MAN OF GOD NOT PR PERSON NEEDED AT WYCLIFFE HALL

This by Cranmer's Curate appeared yesterday on VirtueOnline:

Following the news that the Revd Dr Richard Turnbull is no longer principal of Oxford theological college Wycliffe Hall, the question now arises as to what sort of evangelical will succeed him.

Will the college Council go for a smooth-talking evangelical-ish PR person cum amateur therapist who fancies their 'people skills' - proudly sporting a doctorate and proclaiming themselves a 'healer'?

Or will they have the spiritual and moral courage to go for a believer in the infallibility of the Bible - with or without some fancy academic letters after their name?

It is important to be clear here. A theological college principal who believes that the Bible is like the film Chariots of Fire in its historical approach plainly believes that God's Word written contains inventions and distortions.

The 1981 Oscar-winning film about the 1924 Olympic Games is fact-based but it contains many inventions for the sake of dramatisation.

A 'Chariots of Fire' principal would believe that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were historical events. So, provided he or she believes that Jesus died for their sins and that the Lord's resurrection was bodily and eternal, it would be wrong to say that such a person is not a true Christian believer.

But their view of Scripture is such that they would feel free to perceive as invention, for example, Matthew's account of tombs being opened in Jerusalem just after Jesus died and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep being raised (Matthew 27v52).

The biblical infallibilist by contrast believes Matthew's account of these resurrections, miraculous though they are, is historically true - as historical as his account of Jesus' crucifixion and the resurrection. Matthew records that these resurrected saints came out of their tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the Holy City of Jerusalem where they appeared to witnesses (Matthew 27v53).

The infallibilist's approach shows proper respect for God-breathed Holy Scripture. And indeed for God himself.

The God of truth is not the author of a film script, inspiring fabrications for dramatic effect.

That is fundamentally why the 'Chariots of Fire' approach to biblical narrative is cavalier and intellectually arrogant. A principal who treats God's Word written like that is not fit to be entrusted with the theological education and training of future ministers of the true Word of the Lord Jesus Christ. Read here.

COLLECT WHOSE YES IS AS GOOD AS ITS NO

If the Church only talks about the positive, then it may avoid unpopularity but it will not be biblically faithful. As the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, said at the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans' gathering in London last week, when it comes to upholding the truth of Christ's gospel, our yes is only as good as our no.

The Book Common of Prayer Collect for the third Sunday after Easter shows that Dr Jensen's outlook is authentically Anglican. This Collect is positively for truth and righteousness and at the same time recognises that we professing Christians, because of our sinful natures, are capable of falling into error and behaving in ways that are contrary to our professed faith:

Almighty God, who shewest to them that be in error the light of thy truth, to the intent that they may return into the way of righteousness: Grant unto all them that are admitted into the fellowship of Christ's religion, that they may eschew those things that are contrary to their profession, and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same; through our Lord Jesus Christ.

So its yes to righteousness and truth is as good as its no to sin and error.

At an evening event on Thursday celebrating orthodox Anglicanism at the Emmanuel Centre, Westminster, Dr Jensen, who is General-Secretary of FCA International, also related a story illustrating the spiritual state of many Anglican churches in the West. An episcopal colleague of his in another Australian diocese, a Liberal Catholic by tradition, dismissed from office a clergyman in a country town who had committed adultery.

The small congregation of people in their 60s and 70s was angry with the bishop for enforcing clerical discipline. 'He's our vicar, he's nice, we like him. ' 'But he's committed adultery.' 'That doesn't matter. We like him.'

Dr Jensen called that 'pride in sin'.

Cranmer's Curate is blogging off in May, due to a busy parish schedule. Youth group prayers would be appreciated for our Purpose of Life Mission weekend (May 18th-20th).

This story about the need to verify a public statement at the FCA celebration about the treatment of a Southwark lay reader appeared on the US-based orthodox Anglican news service VirtueOnline. Archbishop Cranmer has done a thorough exposee of the appalling treatment of Mr Peter Gowlland who courageously upheld traditional Christian marriage in the Southwark church where he served faithfully as a reader for many years.

This piece about the Pax Borisannica was published on Archbishop Cranmer.  

This piece about the Law Society's decision to ban a pro-marriage conference appeared on Christian Today.

PLEASE MR JOHNSON DO NOT BAN 'NOT CHRISTIAN ! GET OVER IT!' BUS ADS

Imagine London Mayor Boris Johnson had banned London bus advertisements proclaiming 'Not Christian! Post-Christian, ex-Christian and proud. Get over it!'. How should gospel-proclaiming Christians react?

God willing, they would be resolutely opposed to such censorship.

The Christian gospel is a counter-cultural message about repentance from sin and faith in the world's only Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. It spreads by proclamation and persuasion. Any curtailing of freedom of debate in the UK threatens the proclamation of the gospel in our society, even if the statement being banned is against Christianity.

The gospel can and does spread in repressive circumstances. But the note on which the Acts of the Apostles ends demonstrates the fruitfulness that results from freedom of proclamation:

And he (the Apostle Paul) lived there (in Rome) for two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered (Acts 28v30-31 - RSV).

The imaginary statement on London buses above would actually provide wonderful opportunities for Christians to talk about the gospel.

Given the desire by the UK political establishment, admitted by the Director-General of the state broadcaster, to give special protective treatment to Islam, it is of course much more likely that a statement declaring 'Not Muslim! Post-Muslim, ex-Muslim and proud' would be banned. But Christians should oppose the proscription of that statement as well.

Christians certainly should be alarmed by Mr Johnson's latest stated reason for banning London bus ads promoting gay conversion.

At a London mayoral hustings at St James's Piccadilly last week Mr Johnson declared that he banned the ads by Christian groups, Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues Trust, because

the backlash would be so intense it would not have been in the interest of Christian people in this city.

His initial stated reason for banning the 'Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!' posters was because he did not want Londoners to be exposed to the suggestion of gay therapy:

London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest being gay is an illness someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.

Whilst his latest rationale does not contradict his earlier one, it adds a significant layer of concern about the future of freedom of speech in our country.

The threat of disorder is now being used as a reason to curtail freedom of Christian expression.

Where have we heard that one before?

This piece - CONFESSING ANGLICAN LEADERS GATHER IN CAPITAL WITH DEMOCRATIC DRY-ROT - appeared on US-based orthodox Anglican news service VirtueOnline.

NORWICH COUNCIL MUST NOW BAN KORAN, NEW TESTAMENT & POLITICAL DEBATE

The Equality Act 2010 is a curious ground for Norwich City Council's decision to ban a church from council premises for displaying on an outreach bookstall a leaflet entitled Why not Islam. The officials who made the decision, having involved the 'Diversity Team' of the local police, are now morally obliged to ban both the Koran and the New Testament from council-owned premises.

Islam's holy book is manifestly not in tune with the spirit of the Equality Act. The Koran declares:

Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme" (The Koran, Penguin Classics, trans. N.J. Dawood, revised 1974, p370).

To be consistent in its policy, the council also ought to ban the New Testament, even though its instructions on marital relations are radically different from the Koran's:

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5v22-25 - RSV).

Such statements clearly do not accord with the ethos of non-differentiation between the sexes under the terms of the Equality Act 2010. Whilst the New Testament certainly treats men and women as spiritually and morally equal - they are both created in the image of God and equally redeemed by Jesus Christ - it does differentiate between the sexes in terms of role in the church and in the family.

The Koran goes much further than the New Testament in differentiating between the sexes - it does so economically, explicity stipulating that a male shall inherit twice as much as a female.

So, it is odd that Norwich City Council considered that the ethos of the Equality Act required it to ban a leaflet questioning Islam.

Morever, Norwich City Council is operating with an understanding of "good relations between people of all backgrounds and religions" which necessitates that no person is ever offended by a statement of conviction made by another person. According to the Norwich Evening News, officials banned Why not Islam because:

We received a complaint from a member of the public about material published by the Norwich Reformed Church (associated with the Farthing Trust) which uses council facilities. This was considered to be hate-motivated and, in accordance with the agreed Norfolk Multi Agency Protocol, we contacted the police.

Although the police advised that no criminal offence had been committed, we have a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to foster good relations between people of all backgrounds and religions. By allowing premises owned by the council to be used by an organisation publishing such material, we would be failing in that duty. People across Norfolk have recently been urged to stand up to hate-motivated and intolerant behaviour through a publicity campaign and as a council we have to play our part and take action where necessary.

The holy books of Islam and Christianity manifestly do not foster "good relations" according to the definition adopted by Norwich City Council.

So the council must ban such controversial religious texts.

It must also ban political debates in its council chamber in order to prevent people from getting upset.

What a sad, boring society is being created before the high altar of anti-Christian political correctness.

HOPING THE PT DOES NOT GET TOO SOFT

It is great that the Proclamation Trust, set up in the 1980s to strengthen expository preaching in British evangelicalism, has divested itself of its former tendency towards put-you-down public school sarcasm in its evaluation of sermons. But, as a delegate on an upcoming PT preaching conference, Cranmer's Curate hopes it retains its edge.

As one gets older in ministry, unfortunately some bad preaching and general pastoral habits can get ingrained. It is important to have those graciously and humbly exposed by competent and godly ministerial peers and to remain teachable.

If one stops learning in ministry, that is fatal.

In cc's experience of attending PT conferences and belonging to local preaching groups down the years, the correction of theological and pastoral errors, with constructive instruction about improvements, has been very helpful and necessary. When cc was a younger curate, he received some invaluable mentoring from more experienced ministers, both within the workshop/group and one-to-one outside it.

Some elements of sermon feedback are best given privately and the ministerial mentor needs the godly wisdom to decide the appropriate context for putting a younger minister right.

Clearly, an arrogant, competitive attitude in a ministerial mentor is not a model to follow, but one actively to avoid. Able expository preaching is undermined in a community if the minister is using his pulpit for an ego trip. Such a minister's expository preaching ability can actually become a problem if he starts acting as a mentor because then his arrogance spreads to younger ministers impressed by his talent.

The PT has rightly worked hard to get rid of the earlier blemishes and become more gentle and therefore godly in its approach to sermon evaluation.

But in a culture where 'people skills' are valued so much more highly than truth and integrity, one hopes the PT will deliberately foster a counter-cultural ethos for the sake of the proclamation of the Word of Christ.

BORIS JOHNSON'S GAY CONVERSION ADS BAN THREATENS DEMOCRACY

Any Christian with a sense of moral duty to secular society should be profoundly concerned about London Mayor Boris Johnson's decision to censor the gay conversion advertising campaign by Core Issues Trust and Anglican Mainstream.

The two-week "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!" campaign on London buses was due to start next week. It would have provided an alternative view to homosexual campaign group Stonewall's "Some people are gay. Get over it" adverts.

Mr Johnson's stated reason for banning the adverts is extraordinary for a democratic politician standing in a free election:

London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest being gay is an illness someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.

It is truly frightening that Mr Johnson is not prepared to leave Londoners themselves to make up their own minds on the question of gay conversion. Does he believe that his electors are incapable of deciding on whether they think that homosexuality is an innate condition or that sexual orientation is more fluid and can therefore be subjected to the exercise of moral choices?

Moreover, cannot Londoners decide for themselves that if homosexuality is an innate orientation with which some people are born, individuals can choose on religious grounds not to act on their sexual desires and remain celibate?

Does Mr Johnson wish to impose on everybody the permissive society's view that sexual activity is essential to leading a fulfilled life?

Voting in an election - and Mr Johnson is standing in one next month for the office of London Mayor - involves the exercise of independent judgement. It involves weighing up the merits of various arguments. It involves exercising moral choices.

Reacting to Mr Johnson's decision, Core Issues' co-director Mike Davidson rightly identified the threat to democracy:

I didn't realise censorship was in place...It is of deep concern that there can only be one point of view and that is the point of view of individuals who are determined to push through gay marriage and apparently believe that homosexuality cannot be altered in any possible way. That is not a universally held view. This is a disturbing development and it is disappointing the UK finds itself in this position.

The threat to the proclamation of the Lordship of Christ in British society is manifest from Mr Johnson's decision in the UK capital. Christianity spreads by persuasion. It thrives in an atmosphere of rigorous and free philosophical and moral debate.

Indeed, that persuasive, argumentative aspect of the biblical Christianity that emerged following the 16th Century Reformation in England and Scotland contributed to the development of Parliamentary democracy on this island.

How tragically ironic that a British politician aspiring to office through a democratic election should collude with sinister forces that want to censor the proclamation of the Christian worldview on an issue of personal morality.

TV HISTORIAN'S THEOLOGICAL FALLACY

Politically correct propaganda against the truth of God must be challenged. So Cranmer's Curate has been moved to interrupt his blogging break by the latest intervention from the celebrated TV historian, Dr Bettany Hughes, in support of women bishops. Regrettably, her theological argument displays scant regard for biblical authority.

In advance of her BBC 2 series, Divine Women, Dr Hughes opines in the Radio Times that the early Church was dominated by women:

This Easter will be the last when I go to a church knowing it will be dominated by men. I love my (male) vicar, who has spent 45 years encouraging his flock to be clear-sighted about the world - past, present and sublime. But the paradoxical thing for me as a historian is that I’m keenly aware Christianity was originally a faith where the female of the species held sway.

Dr Hughes's argument for the appointment of women to positions of ecclesiastical headship, based on the alleged practice of the early Church, is actually a house built on sand. The very existence of the Canon of the New Testament exposes the theological fallacy at the heart of the 'because the early Church did it, so should we' mantra.

It was precisely to counter spiritual disorder in the early Church that much of the New Testament was penned. Important New Testament epistles such as 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, the Johannine letters, Jude and the Revelation to John were written against the background of local churches facing serious theological threats.

The two Pauline epistles where the Apostle to the Gentiles directly asserts the requirement for male headship in the ordering of the Church – 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy – were written to counter serious disorder in the congregations at Corinth and Ephesus.

Even those NT documents apparently not occasioned by a particular theological crisis, such as St Paul's epistle to the Romans, certainly contain warnings against false teaching and ungodly behaviour.

Various New Testament churches, within a few years of the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, had got themselves into a mess and needed sorting out. Hence the exalted Christ sent forth his divinely inspired Word to bring order to the unruly seas of ecclesiastical chaos.

Furthermore, in his providential and sovereign wisdom the reigning Christ ensured that these authoritative Holy Scriptures would be preserved for coming generations of Christians in order to remedy future disorder in his Church.

Dr Hughes does try to deploy one New Testament argument. She mentions Phoebe, the female gospel worker from Cenchreae whom Paul sent to minister in the church at Rome (Romans 16v1-2). The New Testament records other women who laboured alongside Paul in the cause of the gospel, such as Euodia and Syntyche, who are mentioned in his letter to the Philippians (4v2-3). Paul warmly affirmed and encouraged women's ministry but he did not appoint women to positions of headship in local churches, a fact conveniently omitted by Dr Hughes in her invocation of Phoebe.

Unfortunately, many people will believe the telegenic Dr Hughes. From her BBC-endowed pulpit, she can pontificate freely about the ordering of the precious flock of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But in the non-licence fee funded Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the authority of God's Word must hold sway, rather than fashionable political correctness.