Crumbs

‘Who does he think he is?’

Growing up as a disillusioned teenager in a disastrous Anglican Church, we were required to recite the same liturgy every week. My mood would rise or fall depending on which version of the Rite for Holy Communion we would be using. Some seemed significantly shorter than others.

But it was the prayer of humble access that really used to press my buttons. It’s that phrase ‘we are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs from under your table’. ‘Who does he think he is?’ God, I mean. To an arrogant fourteen year old they were enough to light the inner blue touch paper. They’re no less easy on the ears of a slightly less arrogant forty year old. But I don’t struggle with them in the same way that I used to. They’re true. I’m not worthy to gather up the crumbs from under the Lord’s table. And I’ve come to see that. Or rather, God has persuaded me.

What’s changed? Well, I’ve come to appreciate who God is and who I am. God is immeasurably, inconceivably, breathtakingly wondrous in the perfection of his righteousness, love and wisdom. I am not. I’m far from that. Even in my regenerative state as a man under divine reconstruction, I am not worthy. The Spirit of God may be making me more like Christ, but I’m still a work in progress – as are you. And we’re not worthy.

But that’s not the whole of the story, is it? Even though being permitted to scrabble around on the floor picking up the things that God brushes off his table would be a privilege, God goes further. He goes so much further. He invites us to sit with him at his table as a guest, to enjoy his companionship and to enjoy all the good things he lays on for us. It’s the difference between what we are by nature and what we are by grace. God graciously get us up off the floor, pulls up a seat and welcomes us to himself so that we might know him and enjoy him. For ever. He is the same Lord who ‘delights in showing mercy’.

It’s good for us to say the prayer of humble access. I actually love saying it these days. It’s very good for my soul to be reminded what I have because of God’s generosity to me. It may stick in our throats when we first hear it. But as we become more familiar with the God of the Bible and the wickedness of the human heart, we’ll discover it’s true. And we’ll be able to say it with conviction. And with joy. As many of us already do.

Read Full Post »

Anglicanism’s Alpha Male

Andrew Atherstone, has recently penned a biography of Justin Welby, the new Archbishop of Canterbury. The Oxford academic has ploughed through hundreds of parish magazines to give us a portrait of his views ‘unencumbered by nervous press officers’.

He talks about his book briefly here.

It’s already pre-ordered from Amazon, where this was the blurb

This biography of Justin Welby, the 105th archbishop of Canterbury, traces the story of his life and ministry from his earliest years to the eve of his enthronement in March 2013. It examines his conversion to Christianity as a student at Cambridge University, his career as a treasurer in the oil industry and his meteoric rise through the ranks of the Church of England – as a rector in Warwickshire, director of international reconciliation ministry at Coventry cathedral, dean of Liverpool and bishop of Durham. Based on extensive archival research, and interviews with the archbishop’s friends and colleagues, this study analyses his formative relationships, leadership style and priorities for the church. It highlights Justin Welby’s passion for evangelism, reconciliation and risk-taking, which mark a change of direction for the Anglican Communion.

John Bingham, writing in the Telegraph in his capacity as Religious Affairs Editor, provides a few highlights of the book here.

Late addition, this is the Amazon blurb on Andrew

Andrew Atherstone is tutor in History and Doctrine, and Latimer research fellow, at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. He is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and has published widely on a number of Anglican personalities such as Charles Golightly (Oxford’s Protestant Spy, Paternoster, 2007), and George Carey.

Read Full Post »

‘Co-Mission Sunday?’

Last weekend we held Co-Mission Sunday. We didn’t call it that. We couldn’t. Not without being lambasted by anyone who knows us! We’re not suggesting that it gets added to the Anglican liturgical calendar like Pentecost, Lent or Advent.

But at this time of year we usually have our annual Co-Mission Celebration. Let’s just be clear. We don’t celebrate Co-Mission (though we’re grateful for all that God is doing in, through and despite us). We celebrate the God of the Bible. That seems like a more wholesome thing to do at the start of the year!

This year the focus of our various church gatherings was the subject of prayer. All of us who preached did so on passages of our choice to try to encourage us to become a network of churches that expresses our professed faith in God in actual faith; namely through prayer. And to do that, we played musical pulpits. Andy Fenton came to Christ Church Balham in the morning and gave us Habakkuk 3. I went to  Christ Church Earlsfield in the afternoon and gave them Luke 18. Phil Allcock came to CCB in the evening whilst I headed up to Christ Church Mayfair. Somehow Matt Fuller got an evening off. He tells me it was much deserved.

It was great to invite trusted and treasured colleagues to come and encourage us. And I loved travelling to other churches to try to do the same for them. It’s also really interesting just to see what others are doing and how they’re going. These are my initial reflections.

1. It was wonderfully encouraging to see what God has been doing in the different congregations. CCE nearly fill their building. As Andy pointed out, Southfield’s Methodist is not the biggest building in the world. And that’s true. But God has really grown them since they went for a combined church meeting at 4pm. People of all ages and stages were mixed in together expressing a deep concern for one another. Christ Church Mayfair was virtually full of students and young professionals, all showing a real appetite for Bible teaching and displaying love in the Spirit towards one another. There were lots of people I recognised at both churches, largely from my involvement in Revive, our annual Bible festival for which I’ve been responsible. But there were loads of people I’d never met or even seen before. I chatted to people who’d only come to faith in the last year. At CCE I met a young woman who’d only recently become a Christian. I think I scared the living daylights out of her when I told her that we’d been praying for her since she first came into contact with the gospel!  But there she was, weeks after being baptised.

2. These guys felt like family. It didn’t feel like going to other churches. We have very good relations with local churches like Trinity Road Chapel and St Nicholas’ Church Tooting. We do things together, we support one another’s ministries, we pray for one another. We love them as Christian brothers and sisters. But they’re not family in quite the same way as these Co-Mission churches are. It helps that we know some of the people in these churches personally. But there are so many more that we’ve never met and may never meet. Not this side of heaven, anyway! But because we part of the same network of churches they share a common commitment to and participation in our shared gospel initiatives. And the way things work in Co-Mission, it wouldn’t surprise me if a year or two down the line we’re involved in some new church plant together!

3. These churches may not have been planted without help from the network. Christ Church Earlsfield and Clapham Central would not have been planted without people joining them from CCB, Christ Church Mayfair and Dundonald. CCB has contributed to the launch and growth of CCE, Clapham Central and King’s Church Walton on Thames. God willing we’ll be able to contribute to the launch of Sutton and Brixton in the near future. We’ve not sent huge numbers of people. We don’t have huge numbers. But we’ve sent one or two people, sometimes more than that. But then so have other churches in the network. And because of that we’ve been able to get new churches up and running in places where another gospel church is needed. That’s hugely encouraging. The mantra that often gets repeated (by Richard Coekin in all seriousness and by the rest of us in faux mockery) is that we’re ‘we can do more together than we can on our own’. And the truth of it is; it’s true. I think the last ten years have shown that. Under God we’ve been able to plant many more churches than we otherwise would have been able to do if we’d just remained as one church in Wimbledon. By co-operating together and deliberately trying to stay together we’ve done more for the gospel than we otherwise would have done. And that’s great for the kingdom.

4. There seems to be a growing understanding of the value of staying together. I think people are being persuaded that the mantra, though a little bit irritating at times, is nevertheless true. We’re not all about to go and get it tattooed on any part of our anatomy. Not even the staff. But the churches are increasingly full of people who’ve seen that by staying networked we’re learning from one another (perhaps especially our mistakes), we’re supporting one another (perhaps especially in prayer), we’re resourcing one another (perhaps especially with start-up finances) and we’re helping one another (perhaps especially with people).  The smaller churches, in particular, have been on the receiving end of the kindness and generosity of the larger churches. And they know how much they’ve gained from a bigger brother who’s helped them find their feet. We’re nurturing smaller churches towards self sufficiency and wonderfully some of the planted churches are in a position to become church planting churches. That’s valuable. And it’s wirth being a part of.

5. We share a similar sense of humour. Everywhere I went, the specially produced video made people laugh. It wasn’t meant to. And there are some good things about it. But it felt to me like a cross between a 1980s Open University broadcast and an episode of ‘Where’s Wally?’ Bit let me quash any scurrilous rumours that I’m piqued because I wasn’t asked to front it! It’ll undoubtedly appear on the Co-Mission website at some stage. It’s worth watching twice; once to get over the visuals. And then secondly to listen to the words. It’s a helpful introduction to what we’re about.

Read Full Post »

The Evangelical Centre – what, as in soft and squidgy, like Caramel?

They’re kidding me, right?

Yesterday Fulcrum (the self proclaimed bastion of evangelicalism’s centre ground) posted a statement on Women Bishops. It’s on their website.

Fulcrum fully supports women bishops and hopes that the Measure passes through the General Synod in November. We believe that this is the view of most evangelicals in the Church of England. We agree with CEEC that all members of General Synod must prayerfully consider the good of the whole church and vote with a clear conscience. We hope that all those who want women bishops will vote for the Measure. We further hope that those who are against will be able in good conscience to abstain, recognising that it is clearly the will of the Church to proceed, and then work with the provision, which is unlikely to be strengthened should the legislation fall this time.

If I’ve understood it correctly (and there’s no guarantee that I have) their argument goes something  like this

1. we, that is Fulcrum, think that women bishops are a good thing and we’ll be voting for them (there’s nothing exceptional about that)

2. we know that not everyone, especially classical evangelicals, agrees with us (and it’s good of them to notice our theologically principled opposition)

3. but we think that the majority of people in the C of E, that broad spectrum of differing theological opinion,  are of one mind (not that this is a guarantee of anything – popularity is no guarantee of being right – how else do you account for Cliff Richard’s string of number ones)

4. so please would those who disagree not disagree because you’re a minority (in other words, don’t rock the boat with your unacceptable and outdated views)

5. but even though you think we shouldn’t be doing this, it’s worth remembering that if you keep schtum it might work out better for you

I wouldn’t want to be misunderstood, but I’m happy for it to go on record that I love women. I really do. Just to be clear; I think they’re great. I wouldn’t be who I am today without them! I love three women in particular; my wife Rosslyn, my daughter Flora and my Mother (and it just feels too uncomfortable to use her Christian name – though she has one – she’s my Mum; she’s just not Judith to me). I love other women too. Just not in the same way. I really don’t hate women. My position on the illegitimacy of pursuing Episcopal roles for women within the Denomination called the Church of England, is not misogynistic. It’s theological. I think what’s being suggested by Fulcrum is theologically vacuous tactical pragmatism of the worst kind. But then again, I might have missed something really important!

Read Full Post »

New Archbishop of Canterbury

The secular media can smell blood. The Crown Nominations Committee is meeting for the next three days to consider which two names to present to the Prime Minister on Friday.

The BBC website has an article explaining the process here. And they’ve got a chart to help you consider the main runners and riders here.

The Guardian has an interactive guide to help you predict who you think will get it. Find it here.

There are, I think, sixteen people lay and clergy who have the responsibility of choosing the two candidates. One will be the preferred choice.

Pray for this committee. I don’t think the choice will make a massive difference to the progress of the gospel of Jesus Christ in this country. That’s the job of local churches and the Christians who make up those congregations. But it might be helpful to have a man in the role who encourages churches to speak about Jesus Christ by modelling it in his media appearances. And it might be encouraging to have a senior church official who leads from the front in being vilified for saying what’s biblical and not what’s fashionable.

Following the announcement of his appointment to the position of Archbishop of Sydney in 2001, Peter Jensen stood before the faculty and students of Moore Theological College and asked us to pray that he’d talk about God, Jesus and the Bible. That’s the kind of man I’d happily follow. I’m praying that just such a man might be in the mix.

Read Full Post »

Unrest in Southwark – A Kuhrt Response?!

The proposed ‘Southwark Ministry Trust’ has (not unexpectedly) caught the eye of those interested in Church Politics. But it’s also caused some consternation amongst those that agree that the situation in the Church of England, and perhaps especially the Diocese of Southwark, is lamentable.

Stephen Kuhrt, the Vicar of Christ Church New Malden in the Southwark Diocese, has written a response to the proposed trust fund on the Fulcrum website.

Let me begin by saying that there are many things that I liked about the article.

First, I think he’s made a shrewd and insightful observation in his first paragraph when he writes,

It is often much easier for evangelicals to agree upon problems within the church than their solutions. This is because our understanding of such problems is usually based upon the relative consensus that evangelicals broadly possess over doctrine and ethics. Proposed solutions to these problems, on the other hand, often reveal the diversity amongst evangelicals when it comes to one particular area of doctrine: our ecclesiology or theology of the church.

I agree with that. But it remains incumbent upon those of us that agree with the issue to do all that we can not to fall out over the tactics we employ to try to effect the change for which we all hope, pray for and work towards.

Secondly, I respect him for the recent stand he’s taken within the Diocese in opposing the cause of biblical revisionism evident in the recent appointment of so many Liberal-Catholics to senior posts. Stephen writes, ‘It is for these reasons that I have been among those who have criticised the imbalance within the Southwark appointments and strongly communicated this upset and dissatisfaction to our Bishop, Christopher Chessun’. It’s not easy to contend for the truth. You get shot at. And good for Stephen if he’s willing to take the hits on this one.

Thirdly, I agree with him that there remain questions and difficulties that surround the administration and distribution of funds from the Southwark Trust Fund. Some of those questions have been addressed already and others, no doubt, are being worked out as the plan evolves. I’m sure that those responsible will carry on responding to the criticisms that come their way and clearing up any misunderstandings or misrepresentations. But he need not be unduly suspicious of the phraseology that’s been employed by the Trust in their wording of the proposals.

Fourthly, I broadly agree with him about the subsidy culture. Stephen writes, ‘I have major issues with the ‘subsidy culture’ that asks for such a crippling amount and is so discouraging to church growth’. Having said that, I’m pretty sure that Stephen would support the redistribution of income to church ministries that are unlikely ever to be self-sustaining so long as the church is involved in gospel ministry consistent with the theology of the Church of England as contained in the 39 Articles.

But I’m not completely onboard with everything that Stephen says.

I don’t think that the so-called ‘balance’ that has apparently existed in the Diocese of Southwark has been a good thing. I’d be very happy to see it lurch off in one direction, as long as that direction was towards biblical orthodoxy. My issue with the Diocese (in particular) and the Church of England (in general) is that it still offers a place for the theologically unorthodox. Consider this, if a hospital employed Doctors who administered poison rather than medicine I wouldn’t expect people to rejoice in the diversity of the staff team. False teaching is poisonous. It undermines faith. It destroys people. And its proponents are wicked. I’m not interested in a balanced portfolio of Church Ministers from differing theological positions and traditions in Southwark. I know it’s a pipe dream but I want uniformity; theological uniformity (but missional diversity) of the biblical kind. We may never see it in our day but let’s at least be clear about it!

I guess I’m just not committed to what Stephen describes as ‘principled comprehensiveness’. Or at least I’m not committed to it in the way that I’ve seen it exercised in practice. Stephen’s understanding and familiarity with contemporary church history will be better than mine and so I’ll assume that his take on Keele is accurate. But regardless of what was decided just off the M6 at the end of the sixties, I just can’t sign up to an unspecified comprehensiveness. Comprehensiveness needs to have some limits. There’s such a thing as being too comprehensive. If the Church of England is all-encompassing then it stands for nothing and it means nothing. The Jerusalem Declaration put some limits on comprehensiveness. I’d have liked something a little tighter than that but I’m happy to work with it. A friend compared it to the Elizabethan Settlement at the Reformation. I just nodded and pretended that I’d understood the reference. But it seems to me that the proponents of biblical revisionism are having a field day with our inability to apply the first part of the phrase ‘principled comprehensiveness’. And that’s my issue with Stephen’s opposition to the Trust Fund. It’s not principled. It’s probably an unfair caricature but, if I’ve understood him correctly then he’s saying we need to keep paying quota and that gives us the right to voice our complaints. That’s just so politically passive and naive. We’re getting taken to the cleaners. And we’re funding it!

And it’s also true that I disagree with the proposed methodology for change. One that was apparently agreed upon at Keele. I wasn’t there so I didn’t have any input. In fact, I wasn’t born! But where has being ‘fully involved’ actually got us? Since Keele, are we really in a better position because of the approach adopted at Keele? I don’t doubt the integrity or motives behind those who were involved. Neither do I wish to denigrate the activities and efforts of evangelical clergy and layman who got stuck into the administrative and theological structures of the Church of England. But we need to ask ourselves whether, after 40 years of this approach, the cause of evangelicalism in the C of E has been strengthened because we got involved in the Deanery Synod. Is it not the case that evangelicalism has made advances across the country because of things like the growing political influence of sizeable evangelical churches (St Helen’s and HTB in London, and St Ebbe’s and St Aldates in Oxford for example), church planting across parish boundaries (with or without Diocesan sanction), the increasing numbers of young Bible believing and Bible teaching clergy and the increasing belligerency of evangelicals who find what they need for ministry from alternative structures? But perhaps that’s a post for another time.

Read Full Post »

Unrest in Southwark III

In a recent post I mentioned that some churches within the Diocese of Southwark were so incensed by the trajectory of biblical revisionism evident from the Bishop of Southwark’s recent senior appointments that they were considering a proposal to withhold their quota from the Diocese. It seems as though there have been some developments. The Good Stewards Trust has been formed. The Directors of that trust fund have produced a Frequently Asked Questions sheet to deal with the misunderstanding and misrepresentation that is apparently abounding!

The following link takes you to the FAQ page.

At CCB we do not pay any monies to the Diocese. Never have. But then, neither do we receive any. We don’t cost the Diocese anything. We are, what you might call, a bargain! I think that’s true for all the Co-Mission churches south of the river. This is a position I’m happy with. I’m convinced that we need to be good stewards of the money that people have given us for the purposes of gospel ministry. Using it to fund heretical churches doesn’t come under that remit. And that seems to be unavoidable in a centralised Diocesan structure. Of course, churches like ours must still be generous and therefore support other ministries. We mustn’t be self serving. And that’s why we’ll give money away to mission partners who share the same gospel and the same gospel priorities. That’s why we’ll help support gospel minsitries in socially deprived places that are unlikely to be able to pay their own way. But that’s impossible to do in a theologically compromised Diocese with centralised decision making. Better (financially) out than in, if we want to be good stewards. That seems to be the way forward at the moment.

Read Full Post »

Unrest in Southwark II

As a follow-up to a previous post, Evangelical News are now reporting that the unrest in the Diocese of Southwark has resulted in some evangelical parishes withholding their parish quota from the Diocese.

The report is found here. It’s brief and so I’ll quote it in full,

Ministry Trust to be established in Southwark Diocese
Due to widespread concerns in the Diocese of Southwark, a Trust is being established to support the ministry cost of parish clergy.

There will be a presentation for members of the Diocese of Southwark Evangelical Union and other interested bodies within the next couple of months, which will include a question and answer session, and briefing papers to take away for Parochial Church Councils to discuss, should they want them.

There has already been an expression of interest from clergy in the Diocese of Salisbury, because of their own local concerns.

This is not an insignificant development. It’s a clear expression of the depth of feeling amongst a broad group of evangelicals that they’re willing to withhold parish quota from the Diocese. How many will, remains to be seen. But that they’re even discussing it is remarkable. In my experience of evangelical action in this Diocese since 1996, I’ve not seen anything like it. Even members of Reform, who might be expected to grab at contention as a child grabs at a sweet, have proved reluctant to ‘rock the boat’. This has often been considered the ‘nuclear’ option. So incennsed are soem within the Diocesan Evangelical Union at the apparent revisionist agenda of the new Bishop of Southwark that they’re getting up a head of steam. The Bishop of Southwark has managed to united anglican evangelicals. And for that, at least, he should be applauded! If he wanted to wholeheartedly support gospel initiatives, preach the gospel and drive away erroneous doctrine he might find more of us supporting him.

Read Full Post »

Unrest in Southwark I

Anglican Mainstream has posted a recent article (one that appeared in the Church of England Newspaper last week) that reports on the growing unrest amongst Anglican Evangelicals about the trajectory of the Diocese of Southwark. You can find it here. It’s all about the fallout as a result of a meeting of the Diocesan Evangelical Union with Bishop Christopher (the Bishop of Southwark).

I meant to attend the meeting but got caught up in the chaos that has become my life. But it sounds, from the report and from friends who made it, as though it was lively.

The essence of the growing unrest is the Bishop of Southwark, Christopher Chessun has divided the Diocese with his senior appointments. The last seven of these have gone to liberal catholics. To be fair, I think he inherited a divided Diocese. He’s not dividing it. He’s just made appointments that show which side of the divide his theological preferences lie. He’s acting with conviction. They’re not convictions that I share. But at least he’s being consistent! Of course I disagree with him. I think he should only ever appoint evangelicals. But I don’t expect that he (or any of his successors) will. He’s not an evangelical. He doesn’t agree with evangelical theology. He’s not going to put evangelicalism at the heart of the Diocese. And Reform and Fulcrum seem to be surprised by that! Surely not. What did you expect? I mean, seriously. Did you really expect that the new Bishop of Southwark would suddenly start giving preference to that ‘wing’ Church of England that the establishment want to see removed?

There’ll be more to follow, of that I’m sure. I’m already getting word of parish quota being withheld.

Read Full Post »

Economical with the Truth?

Interesting article from the Economist here. It’s about the alleged rise of evangelicalism in the Church of England. It doesn’t really analyse the increased marginalization of ‘classical’ or ‘conservative’ evangelicals, but you wouldn’t expect them to be aware of the complexity of the situation in the Church of England. I’m not sure I am! Or anyone is. But evangelicalism has increasingly come to be understood as an umbrella term covering over all manner of, let’s say, positions.

If what Peter Brierley and his statisticians say is right, then the future of Anglicanism in this country is of declining numbers of Anglicans but an increased proportion of both clergy and laity who would describe themselves as evangelical. Whether that leads to increased influence in the denomination, brought about by sheer weight of numbers or perhaps by financial clout, remains to be seen. I’m not holding my breath. The trajectory of the Church of England is unmistakably clear. It would take a complete change of direction if evangelicalism was to be regarded as mainstream. God can do it, if He wants. And so there’s hope. But humanly speaking, the writing’s been on the wall for a while now. We press on (at the margins) in CCB. But others are more involved and will stay until they’re ejected. They wouldn’t be the first good guys to be excluded from the established church.

But despite that, you’ve got to love an article that begins with the following paragraph; not so much for the accuracy of the observation but the beauty of expression!

EVER since the 18th century, England’s established church has harboured a suspicion of religious enthusiasm. Anglicanism’s cosy ubiquity as a reassuring, if vestigial, presence in every English suburb and village is regarded as a defence against the sort of fanaticism that leads to social or ethnic conflict. But every so often in English church history, compromise and emollience have triggered a countervailing reaction: an upsurge in faith of a more passionate kind. Such a change may be under way now.

It would be sad if the following observation were true,

Many of the rising generation of keen young clerics already make it clear they wish to work in large evangelical churches, ripe for American-style mission, rather than in slums or charming villages where social views are relaxed and doctrinal purity is not prized.

I suspect the reasons aren’t relaxed social views nor absence of doctrinal purity but an unwillingness to embrace a level of sacrifice that moves us well out of our comfort zone. My friends working for churches on the estates would certainly level that accusation at people like me. And they’d have a point. Perhaps, as I’ve heard Jonathan Fletcher say, when evangelicals are willing to go to the places no one else will we’ll see a revival of true biblical faith in this country. For myself, it won’t be me reaching Brixton from Balham. But we’re going to bust a gut to do what we can to train a great bloke to make it happen. We’ll keep you posted. But it’s be fair to say that we’re not expecting much help from our Anglican Diocese.

Read Full Post »