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.