food4thought

This is the text of short letter I try to write every month to our Church Family on something that merits a response, something that’s currently an issue or something that tickles my fancy!

Dear Friends

Which book have you earmarked for holiday reading? Is there a cheeky little paperback that you’ve got your eye on? Me, I thought I’d take a Ludlum to the coast; nothing too demanding, lots of plot and very little characterisation. I want a page turner not a tear jerker; I’m a bloke!

But, the closing words of Paul’s letter to the Romans warn me about being exclusively secular in my holiday reading habits. He reminds us that there’s real value to earmarking the Bible as one of the things that we might read as we lounge by the pool. Look at his words in the 16th chapter of that book.

25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— 27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

These closing words are often called a doxology. The ESV even has that as the heading. That unfamiliar word comes from the Greek ‘doxa’, meaning glory. So, Paul concludes this magisterial letter by ascribing glory to God. In this outpouring of praise he gives credit where credit’s due. And in particular Paul praises God for four things.

1.     Paul praised God for His strength

Paul began by praising God for His ability to strengthen and establish the church. The word he uses, which in English is translated ‘strengthen’, is a normal one that might be used to describe securely fixing a loose floor board! But when Paul uses the term it takes on a technical meaning which implies securely fixing new converts by nurturing them in the faith. Paul recognised that no Christian and no church would be spiritually secure apart from this strengthening activity of God. And so, we need to remember that if we’re to keep going in our Christian lives and keep going as a church, then we depend entirely on the power of God. We will not do it on our own. Wonderfully, we don’t have to!

2.     Paul praised God for His gospel

Paul knew that the way in which God strengthens His people is through the gospel. He describes this gospel in three ways. First, he described the gospel as His, in the sense that God had entrusted him with it. Secondly, he described it as concerned with Jesus Christ, in the sense that he is the substance of the good news from God. Thirdly, he described it as a mystery now revealed, in the sense that it was previously hidden but had now exposed by the New Testament perspective on the Old Testament prophetic writings. But his point was that this gospel of which he was a servant, Christ was the substance and the New Testament provided the interpretation is what strengthens churches. And so, even though there are few things as disappointing as an evangelistic event to which no unbelievers come, even then there’s a silver lining to that particular dark cloud. Believers benefit from hearing the gospel as well. It’s the means by which God grows our faith in Him and establishes us in maturity. Please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying, unbelievers still need to hear the gospel and we still need to try and persuade them to come along and listen. Nevertheless, even if no one but the regulars pitches up we know that God is at work building and toughening us up for the challenges that we’ll face before the New Creation.

3.     Paul praised God for His mission

Paul realised that the only fitting stage for the salvation accomplished by Christ was a worldwide one. He recognised the divine design behind the apostolic evangelisation of the nations. And he praised God that this momentous news had gone overseas. God had removed the limits on the spread of the gospel. In the Old Testament era it was clearly not His intention to save many outside of Israel. But in the New Testament era all that had changed. The gospel was to be taken to the ends of the world. God had bigger plans. Paul’s reason for writing the letter was to seek support for his visit to Spain so that he could bring the news of the righteousness of God to an unreached people. We not only need to praise God for His evangelistic passion through which we’ve become the beneficiaries, but we also need to share it so that others might be on the receiving end of His glorious salvation.

4.     Paul praised God for His wisdom

As Paul reflected on the events of salvation history it blew his mind. Behind everything that was happening in the world he saw the wise plan of God. In sending His Son to take on human flesh, die on a cross, be raised to life, send the Spirit and start the world wide spread of the gospel through the church planting ministry of his Apostles, the wisdom of God was writ large. Paul stood back and allowed the existence of the extraordinary phenomenon of a group of obedient followers of Jesus Christ to sink in. Though the world may look at the church and mock, Paul saw things differently. He saw, not through rose tinted spectacles [his experience of churches saved him from that] but he saw with the eyes of faith. God is doing a remarkable thing through the gospel. He is saving hell deserving sinners like us, from eternal condemnation in hell, for everlasting life in glory. And He’s doing it through the gospel. This gospel offers the perfect righteousness of Christ for all who’ll believe.

It’s no wonder that when Paul thought about these things he was moved to spontaneous praise. He gave credit where credit’s due. And God is to be credited with strengthening the churches, revealing the gospel, saving the nations and all in accordance with His eternally wise plan.

Though our words may not be as carefully crafted or as theologically precise as the great Apostle why not put this down for a moment and praise God with the language that immediately comes to mind for all that He has accomplished. We have much to praise the Lord for. So in amongst the latest offerings from Grisham, Rowling and Hosseini why not do yourself a favour and pick up a bestselling classic and read a thrilling true story from the greatest author of all time?

With best wishes in Christ

richard

This could be one of the most divisive posts that I’ll ever write. And I’ve just written some stuff on GAFCON. This is a position paper. On sport. In the midst of widespread confusion, there are some things that we need to clarify. I’ve just watched a BBC programme on Olympic hopefuls. I’m distraught at what we’re now prepared to call a sport. It wouldn’t have happened in my day. There’s a great need for clear thinking and leadership on this issue. I’m happy to step up to the plate. Theerfore, let me offer a defining statement; the Balham Statament let’s call it. We’re not a break away faction of reactive schismatics. We just want to recapture the heart of sport. Others may want to sign up and join the bandwagon. I’m thinking of starting a petition. To my mind, for something to qualify as a sport it must involve the following four features

1. competition

2. technical expertise

3. athletic ability 

4. a ball

Therefore, cycling is a recreation. Rowing is a technique. Darts is a competition. Rugby, football, cricket and hockey - now they’re sports. Golf isn’t because it doesn’t require athletic ability. The same goes for snooker. Grand Prix is driving quickly. Swimming is a technique but add a ball and water polo is a sport. What this of course means is that the Olympic Games is technically not a sporting competition but an athletic one. It also means that the BBC covers very little sport, but that’s a rant for another time!

This is the text of short letter I try to write every month to our Church Family on something that merits a response, something that’s currently an issue or something that tickles my fancy!

Dear Friends

In recent weeks the media has been awash with stories of the further disintegration of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. As is often the case, the carefully worded statements of principled biblical leaders are presented as the bigoted ranting of schismatic homophobic militants at the lunatic fringe of mainstream Christianity. Not by everyone, admittedly. Rather wonderfully some of the press reporting, particularly by the BBC’s Religious Affairs Correspondent Robert Piggott, has been very fair. One of the newsworthy items has been the Global Anglican Future Conference [GAFCON] held in Jerusalem at the end of June.

I had the privilege of attending with the Co-Mission Senior Pastor, Richard Coekin. It was more enjoyable and encouraging than I ever imagined it would be. Though it was hard to be separated from church and especially from family, it was wonderful to be among old and new friends from all around the world. There were so many highlights that it seems miserly to limit them to a few. But chief amongst them must be the private tour of the biblical sites of Jerusalem by Australian historian and theologian Paul Barnett, conversations on the bus with Archbishop Josiah Fearon from Kaduna, Nigeria and relaxing by the hotel pool with the great and the good from the English evangelical church scene. 

One of the key things to come out of GAFCON was the Statement on the Global Anglican Future. For those of us who are cynical about such things or overly pedantic about the precise details of statements of faith you need to remember that when the draft statement was read to a room of approximately 1,200 people, grown men whooped, wept, jumped for joy and hugged one another. The British did it on the inside. One senior clergyman said to me, ‘this is the best thing to come out of Anglicanism in all my years of ministry’. Another said, ‘for the first time in my ordained life I’m not embarrassed to be an Anglican!’

Let me suggest that this is a great statement for at least these three reasons.

1.       It’s a reassertion of authentic Anglicanism

Opponents of GAFCON are already suggesting that the motivation behind the movement is schismatic separation. It is most definitely not that. These orthodox Anglicans are going nowhere. Though the statement launches a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, the document states that ‘our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion’.  Instead they are committed to the preservation, recovery and growth of authentic Anglicanism. This is defined not by recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury but by a doctrinal commitment to the authority of the scriptures as expressed in the Creeds and the 39 Articles. This ought to be music to evangelical ears. It means that the Church of England belongs to people like us and not the liberal revisionists who currently wield so much influence. In actuality they are like a parasitical cuckoo that has flown uninvited into the biblical nest of Anglicanism and is in the process of forcing out the rightful heirs to the denomination. It’s a deliberately provocative metaphor, but it’s accurate.

2.       It’s a potentially divisive statement

Though lots of faithful Anglicans may agree that things are a mess at the moment, not everyone will like what’s been suggested. And therefore self proclaimed evangelical leaders like the Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, who has written many useful things and with whom we would agree on a whole range of issues, have come out strongly against what’s been proposed. But over the last ten years there’s been a growing consensus that evangelicals cannot simply stay in the Church of England and accept further compromise. For the sake of Christ and his gospel we must contend, graciously but firmly. And in so doing we’re not doing anything un-Anglican. Anglicanism ought to welcome evangelical Christians. And yet in some dioceses the central structures are opposing gospel work and even persecuting gospel churches. Courageously, the leaders of GAFCON have decided that they cannot stand by whilst others preach another gospel, whilst principled Anglicans are forced to seek alternative Episcopal oversight and whilst no effective disciplinary measures are taken against the liberal revisionists. In my view, GAFCON is realistic about the mess that we’re currently in and it promises help in those situations.

3.       It’s a distraction from the job of ministry

I’ve deliberately overstated that in order to make unmistakably clear that though this is a political statement of real substance it won’t bring anyone to faith and it won’t grow anyone in Christian maturity. That’s our job. It will be tempting for us to become distracted and forget that Christ commissioned us to make disciples of all nations not make us familiar with the endless round of opinions expressed in the ‘blogosphere’. Let’s be informed on the issues but not sidetracked by them. The Jerusalem statement is significant, please don’t misunderstand me. It’s especially encouraging and supportive of the gospel ministry that we’re trying to do in launching new congregations and raising up future church leaders. But it will not do it for us. We must encourage one another to keep going in the demanding but rewarding work of gospel ministry. Of course, we still think that the Church of England is worth fighting for. We’d like there to be Anglican churches up and down the country in years to come so that our children and grandchildren can hear the gospel in them. But the battle for the Church of England will not be won on pieces of paper, but on the ground. If Anglican Evangelical churches like ours keep growing and producing informed and godly mums, dads, workers, pastors and kids then we’ll have a massive influence on the direction of the Christian faith in this country. Ultimately that’s our aim. We seek not simply the preservation of an ancient denomination but the glory of Christ through the salvation of sinners. It’s just that we think the Church of England is still a great place to do that from.

If you’ve not already done so, why not read the Statement on the Anglican Mainstream web site. You’ll find it so encouraging. And if you sign the petition and express your support, you’ll encourage others.

With best wishes in Christ

richard

This is the text of short letter I try to write every month to our Church Family on something that merits a response, something that’s currently an issue or something that tickles my fancy!

Dear Friends

At the holiday Bible club, Going Bananas, we looked at the encounter between Jesus and Zacchaeus. Jesus’ determination to pursue sinners provoked outrage amongst the religious elite. In their opinion if Jesus was a godly man, as he claimed to be, he shouldn’t be found amongst the ungodly. It seems logical. But that doesn’t make it right. Jesus explained that his behaviour was entirely consistent with the ministry that God had given him. To explain what he was about, he used the words, ‘the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost’.

When we came to teach the kids we really struggled with explaining the concept of ‘lostness’. What does it mean for a person to be lost? How would you articulate it? We realised that when something is lost, it’s not where it’s supposed to be. The keys ought to be in the key plate and when they’re not, they’re lost. In the same way, people are lost when they’re not where they should be. They should be living lives in glad and obedient submission to their loving Creator. But they’re not. And so they’re lost. Jesus came to find these people and put them back where they belong. He’s done it for us. And now we’re keen that he should do it for others.

This is one of the most important convictions that underpins church life at CCB. We’re not primarily about looking after those of us who’ve been found, we’re primarily about seeking the lost. In fact, we’re prepared to leave the found to seek the lost, just as Jesus was. Not every church accepts this. But wonderfully this is not a battle that we have to fight at CCB.

The month of May was largely taken up with trying to share in Jesus’ mission. The three major events in the church calendar all had the intention of seeking the lost.

1.       The Away Day

This was held at the Factory, the new church building in Raynes Park. It was planned and implemented to perfection by Anna. It was attended by a huge proportion of both congregations. Dan Strange, a lecturer at Oak Hill Theological College, helped us with a subject he described as, Cultural Apologetics. In essence it’s a way of describing Peter’s command to defend the reason for the hope that we have [1 Peter 3:15]. It means that in interacting with our society, we’re trying to do two things. In the first place we’re trying to remove distortions to the gospel and thereby clarify people’s understanding. And secondly, we’re trying to remove false assurance and thereby convict people of the truth. It has value for both unbelievers and believers alike because we both share idolatrous heart commitments. In other words we worship things that aren’t God. What we worship or love manifests itself as a worldview, a framework of assumptions through which we understand everything. A worldview always takes shape as we create a culture in which those things are given significance. Cultural Apologetics helps us to identify, understand and evaluate these idolatrous influences. It’ll help us deal with idolatry in the hearts of unbelievers and in our own hearts. If we want to seek the lost we need to be able to critique the culture and work out what it tells us about what’s replaced God in our affections.

2.       The Park Party

In essence The Park Party was a glorified Church Fete, though I’d never want to hear it called that! It conjures up unhealthy stereotypes that we’re keen to leave behind! The intent behind our inaugural Park Party was to try and connect with the local community. Most people in Balham have no contact at all with CCB. In a small way, we wanted to address that. But though we sought to promote CCB, what we really wanted to promote was Jesus Christ and his gospel. We were able to do this especially through the children’s talk from Luke 14. Wonderfully a huge number of people stayed on and came to the church meeting. At that event, loads of people heard that God has invited everyone to his heavenly feast. Christian and his team of helpers did a wonderful job of planning and implementing the event. The teams from the various Knowing God groups made invaluable contributions on the day. The band provided a wonderfully varied musical programme. And we are deeply indebted to those who cooked cakes and biscuits. There will be lots that we can learn from our first attempt at this scale of event but above all, it was a tremendous success.

3.       The Holiday Club

We took a bit of punt pitching Going Bananas at Primary School aged children. CCB only has two kids in that age range! But if we always let reason win over risk we’d never get anything started! Alright, we let their slightly younger siblings come along as well, so that boosted numbers. But even that concession meant that only 6 of the 20 children who came are part of Christ Church Kids. Wonderfully through our involvement at Telferscot, friendships with parents at Henry Cavendish and the regular Christ Church Kids’ Parties we were able to promote the holiday Bible club wider than we’d hoped. We even had one family who came as a result of The Park Party. Polly did a fantastic job in planning the three mornings and running the team of willing and talented volunteers. Many took time off work to be involved. It was a great team effort and a reminder that as a church we are one body with many parts [1 Corinthians 12:12]. As with many of the things we’ve done, if we start small, pray and back it the Lord will use our efforts for His glory. God willing, this will be the first of our Holiday Bible Clubs and an integral part of a growing children’s ministry.

Conclusion

It won’t always be easy ‘seeking the lost’. It cost Jesus his life. We’ll find it’ll cost us as well. But as we know personally, the experience of salvation is worth every sacrifice that we could possibly make.

With best wishes in Christ

Richard

It’s hard to know exactly what will emerge from the receipt of the GAFCON Jerusalem Statement. It could just be another of those rousing rallying cries that falls on deaf ears. I hope not. But evangelicalism is pretty broad in the Church of England. And, regrettably it’s pretty soft. Like a dozing man when the alarm clock goes off many will just hit the snooze button and return to their slumbers. We’re better at concession and compromise than confessing and contending. But I’m hopeful for more. I suspect that the persecution of evangelicals like Professor J.I. Packer in the Diocese of New Westminster has woken some to the dangers that lie ahead. I think it was Os Guinness who at GAFCON used the illustration of a nuclear explosion having taken place and the fallout from which is heading our way. He applied it to the influence of western secularism but he could have easily applied it to its religious form, liberal revisionism. Dr Packer’s treatment highlights what happens to faithful, godly men when they stand up to the liberal agenda. The liberals have the power and they’ll wield it when they’re threatened. And we’ve seen that in our own Diocese.

The meeting at All Souls last Tuesday will be instrumental in Evangelical Anglicans deciding what to do. This was attended by nearly 800 Church leaders in the day and a similar number of lay leaders in the evening. Many of the Evangelical ‘tribes’ were represented. They need to unite together, take counsel and prayerfully consider what action to take in the light of GAFCON.

Whilst there is an unpredictability about how the some things than be predicted with unwavering confidence.

1.     We’re going to get a pasting in the secular media

It’s naive to think it will play any other way. With very few exceptions the western secular media will mock the statement, vilify the proponents and give a disproportionate amount of airtime to the revisionists. The argument will be presented as the bigoted ranting of schismatic homophobic militants at the lunatic fringe of mainstream Christianity. I may be wrong, but I suspect not. Those may not be their words but those will be the categories they think of. This is not going to play out well in the press. But why would we expect it to? That‘s hopelessly naive. On the presenting issue of unrepentant homosexual sex and on the underlying issue of biblical authority, Christians disagree with the world’s thinking. But we need to listen to the Lord and stand firm on His word. That’s what believers do. We’re not free to reinvent what we find there because we it’s out of kilter with prevailing social opinion. 

2.     We’re going to be opposed by the church authorities

It may well be that at some stage down the line we’ll be opposed by the same church authorities that are supposed to be resourcing our gospel ministry. At the moment the worst it gets is angry letters and hostile meetings. But this will probably end up in court. Faithful Anglican leaders and their congregations will probably get thrown out of their buildings, have their licences revoked, their wages withdrawn and their pensions frozen, but so what. We’re there already! And we’ve not lost the gospel and the Lord has not deserted us. Though we may not feel very significant, our little church is proof that there’s life in Anglicanism outside the structures! 

But what we face will be nothing compared to what the leaders of our theological constituency will face. The wives and children often feel it worst. We should pray for them and offer them our unwavering support.

3.     We’re going to realise who our friends are

Not everyone will be with us. Evangelicals will be divided. Already the Bishop of Durham, a self professed evangelical leader, has lambasted the statement on the BBC. Some will disapprove of the mechanisms and tactics employed to bring the church back to the Bible and they won’t back us. It was said that after the Co-Mission irregular ordination three years ago we were more hated than we’d ever been but more loved than we’d ever been. It was a divisive move. It forced people to choose. In that sense it was polarising. It wasn’t meant to be. We just thought it was the right thing to do in the circumstances. It was intended to be an act of principled disobedience given that we were in temporarily impaired communion with our Diocesan Bishop. But people were forced to choose one side or the other. We received vitriolic letters but also overwhelming support. True friends really stuck with us through thick and thin. Some didn’t feel able to support us and that was a great shame.

Throughout the continual process of reforming the Church of England God will provide us with friends who stand with us and contend as one man for the faith of the gospel. We have to decide which side of the argument we stand on. And we’ll look around at others who stand with us. They’ll need us and we’ll need them. In the kindness of God, we may experience a quality of fellowship that we’ve never previously known.

Conclusion

I don’t know what will happen on the ground as a result of GAFCON. I’m not in the room where it gets decided. I pray that the leaders of our constituency decide to act. As one young delegate said at a meeting in Jerusalem, ‘I’m not that bothered what you decide to do, I just want you to do something!’ Surely we can’t let the current situation persist for another decade as the liberals gleefully watch our appetite for contention wane and the biblical gospel pass into history.

It was easy for me. I was invited. And what could I do? The leaders of the world wide Anglican Communion wanted my opinion. What was I to say?  It would have been impolite to refuse! Actually, I was there to carry Richard Coekin’s bags. I did it poorly but fortunately he travels light.

But what about us? I suspect that some of us struggle to get excited by the ecclesiastical events of the last few days. Some may have described the Global Anglican Futures Conference in Jerusalem as momentous but perhaps we don’t share the enthusiasm. Perhaps we’re totally unconvinced that anything significant has taken place. An initial response to that would be to note that the BBC and all the major newspapers have been reporting on this conference. Church leaders from this country are clearly rattled and have come out strongly against it. Peter Tatchell, the Gay Rights campaigner, was at All Souls Church on Tuesday to protest about GAFCON’s reassertion of biblical sexual ethics. Some major players clearly think that something happened that’s worth reporting, commenting on and opposing.

However, even if others are engaged with this issue we may feel disconnected for a number of reasons. Chief amongst them are probably these four.

1.     We may feel that the issues are too confusing to understand

The media keeps saying that the evangelicals [or traditionalists as they call us] are being schismatic and it’s about gay sex. But evangelicals keep saying we’re not leaving and it’s about the authority of the Bible. Who shoudl we believe? The world of Ecclesiastical Politics, Canon Law and the Formulary Documents of the Church of England is not something with which we’re overly familiar! It’s all so bewildering. But in essence it’s very simple. There are two churches in the Church of England. On the one hand, there’s the faithful church of the Bible and on the other hand, there’s the revisionist church of the culture. Those represented by the GAFCON movement want to live by the Bible and change their lives. The Liberal Revisionists want to live by the culture and change the Bible. No one really disputes that despite the Bishop of Southwark’s best attempt in the Guardian this week. The question is who does the Church of England belong to? A week of seminars on Anglican Identity established well beyond reasonable doubt that the foundational documents of the Church of England say that it’s a biblical church. So it belongs to the orthodox and not the heterodox. And so it’s ours! The trouble is that the revisionists rule the roost and they won’t give it back. They’re like a cuckoo that’s flown into our nest and is pushing the rightful owners out. Of course, we could just walk away. Some have. But it’s our nest. Our faithful Anglican forefathers gave it to us. It’s a nest with money, buildings and opportunities to preach the gospel tied up in it. The Jerusalem Statement says in effect, ‘it’s ours and we’re not going anywhere’.

2.     We may feel that GAFCON is an irrelevance to our own church life

Many of our congregation don’t count themselves as Anglicans. They may not even realise that in attending CCB they belong to a Church of England church! This is probably for the following three reasons.

We’re financially independent from the Church of England. Though our staff team has had their theological education paid for by the Denomination, we now receive no money for staff housing, pay or pensions. Our church buildings and ministry costs are borne entirely by the congregations and the Co-Mission Initiative.  Though we’d like and value their support, we don’t look to the Church of England for the wherewithal to resource gospel ministry.

We’re structurally independent from the Diocese of Southwark. There have been recent attempts made to ‘regularise’ Dundonald as a Fresh Expression [even though it’s 16 years old!]. But the Diocese seems in no great hurry to progress things. I have not been invited to the Deanery Chapter meeting of local clergy. I have not been ordained as a Presbyter by the Church of England though I have been ordained as a Deacon by the Church of England in South Africa. I have not received a Bishop’s Licence to exercise ministry in his Diocese. We live in hope that our new Assistant Pastor’s situation will be different. But we’re not holding our breath. And so, we don’t really look to the Diocese to legitimate our gospel ministry. We just get on with it.

We’re spiritually independent of the Bishop of Southwark. As a result of Tom Butler’s refusal to distance himself from the House of Bishops’ Statement on Civil Partnerships, the churches of the Co-Mission Initiative in the Diocese of Southwark are in temporarily impaired communion with our Diocesan Bishop. We are awaiting his repentance, his removal or his retirement. I’d prefer the first but I pray for all three! And so we don’t look to our Bishop for the spiritual leadership we’d like to receive to encourage us to keep going in our gospel ministry. 

And therefore given our lack of dependence on the formal structures of the Church of England, we might wonder what on earth a global gathering of Anglican leaders, the vast majority of whom we’ve never met or heard of can offer us.

3.     We may feel that GAFCON is an unnecessary inflammatory action

In the book that accompanied the conference The Way, the Truth and the Life there’s a chapter written by the Archbishop of Nigeria entitled A Most Agonizing Journey Towards Lambeth 2008. It details the repeated neglect of the legitimate concerns of Orthodox believers and the failure to discipline those with a revisionist agenda by the Archbishop of Canterbury. No Jesus following, Bible loving Christian can read that chapter and think that the actions of GAFCON are precipitate.  There’s nothing impulsive or impetuous about the actions of the GAFCON Primates in taking counsel and drafting the Jerusalem Statement. This is a carefully considered response that proposes action entirely consistent with true Anglicanism. It could well be that in the months and years that follow we’ll be turning to these men and asking for their help. And they’ve committed themselves to encouraging and supporting us.

Sometimes we British are reticent to make a fuss or cause a scene. At times that’s wise. Some of the time it’s weakness. This is not a time for weakness. It’s a time to be biblical and contend for the truth. If there’s to be a gospel witness in the Church of England for our children and our grandchildren we need our leaders to defend the gospel, oppose liberal novelties and press on with ministry and cop the flak. That’s what leaders do. They lead from the front and show us the way. We need the GAFCON Bishops because they help us to see clearly that now is the time to act. They remind us that Anglican Evangelicalism is like a frog in a kettle unaware that the temperature is gradually getting hotter and we’re being boiled to death. They put some steel in our backbone and encourage us to recognise that we must repent of our sinful compliance with heterodoxy and contend for the truth.

4.     We may feel that GAFCON is a distraction to our evangelistic ministry

And you’d have a point. People will not be brought to faith in Christ through political statements. They’ll be brought to faith through hearing the gospel of salvation. The Jerusalem Statement will not do the work of evangelism for us. But it has at least defined the true gospel and defended it against false gospels. And so it’s reminded us that the biblical gospel is the news of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ and transformation through the work of the Spirit. Anglican Statements don’t always do that!

Of course, some of us will need to be involved in this sort of political activity if we think that the Church of England is still worth fighting for. It’s still the best boat to fish from. As congregations therefore we’ll need to encourage, embolden and support those who are involved and stand with them as they get vilified by the press and attacked by the church authorities.

Conclusion

In actual fact GAFCON could be very significant for our own local church ministry. GAFCON will not do it for us. That’s true.  But, it ought to make it possible for us to continue doing one thing that we hold dear. The Jerusalem Statement supports church planting. 

Under the heading The Global Anglican Context the statement argues that to fulfil the mission given to the Church by the Lord Jesus in his Great Commission, ‘will entail the planting of new churches [italics mine] among unreached peoples and also committed action to restore authentic Christianity to compromised churches’. And in articulating the future, in a section entitled The Road Ahead, the statement reads, ‘We recognise the desirability of territorial jurisdiction for provinces and dioceses of the Anglican Communion, except in those areas where churches and leaders are denying the orthodox faith or are preventing its spread [italics mine], and in a few areas for which overlapping jurisdictions are beneficial for historical or cultural reasons’. In other words, Church planting is an inevitable consequence of mission and not even Bishops should oppose it. If they do then the GAFCON Primates Council will endeavour to provide us with the support we ask for.

This is crucial for us because as things stand, it’s problematic for Classical Evangelicals to exercise gospel ministry or to be appointed within the Diocese of Southwark. This means that some parishes have in effect become geographical ‘no-go’ areas for the gospel. If that were true of a country then, for the sake of the glory of God and the salvation of sinners, we’d launch a missionary organisation. The recent rediscovery of church planting across traditional parish boundaries addresses this problem. It means that an Anglican Evangelical church, for example, can provide a gospel presence where the parish church is, say, Liberal Catholic in its theological convictions. Given that authentic Anglicanism is Evangelical we ought to expect the wholehearted support of our leaders. That’s not always been the case. But now it is. It’s just that they’re different leaders. They’re the leaders we’ve been praying for. Though we wouldn’t let some of the Bishops in the Church of England teach in Sunday school, these guys are the real deal. And we need to back them.

Back in the mid 1980s, the Radio 1 DJ Steve Wright and his posse wrote a song about a character known as Llama Man. I can still remember the lyrics that used to belt out of the school bus radio. ‘He can bleat. He can trot. He’s got everything that a llama’s got!’ What was a joke back then could now become a reality. No seriously, I’m not winding you up. And more importantly, neither is the Government. As you’d expect I’m overstating it a little. But in a raft of horrific ethical decisions what used to be a laugh is about to become legislation. This time, we’ve really lost the plot.

In case you’d not realised, we’re talking about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It’s already been debated and voted in the House of Lords where sound common sense gave way to powerful political lobbying. Well financed scientific institutions and some medically qualified peers trounced the voices of reason seeking sensible amendments.

But before I really let loose in a fresh tirade I ought to substantiate the strength of my feeling. There are in essence three main objections to the proposals. But before I enumerate them, it’s worth saying that I understand and identify with the compassionate impulse that underpins the motives of some who support this Bill. The noble aim of much scientific research is to reverse the effects of human disease; especially debilitating illnesses with which some of our friends are afflicted. Anyone who’s seen someone struggle with Cystic Fibrosis, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s to name but three will sympathise with the impulse to do all that we can to rid this world of such horrors. But the end does not justify the means. And the means are ethically very dubious, especially when viewed through a Christian ethical framework.

Therefore fuelled by the helpful material produced by Christian Concern for our Nation, the Christian Institute and CARE these are my objections.

1. The Bill undermines the biblical view of the species

The existing legislation will make it permissible for scientists to create animal-human hybrid embryos for research purposes. In a classic piece of spin doctoring they’ve renamed these embryos, which are part human and part animal, ‘human admixed embryos’. Others who are closer to the mark have decided to call the process ‘in vitro bestiality’. There are three types of animal-human embryos that scientists seek.

• First there are Cybrids in which the nucleus from an animal egg is removed and replaced with a human nucleus.
• Secondly there are Chimeras which are created by bringing together a set of human cells and animal cells during the early stages of development.
• Thirdly, there are Hybrids in which animal DNA and human DNA are mixed with the resultant embryo being a new part-human species.

Scientists want these hybrids because they produce a large number of embryonic stem cells and there are insufficient numbers of human eggs. And so, in each of these hybrid ‘creations’ the stem cells are harvested and used for research. The embryo is then destroyed. A fully fledged llama man may have been averted but we’ve just killed a person made in God’s image in the process. And that’s not funny in the least. In response to these proposals, it’s been argued that

a. The process is unnecessary. Adult skin cells can be reprogrammed to act like embryonic stem cells. Stem cells from sources such as bone marrow and umbilical cord blood have now been used to successfully treat a number of conditions.

b. The process is unsuccessful. Human embryonic stem cell research has failed to produce any treatment or cures in the last 17 years. Some scientists maintain that since these embryos will not develop in the same way as human embryos they are unlikely to yield knowledge of the process by which human stem cells develop.

c. The process is unethical. The issue with this proposal is that the legislation blurs the distinction between animal and human. If we erode the boundaries between the species we destroy the basis for the uniqueness of the human race. There is the world of difference between a rat and a human. It’s on this basis that we have things like human rights. But the foundation for human dignity is about to be obliterated.

2. The Bill undermines the biblical view of the significance of families

This Bill opens the door to three things that are potentially destructive to the family.

a. The creation of Saviour Siblings. When I was a child my father drove a Fiat. It was always breaking down, he was frugal and he was an engineer. And so very often we’d spend a Saturday morning at a ‘wrecker’s yard’ scouting for spare parts to keep the car on the road. Dad was brilliant at taking an old distributor, alternator or thermostat and transplanting it to give new life to our sick vehicle. It’s that image that we need to have in mind when we think about ‘saviour siblings’. Under new legislation scientists would be allowed to create sibling children for the purpose of using them for spare parts. As we might expect with such a controversial proposal there are consequences. This process involves pre-implantation testing of IVF embryos so that those that are a match for the sick sibling can be chosen and those that are not a match can be destroyed. A child that’s a tissue match can then be created for the purpose of seeing his or her body parts removed in order to patch up the sick sibling. In addition, no one has any idea what the anticipated psychological consequence will be for the child as it grows up and realises that it was created principally to resource his or her brother or sister.

b. The removal of Fathers. Whilst many wives lament that their husbands have become emotionally absent fathers and regrettably many women struggle under the burden of raising children as sole parents, this Government wants to enshrine in law the principal that fathers are no longer necessary in families. The Bill removes the need for IVF providers to take into account the child’s need for a father when considering an IVF application. The House of Lords amended the Bill so that it was deemed sufficient for the child to have ‘supportive parenting’. This obviously means that lesbian couples can have their ‘own’ child by IVF. This is undoubtedly going to have a detrimental effect on the development of a child. Apparently studies already confirm this. But you don’t need to be an educational psychologist to work out that being the kid at school who grows up with two mummies is going to have issues. And quite apart from that it simply doesn’t match up to God’s ideal of a father and a mother making their different contribution to the child in the context of a family.

c. The threat of cloning. The Bill allows the Government to introduce regulations in the future which permit a specific form of human reproductive cloning. Previously, any cloned human embryo had to be destroyed at 14 days. But in some circumstances this new Bill could change that. It allows cloning techniques using cell nuclear replacement to be used to prevent the transmission of some genetic diseases from the Mother to a child. The process will create a child with three parents since an egg cell from a second woman would be needed to develop the child. The child would therefore have two mothers and a father. It would also essentially be a clone of its ‘diseased’ mother. The moral and legal issues alone are bewildering let alone the likely psychological effects on the child. Worryingly, the Bill does not introduce regulations that limit this practice being extended beyond the avoidance of mitochondrial disease.

3. The Bill undermines the biblical view of the sanctity of human life

At the Marie Stopes Centre not far from our house a giant banner proudly proclaims, ‘Celebrating 25 years of reproductive heal