All Things Seen & Unseen

I've realised that I'm probably not good at hearing what God wants to tell me particularly when the Word comes to me head-on. (Although maybe I'm being unduly hard on myself. I don't know.) In any case, just recently the Lord 'whispered' into my ear on two occasions. The second time involved our priest/pastor who was talking about the rifts in the Anglican Church among the different brands of churchmanship. She had a burden to promote more unity among the groups. When I asked her further about this issue betraying in the process my allegiance to one of the groups she said lightly (my paraphrase): 'What's important is that the gospel is preached!' That gentle word brought me up short. I realised as I began to think about this comment that much of my life and that of my family's life had been nurtured in difference. First, I was raised in a Pentecostalist family in the 1950s and 60s. Second, even this difference was intensified further by

Introduction The Roman Catholic Church finds its unity in the Pope; the Eastern Orthodox Churches find their unity in the decisions of the seven Ecumenical Councils of the unified Church before it split into East and Western Church in AD1054 (although the division between East and West had begun well before that date). Anglicanism is made up of 38 member Churches (provinces*) which makes up the Anglican Communion. Each of these member churches or provinces is in communion with the Canterbury diocese in England as the first diocese of the Church of England. But the question arises, where does that communion find its unity? (We need to bear in mind that the question of unity is different from the question of authority which will be dealt with in the next post.) First, it doesn't have a supreme Bishop or Pope like the Roman Church. Second, nor does it look to historical councils as such for its unity as does Orthodoxy. Yet, Anglicanism does have a basis for its unity. Th

Worship should not be rushed; we are all here worshipping the One who has made us, redeemed us through the death of His Son and resides in us in the power of the Holy Spirit. Os Guinness, I think, used the phrase about preaching to the audience of One and the same applies to worship. We have no audience but God: Father, Son and Spirit. Whatever tradition we are in only the audience of the One matters. Anglican worship typically begins with a lay reader's announcement of the opening hymn which is then sung while a group of leaders 'process' into the church with the 'crucifer'--a person appointed to carry a cross--coming first. Everyone in the procession follows the cross as a general rule both in and out of the church worship area. The priest (word derived from 'presbyter', elder) or if a bishop is present comes last. Procession members stand before the altar rail and acknowledge the altar.* Responsive Worship Anglican worship is responsive worship wit

Secrets of the Kingdom In Mark 4.21-34, we have two parables specifically about the Kingdom of God which are introduced by a series of injunctions (Mk 4.21-25) which help to enlighten us further about their meaning. In verse 21, a rhetorical question is answered with the implied answer in the negative. No, we don't put a light under a bushel (KJV, 'a bushel' is measuring bowl or basket) or under a bed. Rather a light or candle is placed on a stand or a candlestick. Jesus says that the secret and the concealed is to be made open and manifest. It would seem that our Lord is referring both to the Parable of the Sower that he has just made plain to the disciples (Mk 4.10-20) but it might be he is making a general statement regarding the way he is revealing things to the disciples. (In the New Testament, a 'secret' usually means something once hidden but now revealed.)

"A Prayer Book for Australia" Anglican worship is typically ordered by the use of a prayer book. In fact, Anglicanism may be said to be recognisably Anglican because of its use of set forms of worship based on a prayer book usually found in the pew for worshippers to use. In Australia, Anglicans used the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) (1662) until 1978 when the first modernised An Australian Prayer Book (AAPB) was produced.  The Prayer Book was again revised in 1995 to make its language more inclusive; hence A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA) is now commonly used in most parishes using a prayer book today. (The BCP is still in use in some Australian parishes and is still part of Church practice by church law in the Anglican Church of Australia.) Though some still call the Anglican Church of Australia 'The Church of England', the Anglican Church of Australia was constituted in 1981. However, the history of the English church is relevant to Australia because of the fact

The Book of Common Prayer (BCP)--'common' means 'public' in this context--came out of the fires of the English Reformation and its words have found their way into the English language and into the liturgies of other denominations. We speak of 'the world, the flesh and the devil' which we might imagine is a Biblical phrase but no, it's found in the prayer book during the time of Edward VI (1549) composed by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. Archbishop: Thomas Cranmer Cranmer was a genius without doubt, a learned scholar and not a combatant but he was used to translate the former Roman Catholic liturgical forms from Latin into English and purge them from their Romish errors. However, he was no mere translator but an active shaper of the religious consciousness of the English people. He was responsible for the first two editions of the Book of Common Prayer (1549, 1552 ). The definitive BCP of the period was appointed for use in the Church of England in 1662. I've

Of course, I'm wondering with all this whether Scott McKnight has got it right. Certainly a few others think the same way. See here and here for examples.  Not to say that McKnight isn't a writer to be read and listened to. I think he says some valuable things which the evangelical churches and mainline churches need to hear. But just a few points that I noticed that I would need more detail about are: His distinction between gospel and salvation I'm not sure that this distinction can be so easily sustained. I appreciate what McKnight is wanting to say: the message of the gospel is not the same as its effects (salvation); gospel doesn't equal salvation because God is more concerned about gospel than salvation it seems. For a theologian who is a theoretician by training distinctions are always important. However, when one gets into church ministry settings I wonder whether such issues have much moment.

In the last post we sampled some Scot McKnight's ideas in The King Jesus Gospel . We concluded by saying that the author believes the gospel is the Story of Jesus as it is embedded in the Story of Israel. McKnight's big idea is that the gospel is not equal to SALVATION. The gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom 1.16) and the gospel is preached so that hearers will receive salvation; but the gospel, the good news about Jesus Christ is not essentially salvation. How does McKnight support this hypothesis?

Scot McKnight believes that the question, What is the gospel? , is a crucial question for the church. He also believes the church to be confused about the 'real' answer to the question, the biblical answer. I've not long finished a stimulating book by McKnight, The King Jesus Gospel : The Original Good News Revisited (2011). Provocatively he argues that Evangelicals (those supposedly concerned about the evangel, the gospel, good news) today are not really evangelical at all! They are more accurately called soterians ! (He's coined this word to denote those who are primarily concerned with salvation at the expense of the gospel.) He believes that evangelicals--and included in this description would be many charismatic and Pentecostal churches as well--have built 'salvation cultures' (p. 29) rather than 'gospel cultures'. The two he affirms are not the same thing even though the former is part of the latter. Once might say that the gospel is the

The teaching of the Trinity looms large in my life because I was raised in a non-trinitarian family. Indeed my grandpa was also non-trinitarian; he died too early for me to appreciate what he might have to say about this teaching but the family attended an early Pentecostal church in Melbourne founded in 1907 that seemed to have the view that it would only quote scripture with regard to its beliefs and nothing else. I say the latter because their statement of belief did not make definitive statements about God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost but simply quoted scripture. (Interestingly, this church was very open to Trinitarians worshipping with them and was not hostile or antagonistic towards them; nor did it actively speak against Trinitarianism.) It took me some time to work my way out of this frame of belief and it came about through a most unusual way. Although my family's belief about Jesus' deity was my no means identical with that of the Jehovah's Witne

I've been intrigued by Jn 2.11 where it is said that after seeing the sign of water into wine and the manifestation of Christ's glory, 'his disciples believed [put their faith, NIV] in him'. What's intriguing about that you might ask? Well, the text doesn't comment for example on the belief or otherwise of anyone else. Not the servants who filled the stone jars or the 'master of the banquet' (NIV)--all of these knew about the miraculous sign--but the active faith of the disciples. The gospel writer is sophisticated and chooses his words and themes carefully and as responsible readers we must do that same. That this observation above is not just happenstance is seen in the fact that in the same chapter after Jesus has driven out the money changers out of the temple precincts, a similar statement is made (Jn 2.22). And in this statement, the author projects us into the post-resurrection period when the disciples 'recalled what he had said [about h