or to water down their faith.


3.  To grow in your knowledge of God and his Word – not just memory verses, but thinking through how God’s word applies to every area of your life at a University level (don’t be content with Sunday School understanding). Need to understand the big picture of the Bible. Need to know at least some answers to the common objections - especially if you are going to be a leader (which you will be expected to be).

 4.  To be trained in Ministry (ministry is service) – through courses and through serving. Expected to be leaders, especially in word ministries – Bible teaching / small group leading, following-up new Christians, apologetics, evangelism – all done with a servant heart. Not taking you away from your local church, but equipping you to go back and serve.

 5.  To reach the campus for Christ. Evangelism is rarely ‘easy’, but it is possibly easier at your age and stage of life. People are thinking about the big issues of life and have time to explore the answers. You can learn to “mission” together and support each other in your attempts at evangelism. We need every Christian to be involved in doing this to give every student a chance to hear the gospel – a chance they might never have again.

 6.  To reach the world for Christ. The world is bigger than just your campus! The gospel is for all people everywhere. Since you have been blessed with such great teaching and training you have a responsibility and an opportunity to impact the world! (When you look at the history of Christian mission and student ministry you see many inspiring examples!)

There is undoubtedly more that can be said, but I thought these were the key reasons. Anyone have any others?

My Response to Draft Diocesan Funding Principles and Priorities for 2013 - 2015

At the Sydney Anglican Diocesan Synod in 2011 the leadership presented a draft of the funding principles they believe we ought to adopt over the next three years. This is a response to the major financial disaster that the diocese experienced after the GFC in 2009. The drafters asked for feedback. Here is what I sent:

SUBMISSION RE. DRAFT STATEMENT OF FUNDING PRINCIPLES AND PRIORITIES 2013 – 2015

1. I agree that the significantly changed financial situation of the diocese gives us an opportunity to re-think the principles we adopt in budgeting and spending the resources which God has given us, however I disagree with many of the specific recommendations of the paper.

2. I suggest that any principles we adopt must reflect our theology – especially our commitment to the priority of local congregation - while not discounting the value of ministries which serve the network and those missional activities which seek to grow the Kingdom of God without immediate benefit to any one local congregation. I would suggest that we also believe that the Archbishop and his leadership team are servants of the diocese. The diocese is not defined by the existence and ministry of the Bishop(s). To claim that the ministry of the Archbishop is an “Anglican Essential” and should therefore be funded – as a first priority – by the parishes is inconsistent with our theology. If we were to define “Anglican Essentials” I believe we would choose the Word of God and the Doctrine of the 39 Articles and BCP rather than Episcopal Leadership and membership of the national church.

3. The document appears to start with the assumption that the parishes must pay more. The fact that net receipts of the parishes has increased does not mean that the parishes should be required to pay more, but rather that the parishes are already paying for the bulk of Anglican ministry in the diocese. The move to imposing a levy on parishes in addition to ‘parish cost recoveries’ is a significant departure from existing policy and should not be assumed. The change in financial situation: ie. The decrease in funds available to the EOS and the DE, does not in itself constitute a reason to increase diocesan levies on parishes. The case might be made that the parishes are already funding the bulk of Anglican ministry in the diocese and that they are best placed to make decisions about where their money can best be used for mission. The first assumption of those involved in the budgeting process should be the ‘zero levy’ option and this option should always be made available to Synod.

4. The financial difficulties now faced by the DE and EOS highlight some imprudent decisions by the trustees of these endowments regarding distributions. Trustees of both the EOS and the DE ought to take a prudent approach and aim to maintain – and if possible increase – the value of these Endowments over the long term. It would not seem unreasonable to assess this by comparing the real value of funds held at the beginning and end of the incumbency of each Archbishop. While diocesan funding ought to be considered holistically it does not seem prudent to merge the EOS and the DE, but rather that expenditure of each endowment ought to be spent on the highest priority items which fall within their purview. It would also be appropriate to make details of expenditure of the EOS open to review by Synod.

5. The position of Archbishop and membership of the national church may be considered Constitutional requirements or essentials and have a high priority in funding, but this does not require that they be funded by a levy on parishes. In fact these expenses (and possibly a number of others) should be the first priority of expenditure of moneys sourced from the EOS and DE respectively.

6. The decrease in real value of the EOS in recent years seems to be preciptitated – at least in part – by the EOS spending more than what is prudent. Such a situation would suggest that, notwithstanding recent cuts, the Archbishops ministry team may need to be further cut. There should be no assumption that funding shortfalls should be made up by levies on the parishes. Fundraising through voluntary contributions for specific ministries should be seriously considered. There is no necessity for the Synod to prioritise spending on regional Bishops / Archdeacons simply because the EOS does not have sufficient funds to maintain current numbers. Genuine consideration ought to be given to creative solutions (including Bishops who are also Rectors and to fundraising). Reducing the number of regions (and Bishops) should not be ruled out. If the Archbishop wished to supplement EOS funds with Synod funds the ministry case would need to be presented in an equivalent way to every other request for Synod funds.

7. The ministries which the Diocese as an organisation is best placed to conduct are those network ministries which:
a. serve the parishes and are best combined (eg. Insurance, property trust oversight, general legal services, Professional Standards Unit)
b. involve ministry recruiting and training (eg. MT & D, and to some extent, Moore College & Youthworks college)
c. involve the development of extra-parochial ministries (eg. tertiary ministries).
d. Involve the development of Diocese wide ‘helping ministries’ (eg. Anglicare)
e. Involve long-term forward planning activities (eg. Mission property Committee)
Other ministries (including support of new ministries) may be desirable to be funded by the diocese (as in the past through regional councils), but may be better funded through a diocesan ministry development fund sponsored by the Archbishop and funded through donations in response to presentation of the specific needs

8. There is no justification to extend the idea of parochial cost recoveries to cover ministries which are not obviously parochial costs. Notwithstanding the above statement, it is likely that a careful review of Secretariat functions may find additional costs that can legitimately be called ‘parish services’. The cost of running Synod could legitimately be argued as a cost to parishes, provided other organisations that are represented are likewise charged (colleges, Anglicare, Youthworks etc.)

9. Serious consideration should also be given to raising funds from non-parochial Anglican organisations in the diocese, including Schools, ARV, Hammondcare etc., where such organisations trade on the name ‘Anglican’ (or even ‘Church of England’) or where they appoint licensed clergy, invite the involvement of the Archbishop’s ministry team, have representation at Synod or use the services of the secretariat.

10. Serious consideration should be given to the Archbishop and bishops leading a fundraising effort to raise funds for mission activities which are not able to be funded by synod allocations. An obvious area would be support for the creation of new ministry positions. (To be determined in consultation with Regional councils).

11. As a matter of principle I believe that any specific ministry funded through Synod grants (which is not a parochial service ministry) should only be partially funded (with the rest made up by fundraising) and for a limited duration. Ongoing assessment of effectiveness of grants should be undertaken. It should be noted that some Synod allocations are to organisations which already incorporate this principle (eg. TEMOC).

Richard Blight
29th February 2012

Sorry for the abbreviations. Any explanation needed just ask in comments.

Atheism for the Incorrigibly Religious

Alain de Botton is a Swiss Philosopher currently in Australia promoting he latest book: On Religion for Atheists.  Dan (who is a philosophy graduate and studying for his Ph D as well as working in University student ministry) went to hear him speak at the Sydney Opera House.


Here is an excerpt from his reflections on the event:

The reason that religions have much to teach atheists, according to De Botton, begins with the insight that humans are basically ‘not ok’: the basic human condition is one of vulnerability, fragility, lostness. For De Botton, this is the fundamental truth behind the Christian doctrine of original sin. And it’s a truth that New Atheism, proclaimed from the High Tables of Oxbridge, abjectly fails to reckon with. The modernist humanistic project has been altogether too quick to leave us to our own devices and what is needed is a thoroughgoing reappraisal of our need for an education in the disciplines of living well. Religions understand this, they understand that education is not about skilling people for tasks, but a process of moral formation and guidance to help us navigate the twin uncertainties of our world and our hearts. The rationalist education produces better hairdressers; the religious, better people.

De Botton’s sampling at the bain-marie of religion is guided by his desire to introduce atheists into these effective practices of moral formation. . . .

Do check out his brilliant review here: Papermind/atheism-for-the-incorrigibly-religious/.