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 »