solapanel.org

I've been asked for some reflections on Roman Catholic World Youth Day, held in Sydney last week. My reflections here are more about the ‘vibe’ than specific doctrinal interaction.

Firstly, I support fully the right for Roman Catholics to express publicly and vociferously their religious beliefs and practices. And, as Phillip Jensen argued, I don't especially mind the fact that some government funds helped support the effort.

Secondly, it was remarkable sociologically to notice how easy it was for large numbers of young people to have a really positive time together without drugs, alcohol abuse, sexual promiscuity or sporting fervour being to the driving forces. The pilgrims seemed incredibly well-behaved and friendly.

However, religious adherents being sincere and enthusiastic and well-mannered and clean-living does not prove the truth or praiseworthiness of their religious beliefs. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims are also typically sincere and clean-living! But Christians agree that they are sincerely wrong.

Still, it was lovely to see all the goodwill and hospitality in Sydney.

Thirdly, the only protest that had any traction once World Youth Day week got underway was from those who felt the Roman Catholic Church had still not apologized properly to and cared for victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by church leaders. This was a sobering reminder of the devastating impact of such abuse on young people. It reinforced my own responsibility not to cut any corners in administering our diocesan safe ministry protocols in regards to such things as screening, child protection training and handling complaints.

Fourthly, when I see enormous line-ups of bishops in flowing robes, often with gold trim, and fancy mitres, and all the pomp and ceremony, I cannot help feel they have wandered a long way from how Jesus and his apostles got around in the New Testament. There were not a lot of ceremony and fine robes there, as far as I know. (This critique applies to Anglican bishops gathering in Jerusalem or Lambeth just as much—though I'm not sure any Anglican leaders ever get the rock star hysteria that the Pope attracted!)

Lastly, some thoughts on the stations of the cross, as played out in Sydney: leaving aside the theology of the concept for a moment, I can see the potential of such symbolism. So I tried to imagine what it would look like to an observer who didn't have a background of Christian knowledge. One would certainly have seen a statement against torture (with tortured Jesus in solidarity with all torture victims) and a statement for inclusion of the marginalized—especially the indigenous (with an Aboriginal man playing Simon of Cyrene, and the interpretive words of an indigenous lady). Personally, I can understand such concerns. But this sort of symbolism appeared to overshadow any clear explanation and focus on the meaning Jesus' death for sins. And it was disappointing how the whole thing ended with prayer to Mary.

However, the thing I found most dissonant was how the drama appeared to be a giant tourism advertisement for Sydney, with some of our most spectacular backdrops (such as the Opera House and the Art Gallery of New South Wales and Darling Harbour selected for the various stations.

Undeniably, it advertised Sydney's beauty. And I can understand the government of the host city and state, wanting to showcase it, and ordinary Australian Christians being proud of our city. Who'd ever want the sets for the whole thing to occur at Fox Studios! But once again, the beautiful backdrops (with their tourist calendar overtones) chosen by the church seemed incongruent alongside the actual historical reality of the dirt and shame and ugliness of Christ's crucifixion “outside the city gate” (Heb 13:12; NIV).

As I say, my reflections here are more on the vibe than the theology. However, my theological views are clear in our ‘sola power’ sermon series (download the audio).

But just in case anyone is unsure of what I think of the theology behind World Youth Day, I will quote from JC Ryle's essay on The Thirty-nine Articles. Here he explains why no-one should be surprised if an Anglican clergyman speaks against official Roman Catholic doctrine:

Let us mark, in the fourth place, as we read the Articles, the thoroughly Protestant spirit which runs throughout them, and the boldness of their language about Romish error.

Ryle then cites (among others, like Article 24, 25, 30 and 37):

• Article 19, which says the Church of Rome has erred
• Article 22, which says the Romish doctrines of purgatory, of adoration of images or relics and of prayer to the saints are repugnant to the word of God
• Article 28, which declares that transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and opposes the reservation or adoration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper
• Article 31, which says that “the sacrifices of masses, in which it was commonly said the priest did offer Christ for the quick and dead, to have remission of pain and guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceit”
• Article 32, which opposes Rome's demand for priestly celibacy.

He continues:

Now what shall we say to all this? Nine times over the Thirty-nine Articles condemn, in plain and unmistakable language, the leading doctrines of the Church of Rome, and declare in favour of what must be called Protestant views. And yet men dare to tell us that we Evangelical clergymen have no right to denounce Popery, — that it is very wrong and very uncharitable to be so hot in favour of Protestantism, — that Romanism is a pretty good sort of thing, — and that by making such a piece of work about Popery, and Protestantism, and Ritualism, and semi-Popery, we are only troubling the country and doing more harm than good. Well! I am content to point to the Thirty-nine Articles. There is my apology! There is my defence! I will take up no other ground at present. I will not say, as I might do, that Popery is an unscriptural system, which every free nation ought to dread, and every Bible-reading Christian of any nation ought to oppose. I simply point to the Thirty-nine Articles.

I ask any one to explain how any English clergyman can be acting consistently, if he does not oppose, denounce, expose, and resist Popery in every shape, either within the Church or without. Other Christians may do as they please, and countenance Popery if they like. But so long as the Articles stand unrepealed and unaltered, it is the bounden duty of every clergyman of the Church of England to oppose Popery.

I was fortunate enough to obtain an old copy of JC Ryle's wonderful book Knots Untied at last autumn's Lifeline South Coast Big Book Fair for just $3. It contains the essay referenced above. Evangelical Anglicans in particular should grab a copy of the book if you can find it.

(May I also commend Mark Gilbert's blogs: there are six posts in all by a generous but Protestant Anglican observer at World Youth Day! Start here.)

12 Comments »

Weird. Having uploaded my post about Jonathan Leeman's excellent article on individualism about five minutes ago, I notice that Jonathan has just posted the first few paragraphs and a link to the article in pdf form. We didn't organize this, I swear!

0 Comments »

One of the many rewards of running our first Matthias Media USA conference last year was the time spent getting to know our hosts at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington DC—including Jonathan Leeman, who runs the always interesting 9Marks blog, and pulls together their eJournal.

Like all the 9Marks guys, Jonathan is sharp as a tack, has a generous gospel heart, and is blessed with a clear-eyed sense of where the issues lie.

His thoroughly thought-provoking piece in the July/August edition of Modern Reformation is a case in point. Titled ‘Individualism's Not the Problem—Community's Not the Solution’, Jonathan's article examines the increasingly common mantra that the traditional evangelical gospel is too ‘individualistic’, and that we need a more communitarian, relational gospel for the disengaged postmodern self.

While acknowledging and applauding what the communitarians get right, Jonathan insightfully points out that the individualism, consumerism, radical scepticism and alienation of the modern person are symptoms of a deeper problem:

The problem with the modern self is not merely that it's “unrelated”. It's rebellious. Not just disengaged, but defiant. Not just independent, but insubordinate. Where Yahweh, the maker of heaven and earth, described himself to Moses as the self-defining, predicate-less “I AM” (ego sum in the Vulgate), the ground of all reality, Descartes' method effectively shoved Yahweh aside, making his existence (and God's!) a predicate of his own thinking mind (cogito ergo sum) ... Descartes' move, like Adam's, did not merely break a relationship; it broke God's law or Word. The implications are not merely personal, but judicial. It's not just a friend who is cast off; it's a Lord and Judge. The philosophical methods we associate with modernity and postmodernity, in a sense, whisper the same line whispered by the snake in Garden. What the shift from pre-modernity to modernity signified, really, was that this satanic whisper gained a moral and philosophical credibility in the so-called Christian West (even if it had always been believed and practiced). In other words, the Enlightenment did not bring us radical free agency and contractualism. Genesis 3 did. The Enlightenment legitimised it.

Jonathan then proceeds to show how the communitarian/relational emphasis, by often failing to appreciate the deeply theological roots of our modern predicament, ends up re-orienting our doctrine of sin, and of Christ's work, and of church, and ultimately of God. He concludes:

Loneliness is not the problem. A refusal to live on anyone else's terms is. Another way to put all this: we're not dealing with a relationship problem, but a worship problem.

The solution then is not community; it's repentance. The solution is in changing of heart and direction—in the individual! This repentance includes joining a community and making relationships. But it's joining a particular kind of community where self is no longer sovereign and where one is called to obedience to the church as an expression of obedience to God. It's the joining of a community where God's Word and the worship of God are supreme in everything.

It's definitely worth a read (and you can do it here by taking out Modern Reformation's free 30-day trial).

Does any of this resonate with anyone as much as it did with me?

5 Comments »

In the most recent paper edition of our diocesan newspaper, Ross Cobb says, “We need to ask if our church music really is contemporary”. Ross is the music director at St Andrew's Cathedral here in Sydney, and is across any genre you care to throw at him, whether it's pipe organ or the credibility reducing Burt Bacharach. He says:

We have created a genre that doesn't exist anywhere else and called it Christian contemporary music. What contemporary band consists of a piano, clarinet, a guitar and three singers singing in unison?

However his real question is probably whether it works, rather than whether it's contemporary. Ross says about people who visit church:

They are just flummoxed by some of our contemporary Christian songs. They are tricky to pick up and the musical backing we are providing is quite thin.

and again:

There is barely a murmur during the contemporary songs. But when we play hymns the congregation almost blows the roof off ... The unchurched don't know our contemporary songs. Why would they? But they know our great hymns. Whether that's the legacy of singing at rugby games, I don't know, but there is a common cultural currency we need to tap into for the sake of the gospel.

If music is really about serving the people we love, Ross's observations raise two questions.

1. Do unchurched people who walk into our buildings enjoy what they hear?
2. Do musically untaught people in our meetings enjoy singing the music we serve up to them?

That second one is not a question, by the way, about whether they like standing there listening while the band and singers up front perform the song for them. Anyone can do that. But if we are going to ask them to sing loudly enough for the encouragement of others, then they should be able to do it without being educated past the stage where they can sing along with The Wiggles, which is just before the age when most kids learn that singing out loud is not really cool.

Any other random thoughts? Let's hear them, commenters, I'm up for a chat!

10 Comments »

We've recently had some American friends staying with us. They sing Hillsong music in their church back home, and so they wanted to check out the church.

So what did we make of the night? If you ignore the issue of whether it's an appropriate expression of coming together in church to listen to an excellent (and I mean excellent!) rock gig, then much of the night was fine. Although, it was a bit disturbing when the ‘altar call’ was given before the talk in response to the music.

It's been a while since I visited Hillsong Church, and I've got to say the song lyrics are far more Christ-centred than I recall. The other big thing that has changed is that Hillsong now shows virtually no signs of its Pentecostal heritage. There is no tongue speaking, slaying, healings or ‘holy laughter’. In fact, in stark contrast to a typical Pentecostal church where you really don't know what's going to happen from one minute to the next, my strong impression was that someone was sitting up in a control box with a detailed running sheet down to the second! Anything that looked improvised seemed to me to be feigned.

At the end of the night, following the calls from the mosh pit for encores and some good old early-90s-style crowd surfing (I'm serious), one of the song leaders declared that “This was the best weekend we've ever had at Hillsong”.

So what was the message from God's word on this greatest ever weekend? Let me try to summarize Brian Houston's talk:

• The theme was given: “God's heart for your house”.
• He began with the Philippian jailer in Acts 16:25-31 whose “job it was to put people in the hold.”
• We then focused in on verse 31: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
• Household. Hold: limiting, holding back, holding against. “You don't see what the house holds because of what holds the house back.”A house holds potential and opportunity. But that potential (what the house holds) is often not realized because of what holds the house back. “We mustn't live our lives under the power of the past.” Things have happened in the past in your family, but don't let that hold you back. Because, Galatians 6:10, you are now part of the “household of faith”.
• “My father could never see my potential. He always talked about my brother. He didn't see what his house held.”
• “90 years ago Nelson Mandela's mother couldn't see what her house held as that baby was born.”
• What is holding you and your household back from its potential? Rid yourself of the negativity and the past, and walk into what your house holds.
• Households can also be positive things. See Joshua 24:15: “[A]s for me and my household we will serve the Lord.”

My American friend described the sermon as “without a doubt the worst sermon he had ever heard” (read his thoughts ). And that was on a weekend which, we were told, was the best ever at Hillsong.

On top of the atrocious handling of Scripture, and the fact that Houston completely ignored the change agent in the passage (Jesus), the message itself was nothing more than Oprah/Robbins dressed up in (barely) Christian language. In fact, given a choice, I would rather listen to Oprah or Robbins. At least they are up-front about what they're doing.

In the week afterwards, I had two questions

1. Why do believers stay at a church that doesn't teach the Bible? If the sheep know Jesus' voice, does the fact they stay show that they are not sheep?
2. Why do believers at good Bible teaching churches often defend Hillsong so strongly? Is that just the pseudo-charitable tolerance fad, otherwise known as lack of discernment?

Can someone please help me with these questions?

19 Comments »