Again: yes, but... mission?

Let me start this third blog in the series by saying that one of the things I have valued about Bishop Martin’s and Bishop Mike’s leadership in Eds & Ips is their commitment to mission. In this they have sought to lead by exhortation and example. I may have sometimes struggled with the form it has taken, but fundamentally I have enjoyed their partnership in the Gospel.

That commitment to mission was something that found expression again in their videos. Bishop Martin echoed a former ArchBishop, William Temple at one point: ‘We exist … to proclaim Christ to the people of England' (Temple’s famous dictum being: "The Church is the only organisation that does not exist for itself, but for those who live outside of it."). And he warned that when we forget this, we tend toward becoming a sect. Amen. Indeed, I had much more sympathy with this sort of statement, than Bishop Mike’s much more ambiguous observation that opinion within the Church of England reflects that of wider society. Perhaps it does in the House of Bishops, but as the votes in Synod showed, the House of Bishops is some way out of step with those in the pews. And our job is not to represent the people of this nation, still less to reflect their cultural and social attitudes. It is as Bishop Martin puts it, ‘to proclaim Christ…’.

All of this finds expression in ‘Growing in God’, which has a number of strategic aims, inlcuding Growing in Number, and Growing Younger. Which again, raises significant questions about how the Bishops can come to the conclusions they have about the Church’s blessing of those in same-sex marriage. I’ll come back to the actual arguments that have convinced them in a later blog, but for now let me just make the point that the Bishops Proposals will critically undermine the Church’s mission in this nation.

Contrary to much of what has been claimed in the LLF discussions in recent years, changing the Church’s teaching will not result in the Church becoming more acceptable to society, only less defensible. Received wisdom in outreach suggests that as we become more ‘relevant’, ‘accessible’, ‘recognisable’ to our culture, we minimise the obstacles that stand in the way of people coming to faith. Without defending traditionalism as an end in itself, let me just say that to believe this now is stretching credulity to breaking point.

The idea was formulated about 70 years ago (in the 1950s), when Donald McGavren wrote a book that started what has become known as the Church Growth Movement. We need to recognise that it has been massively influential, and that without most people ever having heard of him, McGavren has shaped a lot of our generation’s assumptions about Church.

His basic idea was that in order to help people become Christians, we had to understand as much as we can about the specific culture / sub-culture they are living in, and then that we needed to redesign Church in a way that is uniquely shaped by that culture, relevant to that culture, and accessible to that culture.

After a generation of road-testing this idea, it has been found wanting at a number of levels. Apart from the development of specific and niche culture ‘churches’ (a patently unBiblical vision for the Church family), it is simply a matter of emperical observation that adopting this strategy has not led to Church Growth in any meaningful sense. Now, to be clear, it is debatable that McGavren would have sanctioned the application of this model to doctrine. He seemed to be more concerned about making the way we worship ‘culturally relevant’. But that does not take away from the fact that this is the basic missional argument that has been deployed during LLF. If we remove (now doctrinal / ethical) obstacles to Church membership, we’ll win the nation back to Christ. Or at least a hearing for Him..?

The Church (the Anglican Church at any rate) in UK is locked into a spiral of decline. Throughout LLF, our progressive ‘prophets of doom’ have leveraged this observation to justify the removal of what they seem to believe constitutes an unecessary obstacle to people coming to faith in Christ.

Except that dismantling centuries of Biblical insight and wisdom about what constitutes Christian worship and discipleship turns out to be a wrong turn of catastrophic proportions. A raft of theological, Biblical and ethical questions aside, it simply fails on the basis of the very pragmatism that justifies it. In other words, it simply doesn’t work.

Is that just anecdotal, culutrally primitive, prejudice talking? Nope - that’s hard data and research talking.

When Church growth and decline is analysed in relation to their alignment to progressive ideology, of which same-sex marriage is a cornerstone, then without exception (read that again) Churches that adopt such progressive ideology (more specifically those which legitimse same sex marraige) are in decline.

To be fair, the Anglican Church was already in decline, but the idea that last week’s vote in Synod will do anything to slow that delince is to fly in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Before Synod’s vote, the Church of England was facing extinction by 2060. The evidence suggests that date has just been brought forward! Growing Churches (meaning here denominations / networks) have all held the line on Biblical sexual ethics.

Which brings me to my ‘yes, but…’ response to the Bishops’ video. Yes to mission. Yes to proclaiming Christ… Yes to ‘making disciples’. But… this is a decision that has chronically undermined precisely that commitment. To have made it in the name of mission is, I’m afraid, misguided at best.

the diagram above, and the research behind it can be found at: https://churchmodel.org.uk/2022/05/20/uk_church_decline_and_progressive_ideology/

if you want to read an artice explaining how Churches that attract young people hold to the historical teaching on marriage, you can do here: https://christianconcern.com/news/churches-with-the-largest-youth-groups-teach-biblical-sexuality/

Yes, but... unity?

Before I address those areas where I (though not just ‘I’, I hasten to add) have grave concerns about what the Bishops have said in their videos, and explore how it cannot justify the departure we have now taken from the historic and Biblical teaching and discipline of the Church, there are a couple of other things the Bishops say that I have some resonance with… some.

The first, as I intimated in my first post, is their oft repeated commitment to unity. For this we are grateful, and it is one of the places where I felt both the strongest resonance, but also the some of the strongest uncertainty about what is actually being said. That uncertainty has only increased in the light of Synod’s debate and vote. Bishop Martin speaks of the need to ‘attend to and nurture the bonds of affection’, and Bishop Mike speaks of the commitment of the Diocese to continue to appoint, encourage and support across the spectrum of views on LLF, and specifcally on this issue of the blessings of those in same sex marriages. I was struck by the Bishops’ exploring their commitment to unity not as an end in itself, but in relation to Christ.

This is a refreshing perspective and one I warmed to in the videos. It is, as the Bishops say, costly, but it is something we are to prioritise, and make every effort to keep (Eph.4:1-6). So where do my concerns lie?

The first is the question of what it means to build our unity in relation to Christ, when our visions of Christ are dissonant. That seems an impossibly brittle foundation. At root is the question of whether we can disentangle the Person of Jesus from His teaching. And by ‘His teaching’ we don’t limit ourselves to the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Gospels, but also His teaching by His Spirit through the Apostles, and prior to that, through the Law, the Writings and the Prophets. Bishop Mike links our unity to our pointing to who Christ is… but that seems to be precisely the point at issue. Who do we believe Christ to be, and what do we believe He is calling us to be? Who is the Christ to whom we are pointing?

The second is the observation that throughout the Bible, the unity of the Church is threatened by heterodox teaching, and un-Apostolic views of Jesus, and of disicpleship. Those entrusted with leadership in our Church are exhorted to ‘hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that they can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it’ (Titus 1:9). This is captured by the Church of England’s commission to her Bishops (captured in Canon C18, Every bishop is the chief pastor of all that are within their diocese … it appertains to their office to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions). This conformity to the teaching of the Church is conformity to our shared vision of Christ, His teaching and what it means to follow Him. In spite of the oft-repeated claim that the 39 Articles are not a Basis of faith, it is clear that the BCP understands them to be exactly that. They are ‘Articles … for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true religion’.

And my third concern is that in spite of the rhetoric of unity, the House of Bishops have in fact - in their Proposals - introduced colossal disunity to both the Church of England, and the Global Anglican Communion. Whilst I take Bishop Martin’s point that we may have different ideas of what we are aspiring to with regard to unity, and with whom, there are three fractures that have opened in this last week, that are unlikely to ever be healed.

Within the Church of England there is a disunity of doctrine, practise and liturgy that strikes at some of the most foundational beliefs about what it means to be Christian. We are facing an almost unprecedented prospect of division within our denomination. As of this week’s vote in General Synod, we can no longer speak of a united Church. The Church of England Evangelical Council (which includes Bishops and Principals of Theological Colleges) is amongst those within the Church of England immediately calling for visible differentiation, and for ‘Principled Protest’. The House of Bishops has preciptated a sequence of events that could conceivably lead to the break-up of the historic Church. That isn’t fear-mongering, it is simply a statement of fact. Whether those voting in Synod yesterday appreciated the significance of their actions or intended this as a consequnce is quite beside the point. And all talk of ‘walking together’ sounds hollow and disingenuous after what we witnessed at Synod.

Within the Global Anglican Communion (not even taking into account GAFCON), there has already been a call for the Church of England to repent, or face ‘impaired communion’. The Archbishop of Alexandria was at Synod, and warned those voting of these consequences. The Global South Primates (representing 75%+) of the Global Anglican Church have already issued a statement questioning whether ArchBishop Welby is ‘fit to lead’ the Global Anglican Communion. They continue that in view of this week’s General Synod, they will be

‘taking decisive steps towards re-setting the Anglican Communion (as outlined in our ‘Communique’ following the 2022 Lambeth Conference). Orthodox Provinces in GSFA are not leaving the Anglican Communion, but with great sadness must recognise that the Church of England has now joined those Provinces with which communion is impaired. The historical Church which spawned the global Communion, and which for centuries was accorded ‘first among equals’ status, has now triggered a widespread loss of confidence in her leadership of the Communion’.

And ecumenically… quite apart form the damage this has done ‘on the ground’, other denominations and Church networks are already raising deep concerns at Synod’s decisions. A Coptic Orthodox Bishop - an invited guest at Synod, warned this decision would be ‘contrary to the received tradition of the Christian world’, and would result in the distancing of other denominations such as his own. Abroad, there will be violent repercussions for the persecuted Church elsewhere in the world - again, a fact recognised (even articulated by the ArchBishop of Canterbury himself) but ignored by Synod. In part there is grief and despair at the significance of the country’s established Church stepping away from its own teaching, but also concern that the Synod’s decision will be used to undermine Christians, Churches and Christian Organisations, at home and abroad, that remain committed to the historic and Biblical position. Will the Bishops - as an expression of their commitment to unity within the Church of England - publicly defend and protect those who hold to the historic and Biblical teaching on these issues? Will they defend Christians who are now undermined in their workplaces? Will they defend parents of children in Church of England Schools who challenge those schools for teaching that which is contrary to Scriptural teaching? Recent history would suggest not - and that was before Synod’s vote. What then is this unity?

But I fear most immediately for the division and disunity that the Bishop’s Proposals will cause in the local congregations that remain the foundational building blocks of the Church of England. As each Minister & PCC now have to face the question of whether to use these Prayers of Love and Faith, how many congregations will be left diminished and divided. I confess a certain anxiety particularly over evangelical congregations. It has to be said that as evangelicals, we tend not good at unity. In part because we tend to be Evangelicals first and Anglicans second. Our commitment to Scripture and Christ trumps our commitment to the Church of England, although until this week the two were not necessarily in tension. The technical sophistry of Synod will count for little amongst those who long more than anything for their pastors to be faithful to Scripture. The legal casuistry will only serve to further undermine their confidence. And the oft-repeated statements from many that there is still a way to go on this journey gives little reason to stay. The situation we find ourselves in is not good for Evangelicals, nor for Anglicans. Many of us will stay… although for many it will depend on the reality of how this all plays out in the weeks and months ahead. But many will go. And in spite of the obvious contempt for traditionalists shown in Synod, that will be a tragedy for the Church of England.

So, yes, but… Yes, let’s pursue unity. But this is not it.

Where I agree with our Bishops

I’ve been asked a number of times over the last couple of days what I think of the v-logs released by our Bishops, in which they seek to explain how they have arrived at their conclusion that the Church should change its teaching, so that the Church of England would extend Holy Matrimony to same-sex couples.

If you haven’t seen them, they can be found here, https://www.cofesuffolk.org/deepening-faith/everyday-faith/living-in-love-and-faith/living-in-love-and-faith.php

I’ve watched the videos a number of times now, and will try and respond to them, as well as to the wider situation developing at Synod, over the next few days.

So, first: where do I agree with Bishops Martin and Mike…

The main area where I found myself in sympathy is with regard to their critical reflections on the uncritical (evangelical?) faith of their younger days! On this we share common ground. I totally agree with +Martin that Scripture Union notes, and the like, are not a good way to read the Bible, and I agree with +Mike that a faith that is not challenged, or interrogated is hopelessly vulnerable. I found myself saddened by both their stories as they recounted the destabilising experience they had at University, and how their youthful, but un-critical faith left them unprepared for the challenges of rigorous theological, philosophical and hermeneutical challenges they were exposed to in later life.

This seems to me an honest and important point to highlight, and we should be grateful to our Bishops for their transparency here. It underlines the urgency and importance of ensuring that those in our Churches, and those who are growing up through our Churches are invested with a rich, informed, well-resourced, and intellectually rigorous faith, that is able to engage well with the questions that are asked of it. We will have moments when our faith is challenged, but we can be much better equipped to navigate those moments. We, and our children and young people, are facing increasingly challenging questions as Christians, and we have a responsiblity to make sure that we and they are adequately prepared. Our Bishops have laid down a mandate for teaching and discipling at a much greater depth than we are used to!

The second major area of agreement is the Bishops’ own assessment of their videos. Towards the end of the last video, we are reminded that their v-logs haven’t been intended as arguments, deployed to change anyone’s mind. They are far more autobiographical, simply reflecting on how they have arrived at the position they now share. Indeed. They are however articulating at least some the reasons that they have personally found persuasive. I’ll look at those arguments and explain why I, and many, many others both inside and outside the Church, are less persuaded.

Yet a compelling argument for introducing change in any form to the Church’s teaching and discipline on marriage and sexuality (and yes, they do signify a change in spite of all rhetoric to the contrary), is really what we need. One of the common observations raised about the whole LLF process is that no such argument was forthcoming. I’ll try and show in a later post that there remains an apparent lack of any convincing theological, pastoral, missional or canonical justification for this extraordinary development … though this does perhaps explain why the changes are being forced through with seeming disregard for process, and for the concerns of those on Synod who have deep misgivings about the course that being set for the Church.

Unless it were being live streamed, it is unlikely that anyone would believe the behaviour of some of the Bishops. There is widespread condemnation of what is being described variously as disingenuous (see here: https://www.anglicanfutures.org/post/who-do-you-think-you-are-kidding evasive and condescending (see here: https://www.christiantoday.com/article/this.week.at.general.synod/139809.htm and arrogant sophistry (see here: https://mbarrattdavie.wordpress.com/2023/02/07/on-not-blaming-god/ There is a great deal of concern that the House of Bishops are simply abusing their power. This was captured in the debate itself when Stephen Hofmeyr made a point of order: the fact that we were, on every amendment, taking a vote by houses meant that the bishops could veto everything, and indeed were doing precisely that, somewhat undermining their apparent commitment to listen to Synod. The point of order was met with loud and prolonged applause, signalling widespread discontent...

I strongly recommend that you watch some of the interactions in Synod and decide for yourself (see here: https://www.facebook.com/CCFON/videos/514972150783085/ . I was particularly struck by Rebecca Hunt’s being so flabbergasted by one answer that she asked for it to be put in writing. It risks a staggering loss of trust in the House of Bishops and in the integrity of the processes of governance and accountability within the institution of the Church of England. Their blatent disregard for the Pastoral Principles the Bishops themselves have advocated throughout the LLF process, and that subsequent loss of trust, will remain an issue irrespective of the outcomes of General Synod. This is particularly unfortunate, because trust is precisely what is needed if we are going to walk together through these tumultuous times.

Whilst I agree with the priority of a Christ-centred unity to which our own Bishops return again and again in their videos, it is becoming increasingly clear that some of the Bishops speaking at General Synod are critically undermining that unity. Whilst we are so grateful that our own Bishops are speaking words of grace, and have publicly committed themselves to continuing to support, encourage, resource and appoint across the spectrum of views, they risk being drowned out by their colleagues.

8 reasons the Bishop's proposals won't work

Rev Sean Doherty is principal of Trinity College Bristol where he teaches Christian ethics. He is one of the founders of Living Out and a member of the General Synod of the Church of England. He is a same-sex attracted Christian who has been part of the Living in Love and Faith process since the beginning. He believes the CofE needs to take more time for proper discernment over the Church’s position on gay marriage.

I have been fully involved with the Church of England’s Living in Love and Faith process since it began. As an Anglican ethicist, I was invited to be a member of the theology and ethics working group, one of several groups set up to resource and inform the project. After the LLF resources were produced, I became a member of the Bristol diocese LLF reference group, and led an LLF course at Trinity College Bristol, where I am the principal.

I have participated in good faith in the process, trusting that this was an opportunity for people across the Church to work together to try to find a way forward that was “founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology and the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it”, as the Archbishop of Canterbury put it when launching the project in 2017.

But this is not just an academic matter for me. I also write as one of the minority of LGBT people who believe that the current teaching of the Church is true and good for us and should not change.

Following the LLF process, the bishops of the Church of England have now published proposals for prayers for couples in committed relationships, including same-sex couples. The Church of England’s General Synod will soon be voting on whether or not to welcome the bishops’ proposals.

As a member of that Synod, I am not able to welcome them as they currently stand, and I want to share my concerns about the proposals. I do this in a spirit of genuine dialogue. There may be things I have misunderstood or overlooked, and I hope I can be corrected where I am wrong.

My concerns are as follows:

1. The bishops give no reasoned theological or biblical basis for their proposals

Given the enormous amount of theological and biblical study that has gone into the LLF process, I am bewildered at the lack of engagement with this in the bishops’ proposals. I don’t doubt that, as individuals, they have studied and thought things through. But they do not explain how and why their proposals make theological sense – and they can’t expect people to go along with them unless they do. That would amount simply to an act of power, whereas the power of bishops properly derives from their authority as teachers of the Christian faith.

We should give the bishops some benefit of the doubt here. Their first residential opportunity for discussing LLF was cancelled due to the death of the late Queen. If they had had more time, perhaps they could have worked through a theological basis for their proposals together. But it is surprising that they did not take more time to develop this.

The closest I can see to a rationale given is that a) the bishops don’t agree among themselves and b) that society now has a very different understanding of sex and relationships to the Church.

Both are questionable grounds for theological change and innovation. If we are to support the bishop’s proposals, we need a coherent theological account of how and why these prayers emerge from what we believe, as Christians, about human relationships. If there is not sufficient agreement to articulate such an account, that is something the bishops need to address before they make proposals.

2. A discernment has not taken place – only a compromise

Several times in the document, the bishops set out different possible perspectives on issues which are absolutely fundamental to this matter, such as the doctrine of marriage and sexual ethics.

Simply to state that there is a difference of opinion is not an act of discernment. Discernment involves waiting patiently on the Holy Spirit until the Spirit reveals a way forward together. A compromise leaves us no further forward as a Church than we were before.

A discernment does not necessarily mean unanimity. A parallel would be the question of the ordination of women as priests and bishops (which I fully support). On that matter, the CofE has reached a clear decision. Those who are ordained must recognise and respect this, even if they personally disagree with it.

3. The absence of a theological, ethical basis leads to significant hostages to fortune

We are told that the bishops “joyfully affirm, and want to acknowledge in church, stable, committed relationships between two people” (GS2289 p1) and “celebrate in God’s presence the commitment two people have made to each other is an occasion for rejoicing” (Prayers, p2).

Does this mean stable, committed relationships between any two people should be affirmed and celebrated in church? Of course the bishops cannot seriously mean this. Two people in an adulterous relationship might exhibit stability and commitment to one another. But the bishops have articulated no principle by which legitimate and illegitimate stable, committed relationships can be distinguished.

4. The distinction between civil marriage and Holy Matrimony is theologically wrong

The bishops’ proposals rely on a distinction between same-sex civil marriages, and the Church’s doctrine of Holy Matrimony. This distinction has to be made in order to justify the bishops’ claim that you can be in a same-sex marriage without “challenging or rejecting the Church’s doctrine of marriage” (Response, p7). But, as the CofE marriage service puts it: “Marriage is a gift of God in creation”.

Do bishops think that opposite-sex couples in civil marriages are not really married? Of course not. Civil marriages are real marriages. You don’t need to be married in church to be married in God’s sight.

Whether a legal distinction between civil marriage and Holy Matrimony is sustainable, the CofE doesn’t currently accept such a distinction. Not so long ago, the House of Bishops argued that clergy cannot enter same-sex marriages because, “getting married to someone of the same sex would, however, clearly be at variance with the teaching of the Church of England”. Were they wrong then, or now?

5. These proposals will tear the Anglican Communion apart

The CofE has a unique role in the Anglican Communion, both in terms of historical role and leadership under the Archbishop of Canterbury. These developments are likely to be unacceptable to many Anglican churches around the world, which may withdraw from the Communion or at least break fellowship with the CofE.

6. It undermines the Church’s teaching about sex

The proposed prayers make a careful distinction between blessing the couple, and blessing their relationship (which the bishops do not propose to do). They acknowledge that the Church cannot bless relationships which are at variance with its teaching. However, this clever distinction is unlikely to be noticed much in practice.

While the bishops may claim proposals are technically consistent with the doctrine of the Church, they are, at the very least, indicative of a departure. They will give a false impression of what the Church teaches and believes about marriage and sex. For example, one of the prayers asks God to “keep them faithful to the commitment they have made to one another”. For most couples, that commitment will assume and include a commitment to sexual intimacy - which the Church actually teaches belongs only in opposite-sex marriage.

7. The proposals will lead to pastoral and evangelistic tensions

Same-sex couples may approach their local church for these prayers, only to be told that their clergy person is not willing to offer them. How will those couples feel? In some congregations, clergy will want to offer the prayers while people in their congregations may object. Elsewhere, some congregation members will want the prayers while clergy will not feel able to offer them. This leads to my final concern.

8. There is no provision for those who cannot go along with the proposals

The bishops’ document speaks of respecting the consciences of those who are not willing to use the proposed prayers, but this promise has no power to bind other bishops in the future, and there is no mention of any mechanism for protecting such respect. I have already had multiple conversations with ordinands and clergy (of different underlying convictions on sexuality) who are concerned about being asked in future job interviews whether they will offer the prayers, and how that will be interpreted.

As the meeting of General Synod approaches I will be praying for a gracious debate, which treats LGBT people with the respect that we deserve. But I will also be praying that the bishops reconsider their approach and take more time to pray and listen to God together, until they can discern a way forward which is truly “founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology and the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it.”

For I do not believe that these proposals yet are.

Sean Doherty

taken from https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/8-reasons-why-the-cofes-same-sex-proposals-wont-work/14820.article / accessed 010223

It's a brave new world...

Here is a video made by a barrister (so it gets a bit technical in places, though he then ‘translates’ the legal-speak for you) reflecting on the recent arrest of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, for ‘maybe’ silently praying in a new PSPO outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth. The story can be read in full here:

https://catholicherald.co.uk/video-the-moment-when-catholic-woman-praying-silently-is-arrested-by-three-police-officers/

or here:

https://news.yahoo.com/british-woman-arrested-praying-silently-200714572.html

or here:

https://www.gbnews.uk/news/watch-outrage-as-woman-praying-silently-is-arrested-in-uk-street-taken-away-by-police-for-a-thoughtcrime/411506

Unfortunately, I can’t find any coverage of the story on the BBC website.

As ever, the situation is complex, but as you will hear in the video below, there are significant questions for us to be aware of…

Can we Remain Silent?

You may remember that this time last year we were bringing our ‘Living in Love and Faith’ term to a close. We had spent almost three months preaching through the Bible’s vision for marriage and sexuality. We ran a True Freedom Trust morning, and studied and prayed together in our homegroups. We worked together on the Living in Love and Faith course itself. As the period of consultation within the Church of England draws to a close, we are already seeing Bishops advocate for change in the Church’s teaching and pastoral on these matters.

Earlier this month, the Bishop of Oxford has published an essay in which he adds his voice to those calling for revision. You’ll have to buy the essay if you want to read it (which you can do here: https://www.oxford.anglican.org/ although there are a nmber of reviews online). You could (should!) also read Vaughn Roberts’ response (for free: https://www.oxforddef.co.uk/Publisher/File.aspx?ID=318841).

In the meantime, as we draw closer to Synod and the House of Bishops making recommendations, and decisions, I’ll be posting a number of Church of England Evaneglical Council contributions to the debate. It is unlikely that we at MIE will remain unaffected by this discussion in the national Church. At personal levels as well as at the level of our life together as a Church, we will likely find the months ahead painful and difficult to navigate. Please commit to praying for us as a Church, and particularly for our PCC as we chart our course in 2023.

19 Questions to ask before giving...

Nineteen Questions to Ask Before You Give to Any Organization (Abbreviated Version)

By Randy Alcorn

Giving is a great privilege, but also a great responsibility—and sometimes a confusing one. While the biggest hurdle is to gain a vision for giving, and to overcome our reluctance to give, once we’ve bought into God’s call to eternal investment, once we’ve determined to plunge into giving then we must ask, where and to whom and in what way and for how long should we give?

1. Are there things about this ministry that make it uniquely worth investing in instead of a thousand other good causes?

God does not call us to support every ministry, and not even every worthy ministry, and not even every extremely worthy ministry. For the glory of God, we must say “no” to many need-meeting opportunities, even most of them, the vast majority of them, in order that we may say a strong “yes” to those that God has uniquely called us to support. I can almost guarantee you that God is calling all of us to give more than we’re presently giving, but to give to less than 1% of all the ministries we could give to.

Feel guilty if you don’t give, and if you don’t give very generously. But don’t feel guilty because you don’t give to every good cause. You cannot and you should not give to every good cause.

2. Before giving elsewhere, have I fulfilled my primary giving responsibility to my local church?

Missions, evangelistic crusades, hunger relief organizations, Christian schools, and campus outreaches are all “parachurch” ministries. Their function is to minister alongside of or beyond the scope of local churches.

Giving should be done first to the local church because it is the giver’s primary spiritual community. Those who sit under the teaching and leadership of godly servants should do their part by helping support them. In Galatians 6:6 Paul says, “Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor.”

Provided the church teaches the Bible and exalts the Lord Jesus—and if it doesn’t we need to be part of a church that does—we have to learn to trust and submit, and recognize our giving is to the Lord, and when it comes to the church we can voice our opinions, but we can’t and shouldn’t seek to control where everything goes. In the early church believers laid their money at the feet of the apostles so it could be distributed as there was need.

Personally, my wife and I give a minimum of 10% to our local church, and with special offerings to the church, it comes out to more. Only after that do we look beyond to the wide array of international opportunities for kingdom investments. Giving need not end in the local church, but it should begin there.

3. Have I not only studied the literature from this ministry, but talked with others who know it close up but have no vested interests in it?

In most churches, people sometimes see their own pastors in real life situations, and have some feel for their character and qualifications. But what they know about a mission organization is primarily what they’re told through the mail or on radio or television. Before giving to ministries that we aren’t intimately familiar with, we should do our homework.

Proverbs 27:2 says, “Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your own lips.” Every time we read a fundraising letter or any other publication of a ministry—and I do recommend reading them—we have to keep in mind that these words are coming from their mouths, their lips, not from an objective third party.

Most ministry groups do not excel at negative self-disclosure. Ask them what their weaknesses are. If they can’t answer, it shows a serious lack of self-evaluation and a lack of initiative for improvement. This homework can include consulting with others who may know first-hand what the ministry is really like. Ask your pastor what he knows about this organization and its leaders. Missionaries are often good resources. Larger churches, like mine, may have a missions pastor who travels extensively and keeps abreast of which organizations are doing what, and how well. Missions professors at Bible colleges and seminaries are often familiar with foreign ministries.

4. Have I considered a ministry or vision trip to see and participate in what this ministry is actually doing on the field?

There’s just nothing like seeing missions work first-hand. I will never forget, for instance, watching people riveted to the Jesus Film on back streets and abandoned lots in some countries, and in private homes with the curtains drawn in others. I saw with my own eyes how God was using this wonderful instrument to win people to Christ and plant churches.

As great as vision trips are, however, we have to realize they too have limits. For one thing, you may have been part of a very good work, but there may be a better one you haven’t seen first hand. Plus, remember you’re not seeing everything. You may be seeing an organization’s best work, with their best face put on it in light of your visit.

Of course, you don’t need to take a trip to see every ministry you support. But maybe you can talk to someone you trust who’s made such a trip.

5. Does the ministry’s staff demonstrate a servant-hearted concern for those to whom they minister?

Does the literature and day to day operation reflect a ministry that is not just project-centered, but people-centered? Do these people demonstrate a spirit of servanthood and humility? Is the organization more concerned about its image, or what it actually does for others? Is it better at talking about ministry, or actually doing the ministry?

6. Do the organization’s workers demonstrate a sense of unity, camaraderie, and mutual respect?

Whether in a home office or on the field, how well do staff members get along with each other? Is there a family atmosphere? Are they quick to encourage each other? Do they appear to be a team, or is there a feeling of distance or competition among them? Do you hear laughter in the halls and lunch table, or do you sense a climate of tension or unrest? Here’s a question to ask employees—for what reasons have people left this organization in the last year?

7. Have I talked directly with people at the “lower levels” of this ministry, not just executives and PR people?

Examining an organization’s literature or listening to its broadcasts is necessary, but not sufficient. The ministry will rarely report failures, infighting, immorality, or misappropriation of funds. While no organization is perfect, we are responsible to take reasonable steps to insure we are supporting ministries which live by God’s principles.

Does the ministry have a web site? Examine it. See if you can pick up not only the beliefs and projects, but the attitude and spirit behind the ministry.

If you give regularly or substantially to a ministry, visit its nearest office, without making an appointment. You can learn a great deal by personally interacting with the ministry’s staff, or with the faculty and students of a Christian school.

8. Is this ministry biblically sound and Christ-centered?

Take a good look at a ministry’s statement of faith. Is it true to the Scriptures? If the answer is no, go no farther. If it’s a Christian school, and there’s a need for a sociology teacher, will it hire an academically qualified but spiritually unqualified professor just to maintain accreditation? An organization can be doctrinally sound but spiritually dead. Is there evidence of a vital relationship with Christ? What is the spiritual pulse of faculty and students? If it isn’t what it should be, are you perpetuating the spiritual problem by giving your money? Or are there other schools and other ministries more worthy of your support?

Is there a prayerful dependence on God? Has the ministry maintained its spiritual goals? If it is a relief organization, is there a clear understanding of the full human dilemma? Does it take into account the sin problem as well as poverty and hunger?

Obtain current information—the fact that this was a good school or ministry thirty years ago isn’t relevant. The funds you give will not go to the work of thirty years ago, they will go to what is happening now. Make sure this ministry is on the right track today.

9. What kind of character, integrity, purity and humility is demonstrated by the ministry leaders?

No ministry will rise above the spiritual level of those who lead it. The Christian leader is to be above reproach, self-controlled and in right relationship to his family. He is not to be a lover of money, quarrelsome, conceited, or one who will bend the truth for financial gain (1 Tim. 3:1-10).

The organization should simply be a tool at God’s disposal, for him to use as—and as long as—he chooses (2 Tim. 2:21). Is this a God-centered rather than man-centered operation?

Are those who should be humble servants made to look like heroes or celebrities? If someone other than God is getting the glory, do your giving elsewhere.

10. What kind of accountability structures does the organization have?

Is it part of an external accountability affiliation such as the Evangelical Counsel for Financial Accountability? (However, some good organizations do not belong to these groups, and some that do may not be living up to the affiliation’s standards.)

External affiliations are no substitute for internal checks and balances. “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17). Is the board comprised of a good cross section of spiritually qualified people? Will they stand up to key leaders in the organization, and challenge them on the wisdom or rightness of certain actions or policies?

How open are the decision-makers to your input as an informed donor? Be careful—don’t try to control what isn’t yours to control. But do take the responsibility to be a wise steward. 

11. If this is a secular or semi-Christian organization rather than a distinctively Christian one, what are the compelling reasons for giving to it?

Secular organizations such as the United Way support many good things, along with some bad, including Planned Parenthood and its abortion agenda. But even when they do good, there is a basic philosophical difference. They focus on the short term needs of people, without a view to their eternal welfare.

If the only way to help people was to give to a nonchristian organization, of course I’d give to it. But it isn’t. Let’s do the good works in the name of Christ, for his glory.

12. How clear are this organization’s goals and objectives, strategies and tactics, and how effective are they in carrying them out?

Is effectiveness judged by activity or by results, or both? How is it really measured? How can you interpret the numbers they list in mailings and reports?

For example, If 100 tons of food were delivered, how much got directly into the hands of hungry people and how much was confiscated by government officials or stolen and sold on the black market? Is there another organization that gets more food to people in need more effectively and better utilizes Christian churches to do it? Was gospel literature distributed with the food? If not, why not? Was there a good reason (maybe there was) or was this a missed opportunity reflecting the mission’s disinterest in evangelism?

If 10,000 people have come to Christ, how many were baptized and are now part of Bible-teaching churches? Does this organization follow up and evaluate the effectiveness of past projects and take this into consideration in future ones?

13. Is this organization teachable and open to improvement to become more strategic in their efforts?

Do they look for new ways to convey the timeless message, or do they put themselves above evaluation by uncritically “doing the Lord’s work” the same way they always have?

Character and attitude are the most important, but they’re not enough. You can be very godly and very sincere, but also do a very poor job in effectively meeting needs. Are leaders and missionaries participating in forums and conferences that put them on the forward edge of methodologies?

14. Am I certain I’ve gotten an objective view of this ministry, or have they given me the red carpet treatment so I’ve seen the positives without the negatives?

Do they present their best side to those who are potential supporters, while showing their worst side to their own workers and/or those they are supposed to be reaching? They may give you the red carpet treatment if they recognize you as a big donor or as big donor potential, but servantheartedness is best demonstrated in how they treat those who cannot help them and who they feel no compulsion to impress.

Don’t expect to be coddled, and don’t give to a ministry because they’ve stroked you and romanced you, but because they’re bringing glory to God by doing a faithful kingdom work. When it comes to investing in eternity, we need to get over ourselves—it’s not about you and me, the donors, it’s about the glory of God.

15. What view of God and people is demonstrated in this organization’s fundraising techniques?

I heard a radio preacher beg listeners, “Please be sensitive to God—send us your contribution.”

Though it’s no doubt sincere in many cases, the promise of prayer for the giver’s needs and loved ones can be manipulative fundraising. “You pay, and we’ll pray.”

Another common tactic is the manufactured crisis—”We must receive $300,000 by the end of the month or we’ll have to close our doors.” Yet $100,000 comes in and the doors stay open. So, how is this different than lying?

Many ministries reflect prosperity theology or health and wealth gospel. I deal with that in my book Money, Possessions and Eternity.

Over the years, I’ve received countless fundraising appeals from different ministries, and most of them are appropriate, but some of them have increasingly gotten worse and worse. Some organizations don’t put their name on the return address, or put an assumed name, knowing the recipient might not open it if he knew what it really was. In other words, the goal of the mailing is out and out deception—what does that say about a ministry? This kind of fundraising is immoral—it’s scandalous and Christians should not tolerate it.

Some organizations offer names on bricks and plaques to commemorate and publicize donor giving. When the organization puts this forth as a motive for giving, they violate Matthew 6 which says our giving is to be done quietly and discreetly, and those who give to be recognized have their reward, man’s approval, but forfeit reward from God. Any ministry that appeals to my worst motives and results in my loss of reward is not an organization I want to support.

Pioneer missionary to China Hudson Taylor said, “God’s work done in God’s way will never lack God’s supply.” Even the best ministries will sometimes be running tight financially. But if a work constantly lacks money, if it’s always begging for donations, does this suggest something may be fundamentally wrong? Perhaps that it’s either not God’s work or it’s not being done in God’s way.

16. How much money does the organization spend on overhead expenses and fundraising, and how much in actual ministry to people?

Every organization has legitimate overhead and “home office” expenses. These are not nonessentials. But as important as support personnel are, when you give to an organization, it’s also fair to ask how much is actually getting to the ministry you intended to support. (I hesitate to state a specific percentage to look for, because each ministry is unique, and many define “overhead” in different ways.)

What percentage of funds goes to raising more funds? What portion of every dollar sent in goes not to the work itself, but to raise more dollars?

If you can visit a ministry office, look at the furnishings. They may be attractive without being expensive and ostentatious. What about the lifestyles of the ministry staff? Does the organization disclose financial information that includes staff salaries? If not, why not?

If it seems judgmental or inappropriate to ask such questions, remember that you are God’s money manager looking to invest his assets.

17. Does this ministry show a clear understanding of cross-cultural ministry factors and local conditions and how the flow of money may affect them?

Some organizations are masters at the difficult task of cross-cultural ministry. Others are sincere but culturally ignorant or insensitive. They may have poor contacts or distribution methods in foreign countries. They sometimes pursue short-term solutions that contribute to long-term problems.

A sensitive relief and development organization with a long-term perspective—and there are some excellent ones—will work toward encouraging rather than discouraging local workers and the local economy, with a goal not only of immediate famine relief, but ongoing famine prevention.

Warning—ask legitimate questions, but do not use examples of misappropriated or unwise funding as an excuse not to give to critical needs. The solution is never to give less, it is to give more, but to give it selectively to the ministries that are doing the best job to the glory of God.

18. Does this organization speak well of others and cooperate with them?

Does this ministry have a cooperative rather than competitive relationship with other ministries? Does it avoid duplication of efforts? Or does it reinvent the wheel with no regard for what others in different ministries and denominations have learned and accomplished? Do local churches and nationals speak highly of this ministry? If so, good. If not, why not?

Check the ministry’s newsletter and see if there are references to cooperation with other groups and churches. Call and ask what joint projects they are involved with. A self-sufficient ministry hesitant to share success with others is myopic and counterproductive. Our giving should go to ministries committed to partnerships, to joining their brethren in building God’s kingdom, not their own.

19. Is this ministry pervaded by a distinctly eternal perspective on life, ministry and resources?

Some organizations have one year, five year and ten year goals, but fail to operate with an eternal perspective. True long-term accomplishments are not those that will last ten years or even a hundred. They should last a billion years and beyond. They should make a difference for eternity.

Immediately on leaving this world all who know Christ will gain the right perspective on ministry. The good news is we don’t have to wait until then. We can and should live now—and invest in eternity now—with the perspective that will be ours one minute after we die.

Randy Alcorn (@randyalcorn) is the author of fifty-some books and the founder and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries. 

Did the 15th Lambeth Conference signal the end of the Anglican Communion?

I’ve been asked quite a few times recently what I think of the recent Lambeth Conference.  Well, here is more of an answer that might be anticipated.  I have to be a bit careful, because I wasn’t there…  But I guess the main issue for many (in spite of what looked like a lot of effort to make it not the main issue!) was always going to be the question of whether the Conference would re-affirm the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality. Certainly many of the Bishops and Archbishops themselves saw this as the main issue, as we’ll see below.

And on this, it was apparent that the Archbishop of Canterbury wasn’t going to please everyone.  He couldn’t.  There are two incompatible theologies at work.  Perhaps that much at least has come into renewed focus.  There is no middle ground, though the Archbishop tried hard to find it.  I was reminded a little of the old riddle about how may angels can dance on the head of a pin?  Welby himself acknowledged the near impossibility of reaching a consensus…  I think the inclusion of ‘near’ there was a bit optimistic!

But our Bishops and Primates had a chance to do what the Church should do.  They had a chance to declare what God has revealed in His Word to the world.  They had a chance to proclaim Good News.  They had a chance to renew the Church, and to reform the Church that is reformed and which must always be reforming. And they were called to do it in no uncertain terms.  And they came so close.

The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches made it easy, by producing their own clarion statement and offering it for the Bishops to sign and for the Conference to affirm.  The Archbishop of Canterbury chose to stay closer to the fence.  In an oddly worded phrase he said: ‘It is the case that the whole of Lambeth 1.10 1998 still exists. This Call does not in any way question the validity of that resolution’.  He went on, ‘For the large majority of the Anglican Communion the traditional understanding of marriage is something that is understood, accepted and without question.  For them, to question this teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries would make the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack.’

There has already been much discussion about what he may or may not be saying here.  He has been criticised for both saying too much and too little.   But it is clear that he stops short of proclaiming the teaching of Scripture as authoritative and binding on the Church.  And if you sense a touch of cultural relativism at play, you could be right.  The Archbishop went on to affirm, possibly with rather more clarity, that some Churches had moved away from Anglicanism’s historic teaching, and that they would not be disciplined for that.  At least, he insisted that he does not have, and he does not seek ‘the authority to discipline or exclude a church’ if they conduct or bless same-sex marriages.  Institutionally, this might be the case, but that is not to say there is nothing that Canterbury could do to lead the Church in ways shaped by a faithfulness to Scripture.  It is simply disingenuous to deny that he does have an authority which could be brought to bear.  Instead, he invites us to simply accept the reality on the ground as it is, rather than to strive for what it should be.  It is not an invitation that is being taken up by all Primates and Bishops.  The leadership of GSFA recognises the responsibility it has: “We must record our grief that significant numbers of our brothers and sisters have embraced teaching which does not accord with ‘the foundation of the apostles and prophets’ (Eph. 2:20) and which is contrary to our calling … We find that if there is no authentic repentance by the revisionist provinces, then we will sadly accept a state of 'impaired communion' with them."   In spite of his protestation to the contrary, the Archbishop does seem to have uncoupled unity from truth, and in doing so, risks dismantling the very unity he aspires to protect.  Unity is based on truth, and is already lost when truth is lost.  That fracturing of unity was all too evident at Lambeth 22, where a number of Bishops and Archbishops refused to receive communion.

‘For such churches’ (as have denied Scripture’s teaching) Welby claims, ‘not to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence’.  So far, this includes 5 out of 42 provinces (and 2 others who have taken a rather more ambiguous position, but all in, constituting somewhat less than 10% of the Anglican Communion).  Welby’s suggestion is that we learn to live with the diversity of opinion on what constitutes the Gospel, and discipleship.  It might prove a naïve hope rather than a realistic strategy for future.  After all, a number of African Primates and Bishops flatly refused Welby’s invitation to the conference, and others from the Global South were clear that ‘Our willingness as orthodox Bishops to attend this Conference does not mean that we have agreed to ‘walk together’ with the revisionist Primates and Bishops in the Anglican Communion … Failing to correct false teaching is to fail to act in love. Hence, orthodox Bishops are duty-bound to God not to ‘live and let live’ under the guise of simply walking together in continuing dialogue with those who have departed from the way (or path) of truth … The only basis for our walking together is to submit ourselves again to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture in loyalty to the Anglican tradition and its formularies’.  The GSFA came with the stated intent of calling the whole Communion back to biblical faithfulness, and in so doing they invited the Conference to affirm that ‘renewed steps be taken to ensure that all Provinces abide by this doctrine in their faith, order & practice’.

The legacy of Lambeth 22 is one of ambiguity and mild confusion at best, and fear for the future of the Communion at worst.  At one level, Archbishop Justin seems to have powerfully described, with great empathy, the situation as it is.  Beyond that there is little that is certain, with Bishops on both sides of the debate feeling validated, claiming the Archbishop of Canterbury as their ally, and commentators on both sides lamenting his perceived lack of support.  He seems to be suggesting that each Province should make its own decision based on what prevents the Church from becoming ‘a victim of derision, contempt and even attack’.  There are significant questions about this as a way of discerning what the Church should believe and teach!  In Scripture, we are called to be faithful, especially when such faithfulness results in persecution. 

Which leaves to my mind three significant questions:

The first is the vision of theology that is now at work within the structures of the Church of England.  many are increasingly fearful that our denomination is fast moving away from even a pretence of rooting the teaching of the Church of England in her historic formularies.  There is rather, a profound and pragmatic relativism shaping our vision of what it means to be the people of God.  What we teach is whatever is best for us in our local context. Is it all equally valid?  This doesn’t sit well with Scripture, or even the Archbishop’s own challenge that our theology should not be shaped by our cultural context, especially when that culture ‘seeks to construct itself without God’.  But he is at least consistent with his stated desire to rpeserve institutional unity.  He acknowledges both the reality of ‘deep disagreement’, and that it sometimes takes a long time for Churches to accept or reject revisionist teaching.  That much is true.  And at times incompatible teaching has co-existed within the same Catholic Church.  But we expect more from our Bishops and Archbishops.  For those of us ‘in the trenches’, living out our faith in challenging contexts, we want to know that the leadership of our Church ‘has our back’…  that when we do face opposition for seeking to be faithful in our witness of Christ, our leaders will defend us and support us.  It is far from clear that this is now the case in the Church of England.

Secondly, is the enduring question of what it means for the Church of England specifically, and what it means for Living in Love and Faith, and the anticipated General Synod debates and votes over the next months.  The short answer is that there is nothing coming out of the Lambeth Conference that indicates one way or the other the leadership that the Archbishop, or indeed any other Bishop will give on this.  Based on what he has been said at Lambeth, there is no a priori commitment to either side of the debate.  My own sense is that this does not bode well, and that it will lead to either a stand-off, or more likely, an attempt to create space for both theologies to work out at the local parish level.  This will be presented as a paragon of tolerance and ‘unity’, but is in fact the worst of all worlds, presenting as if there is no change to the teaching of the Church, when in fact there has been massive change.  Tremendous pressure will be brought to bear on parish priests and PCCs, local congregations will be rent asunder, relationships between parishes and their Diocese will be critically undermined, and we will be committed to the long slow march to denominatinal collapse (as is happening to each denomination that has shifted itst eaching in this matter. It is important to realise that there are whole Dioceses in ECUSA that have a lower Sunday Attnedance than some large UK Anglican Churches).  Once we have lost our commitment to Scriptures as authoritative, it is only a matter of time before any Church will drift from its moorings.

The third is more subtle, and more insidious because of it.  There is more than a whiff of latent cultural elitism from Lambeth.  It is hard to nail down, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.  Listen again to the narrative: those Provinces (mostly Western) who have decided to step away from the historic teaching of the Church have done so after ‘long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature’.  Those who seek to stand on the traditional interpretations of Scripture (mostly from the Global South) are culturally bound.  Listen to how ‘orthodox’ and ‘revisionist’ parts ot he Anglican Communion are described in this key part of the Archbishop’s remarks on the Call on Human Dignity:

For the large majority of the Anglican Communion the traditional understanding of marriage is something that is understood, accepted and without question, not only by Bishops but their entire Church, and the societies in which they live. For them, to question this teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries would make the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack. For many churches to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence.

For a minority, we can say almost the same. They have not arrived lightly at their ideas that traditional teaching needs to change. They are not careless about scripture. They do not reject Christ. But they have come to a different view on sexuality after long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature. For them, to question this different teaching is unthinkable, and in many countries is making the church a victim of derision, contempt and even attack. For these churches not to change traditional teaching challenges their very existence.

In spite of the fact that ‘we can almost say the same’ about both sides of the tension, he doesn’t.  Traditional Churches hold their position because that is the position of the ‘societies in which they live’.  There is no mention here of the commitment to Scripture, prayer, deep study or reflection that is said to have given rise to the Revisionist position (whether this is the case or not is a separate question).  Neither is there recognition that revisionist Churches exist in the context of societies that have similarly moved away from anything representing the Bible’s teaching on amtters of humanity.  I have read his speech, and particualrly those paragraphs a number of times, and I accept that there may be more charitable interpretations.  But in such a formal and scrutinised statement on a critical issue facing Lambeth 2022, the words matter!  The ones that are used and the ones that aren’t!  It is hardly surprising that the South Sudanese Primate, Justin Badi could say during the Conference: ‘We often feel that our voices are not listened to, or respected...’.

Of course, it also ignores the many Anglicans in the ‘West’ who hold to the teaching of Scripture in matters of human dignity, marriage and sexuality, and who were ordained into, or who attend Anglican Churches precisely because of that Church’s historic legacy, and who are distraught at the prospect of it’s being changed, or even side-lined.  It bypasses the sense of betrayal felt by the vast majority of the global Anglican Communion (in the West as well as the Global South), and the growing frustration felt by many in the UK – who incidentally believe what they do irrespective of whether it makes us ‘a victim of derision, contempt of even attack’.  We believe what we believe because this is what the Living God has revealed in His Word, and because this is ‘Good News’, and the path to true human flourishing.

And in case you think I am being overly harsh, here is a citation from a piece posted at Anglican Ink (kind of an online Global Anglican newspaper) that puts it even more strongly:

Get it? This is a debate between unthinking traditionalists and unblinking theologians. Very politely, but one may say utterly ruthlessly, the Archbishop of Canterbury has painted a picture of primitive, unquestioning, traditionalists, who reflect their culture, in contrast to the deeply prayerful, intellectual progressives, who have studied the scriptures.

The assumption, of course, is that eventually the immature, unscientific laggards will eventually grow-up and catch-up.

The assumption is wrong, as one archbishop of the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA) said with a knowing look, “Do they think we are children?”

And so, the 15th Lambeth Conference (with a budget running into millions!) came to a close with an insistence that sexuality wasn’t the only, or even the main item on the agenda!  Which is true - the agenda covered a huge variety of issues including Mission, Safeguarding, Anglican Identity, Reconciliation, Human Dignity, Environment and Sustainable Development, Technology, Economics, Centralisation (as a means of power and control), Persecution, Unity, Inter-faith Relations, Discipleship, and Science and Faith, and more...  Undoubtedly there is much to rejoice in, and in many places there were Calls, affirmations and statements that re-iterated the Church’s historical priorities.  Many Bishops are reflecting this as they write to their Dioceses, often seeking to underline the fact that Lambeth was about more than questions about human sexuality.  We need to hear that, and to celebrate it.  By all accounts it was, for those who attended, a deeply moving experience as they studied Scriptures together and heard of the experience of the Church elsewhere in the world.  This is only to be expected.  But how moving a Conference is can hardly be the criteria by which it’s impact is judged.  And the question isn’t so much about what was ‘on the agenda’.  It includes what was important to those who weren’t privileged to be setting the agenda, and who saw fit to bring their own resolutions to the Conference.  And it includes the question of what difference the Conference will make for our witness to Christ, whether it will contribute to the ongoing decline of the Church in the UK (and growth elsewhere in the world), or change its trajectory.   That remains to be seen.  But this 15th Lambeth Conference simply because of when it was held in the history of Anglicanism, was always going to be about, and was always going to be judged by, what it said about Lambeth 1:10.  And any claim to the contrary is simply untenable.  And on this, it is far from clear that its legacy will be as positive as some Bishops are claiming…

The Archbishop of Canterbury is, I fear, right on one thing.  We are facing an ‘existential threat’ to the Anglican Church.    

The ‘Communique of Orthodox Bishops, presented by the Steering Group of the GFSA , and suggesting the end of the Communion can be found here:

https://www.thegsfa.org/_files/ugd/6e992c_8951f0f7ce4b4e7083f877b4b38294a2.pdf

And an interesting blog exploring this and highlighting the key issues facing the Global Anglican Communion from a perspective across the pond, can be found here:

https://anglican.ink/2022/08/11/anglican-unscripted-752-walking-apart/

A Complicated Joy

Days like ‘Mother’s Day’ are complicated celebrations that seem to underline in so many ways the heart-breaking tensions of living in a fallen world... 

The idea of a ‘Mum’ was God’s.  And yet – like in so much of our world – His vision is tragically marred.  The complicated reality of a world that ignores Him trips us up, and hinders our celebration of God’s idea.  In so many ways today can be a day of pain.  Memories of our mothers are not always joyous, but can be scarred by abandonment, neglect, betrayal or suffering.  Relationships with our mums today are not always straightforward, and can be the cause of ongoing frustration and tears.  There are those who have so desperately wanted to be mums, but the circumstances of their lives have meant those hopes and dreams lie broken and unfulfilled.  Many feel judged.  Some are profoundly aware of their failure as mums on a day to day basis; for others ‘Mothering Sunday’ is an agonising reminder of decisions we would give anything to go back and make again.  Some have endured miscarriages, still births or have buried their children, and today opens afresh the wounds of loss.  Others find in their children a source of tremendous confusion and grief.  Even the most wholehearted and joyous celebration of Mothering Sunday will be tainted with sorrow. 

As Christians we are to ‘mourn with those who mourn’ (Rom.12:15).  Our focus should be on the broken, the wounded, the sinner and the sinned against.  This is righteous.  Our faith gives us the courage to face life as it really is, and not to have to pretend.  Yet the same verse (Rom.12:15) also commands us to ‘rejoice with those who rejoice’.  Our concern for the wounded can often lead us to forego the rejoicing and to mute our celebration.  Or we can lose balance the other way, and disregard the wounded in thoughtless rejoicing.  But this is not the way of the Scriptures.

As Christians, we are to honour those who are worthy of honour, and give them the recognition they deserve (Rom.13:7).  This is rarely done in our world, and the Church dare not follow suit.  Churches must maintain a holy and healthy balance.  We cry out to God both to heal the wounded, and in gratitude for what is worthy of honour; both for grace to cover our failure and in praise for when God has enabled us to be faithful in our calling.

Only at the Cross can we find the resources to maintain this balance.  Only here can we learn to look beyond ourselves and our own situation, and to enter into the experience of another with such total empathy, so that those who mourn can rejoice with those who rejoice, and those who rejoice can mourn with those who mourn.  The integrity of neither is compromised.  For us all, we may find that as we obey His call, God is at work in us far more than we had anticipated.

And as we confront the complicated nature of today’s celebration of motherhood, we find our hearts aching again for the holy simplicity of the New Creation, when ‘there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away’ (Rev.21:4).  This is our future in Christ, and on that day our joy will no longer be complicated, or tainted.  It will be complete in and through Him, and the fulfilment of His work.  That is our hope in Christ.  And it is a hope that radically relativizes everything in this old, passing age.  It relativizes both the joy and sorrow, and ironically perhaps even the institution of motherhood, and of our love for our mothers.

Passages like Mark 10:29-30 and Luke 14:26 relate the disturbing words of Jesus.  His teaching calls us to a total allegiance to Christ that undermines even our love for the one who bore and nursed us.  Our love for ‘mum’ (and her love for us), and the relationship we may enjoy with her (and that she enjoys with us) must be understood in the context of our much deeper love for Christ and a much more compelling relationship with Him.  Ultimately we are delivered from this present age and delivered into the Kingdom of Heaven, where there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free, or I wonder, mother or child…  while our citizenship is in heaven, our pilgrimage remains through this old creation and this old age.  While here, we are called to ‘honour our … mother’, but only in such a way that truly we are honouring Christ.  Neither we nor our mothers should expect more than this.  Perhaps this is the most complicated thing of all.

In Christ,

Mark

DTP To be a Christian

This week’s homework is to get hold of a copy of ‘To Be a Christian’, an Anglican Catechism, published by Crossway. If you want to buy a hard copy, here are the details. In the UK, you can only get it through Amazon or W.H.Smith. Or you can order it direct from Crossway.com

Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-4335-6677-6

It is also available online as PDF for free:

https://anglicanchurch.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/To-Be-a-Christian.pdf

Once you have a copy, read through Questions 36-120 at your leisure. This section covers the Apostle’s Creed which we are considering in the DTP at the moment.

Getting ready for Sunday?

As we work our way towards Sunday and our service of Divine Worship, and our reflecting together on the First Commandment; as we pray for those who will be leading and preaching, running Sunday Groups etc.; as we pray that the Spirit would be working in us and preparing us for all He will expose us to this Lord’s Day…

As we do all that, here is a sentence or two from Tertullian - an early Christian leader in North Africa during the Second Century. He wrote a short booklet ‘On Idolatry’, and it opened with this:

“The principal crime of the human race, the highest guilt charged upon the world, the whole procuring cause of judgement, is idolatry…”.

Puts things in perspective, doesn’t it?

A 1700 year old challenge…

We’ve been reading a great book as a family over the last few weeks. It was written quite a while ago, and in the part we’ve just read, the author is defending the Christian belief in the resurrection. I wonder how you would justify believing that Jesus was raised from the dead? I found this section pretty challenging. Partly because it is so completely different from how I would argue that Christ had risen; and partly because I’m not sure these arguments would sound particularly credible on my lips. This is what he had to say:

“Well then, look at the facts of the case. The Saviour is working mightily among us. Everyday He is invisibly persuading numbers of people all over the world to accept His faith and to be obedient to His teaching … Does a dead man prick the consciences of men, so that they throw all the traditions of their fathers to the winds and bow before the teaching of Christ? If He remained dead, how is it that He makes the living to cease from their activities: the adulterer from his adulttery, the murderer from murdering, the unjust from avarice, while the profane and godless man becomes religious? If He did not rise, but is still dead, how is it that He routs and persecutes and overthrows the false gods, whom unbelievers think are alive, and the evil spirits whom they worship? … We are agreed that a dead person can do nothing: yet the Saviour works mightily every day, drawing men to religion, persuading them to virtue, teaching them about immortality, quickening their thirst for heavenly things, revealing the knowledge of the Father, inspiring strength in the face of death, manifesting Himself to each, and displacing the irreligion of idols; while the gods and evil spirits of the unbleievers can do none of these things… By the sign of the cross, all magic is stayed, all sorcery confounded, all the idols are abandoned and deserted, and all senseless pleasure ceases, as the eye of faith looks up from earth to heaven. Shall we call Christ dead who accomplishes all this? Or shall we call death dead? No room for doubt remains therefore, concerning the resurrection of His body.

(Athanasius, De Inc. 5:30-31)

What a compelling series of arguments. Our effectiveness in evangelism, and the destruction of sin in the lives of believers, the courage of the martyrs, the desire for heavenly things, and the self-evident difference between Christianity and other religions… that’s how you know Christ lives amongst us!

Advent Celebration

Last Sunday evening saw us at St Andrew’s for an Advent Celebration! Such an encouraging service - thanks to all involved in pulling it together… Here’s the talk(s):

Fuse 21 part 3

…and the last session (sorry about the state of my throat!!)

Fuse 21 part 2

…and here’s the second session

Fuse 21 part 1

I gave some teaching a few weeks ago on the subject of Revival… I’ve used some of the material in sermons at MIE, so bits of it might sound familiar. Here is the video recording of the first session…

some resources on thinking through parenting

OK - so if you want to think through a Bible-inspired vision for parenting there are a number of resources i’d recommend. In no particular order:

…and don’t forget that there are a number of articles and previous blogs on the MIE Website that speak to the question of parenting and teaching children…

I don't often recommend the BBC, but...

I think you’ll find the recent Nolan Investigates helpful, informative and disturbing in equal measure. It is being heralded as a groundbreaking piece of investigative journalism. Whether it is worthy of such accolade, I’ll leave you to decide! Nolan’s podcast looks at the influence Stonewall has in public institutions across the UK, and talks to a range of voices with a view on sex, gender and identity. It’s always helpful to know wht’s going on in the world around us!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p09yjmph/episodes/downloads

what do Christians believe about all this... and what difference does it make to discipleship?

Part of what we’re doing over this term is helping you to find resources that will help you to think through the issues of gender, sexuality, marriage and identity. If you are thinking thorugh the arguments and claims and counter-claims about what Christians believe, and what our culture is increasingly committing itself to believing; or if you are struggling to know how to tackle these issues in terms of your own discipleship and experience; or are unsure about how to talk to others, here are a couple of websites that might be help…

if you haven’t looked into True Freedom Trust yet: https://truefreedomtrust.co.uk/

Living Out: https://www.livingout.org/

here’s an American site that speaks to many of these questions: https://www.centerforfaith.com/

Hope they help…

True Freedom Trust

so who are the True Freedom Trust and why are we inviting them to be a part of our engagement with LLF? Here’s a short video that introduces their work.

Don’t forget to let me know if you are planning to come on 23rd, so that we can make sure there is enough brunch to go round!