Fundy or Trendy?

I've just been reading a rather famous and controversial Christian blog posting that's been floating around the net for the past few weeks. I haven't read it all, but this part of the post stands out:

A recent cover story at World Magazine about "NextGen Worship" inspired a strong desire to smack the pastors depicted in the article and in the photos. The cover photo alone enraged me, with the pastor wearing baggy jeans and untucked button-up shirt with flip flops and an ear microphone. Later, the same guy is shown out front of a church holding a paper Starbucks-like cup of coffee. Could he try any harder to be lame?

I'd have liked to have taken that cup of coffee and dumped it on his head. But it's nothing personal against that guy or his beliefs or sincerity. It's an anger at something else.

I'm not going to be one of those starched-collar Christians who, based on personal preference, say that this is a sign we're going to hell in a handbasket and that all things are wrong unless they are done as they were with the Puritans. What I'm saying is that I can't stand the phoniness, or trendiness, or sameness -- or whatever I'm trying to say here -- that the church seems to catch onto at the tail end, not even aware of how lame it is. The fact that this is not only actually successful in appealing to people, but attracts them, also disgusts me.

It makes me want to throw up.

It's buying into some kind of lie or substitution of cool culture as being relevant when it isn't.

If I see another cool Bible college student or pastoral studies major wearing the hemp choker necklace, flip-flops, open-at-the-collar shirt that's untucked, and baggy jeans, saying words like "dude" and "sweet", I will kick their ass. It's like the Christian version of annoying hipsters, an overly-studied and homogenized "with-it" faux coolness.

Right on sister! I hate it when Christians get all trendy and "with it" to try to attract people. I quite often see "hip young youthworker types" wearing the clothes of young people. It makes me sick. Young people don't respond to adults wearing their clothes or listening to their music - they respond to honesty and genuineness.

Nevertheless, the comments above can also make us wonder about the appropriateness of wearing the standard fundamentalist "suit and tie" to church. Being Fundy is just as bad in my book because it adds a "dress code" to public worship - something that is not legislated in any way in the NT and is, in fact, prohibited.

The church that I go to - Charlestown Presbyterian Church - does not have a dress code. By this I mean that there is no explicit or implied code that people should abide by when it comes to what they wear. People come in wearing baggy pants, and in summer some people wear thongs (which, for shocked Americans reading this, is what Australians call flip flops). A friend of mine is often seen wearing heavy metal or skater T-shirts.

But, remember, there is no "code" that we are abiding by. The reason why people who attend our church with the clothes that they wear (and many older people dress more conservatively while at the same church service) is NOT because we have some far-out hippy trendy get-with-the-times sort of attitude emanating from people. We just wear what we wear because its comfortable.

To me, and for many Australians who attend conservative Reformed churches, we neither enforce a Fundy suit and tie dress code nor have a trendy get-with-the-times dress code. What people wear when they go out shopping is the sort of thing we do - but without any sort of explicit reason. We just do it.

Part of the reason for this is the influence of Sydney Anglicanism. The Anglican diocese of Sydney is the strongest evangelical diocese in the world. Anglicans, or Episcopalians as you call them in the United States, often wear robes and cassocks and dog collars. Back in the early 1970s, some evangelicals began not to ask questions like "how can we be more trendy" but "why should we bother wearing this garbage?". Since then there has been a revulsion towards dressing in ways that communicate self-importance.

But the other reason for this in Australia is that fundamentalism - the American variety - has never really been strong here. In the US, evangelicalism is broken up into three broad groupings: Pentecostals and Charismatics, Arminian Dispensational Baptist Fundamentalists and Calvinists and Reformed. That is a very broad group - many churches and people fit into multiples groupings. But of that group, the Baptists are the strongest while the Calvinists are the smallest. Here in Australia, the Arminian Dispensationalist Baptist Fundamentalists are the smallest group. The Pentecostals and Charismatics are the biggest group, and Calvinists are second in line but are stil substantially large. Here's a summary of that breakup:

America: 50% ADBF, 40% P/C, 10% C/R
Australia: 10% ADBF, 55% P/C, 35% C/R

This means that the whole "suit and tie" culture was never really a central part of Australian evangelicalism.

Of course, this is not to say that Australian churches don't suffer from the trendy hip get-with-the-times problem. Many do. But wearing informal clothes to church is only an issue when it is an integral and explicit part of the church community. If a pastor gets up and says "I wear baggy pants so I can get hip with da yoof!" then I have a problem with it. If a pastor gets up and says nothing about his baggy pants then that's fine. Wearing baggy pants is not the issue - having some stupid, extra-biblical cultural reason for wearing them is. Moreover, it's the same issue with wearing suits and ties.

AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

Good news for the Anglican Church

From the department of Rugby-developed-two-codes:

The Anglican Church of Australia has cleared the way for women to become diocesan bishops.

The church's highest legal authority, the Appellate Tribunal, has ruled that there is nothing in the church's constitution to prevent the consecration of a woman priest as a bishop.

The majority ruling only applies to diocesan bishops and not assistant bishops.

Anglican Church Primate Dr Phillip Aspinall says it could still be at least six months before a woman is consecrated as a bishop.

Dr Aspinall says it is a significant decision although each diocese will still decide whether they have a woman as a bishop.

As a former Anglican and someone who did not and still does not agree with the ordination of women let alone letting them become Bishops, I would have to say that this decision pleases me mightily.

The Anglican church of today has been split for some time now. Schism occurred not suddenly but gradually over many decades. The only thing that unites Anglicans today is its organisational structure and the formal ties between various dioceses.

In the grand scheme of things, letting women become Bishops is actually quite a minor problem. The ecclesiastical office of Bishop and the entire Episcopal structure of the Anglican church is not something that can be defended biblically, which means that I have significant concerns even with men being ordained bishops. Since I believe in Sola Scriptura and take 1 Timothy 2.12-15 to be a command for the church to follow when selecting those who teach and lead, I therefore see the ordination of women as either Priest of Bishop to be problematic. But, to me, breaking this sort of command is hardly a cause to disfellowship someone or some church.

What this decision will do, however, is highlight the fact that schism has already taken place. As a former Sydney Anglican, I came to the city of Newcastle looking for a solid evangelical church. I became a Presbyterian initially because there was no evangelical churches to be found within the Anglican diocese here.

It is better for the Anglican church to split up into its relevant groupings than it is to remain together. I want the Sydney Diocese to plant churches all over Australia and especially here in Newcastle. In return I am more than happy to allow the Newcastle Diocese the right to plant Anglo-Catholic or theologically liberal churches in Sydney.

There is no chance whatsoever that the disparate groups in Anglicanism can be reconciled. If Liberal Anglicans wish to preach a Christ who is not God then let them do so... just let us Evangelicals preach what we believe also. We won't interfere with you if you won't interfere with us.

Rugby split way back in the early 20th century. Out of this split came Rugby Union and Rugby League. The rules of the game were so different that the two games could not occupy the same organisational space, but were able to survive unimpeded once a formal split was recognised.

The Anglican church is similar. There are three different games of football being played under the umbrella of the Anglican church today (Liberalism, Evangelicalism and Anglo-Catholicism) and none of them are happy with the way rules and conventions are being flouted or ignored. The best way forward is a formal split. Everybody wins.

Dealing with other Christian groupings

As we all know, there are different Christian "groupings" in our world today. For various reasons, these groups tend to stay away from each other because of the big differences that exist. Yet to cut ourselves off from other believers is also to potentially cut us off from legitimate aspects of God's work within their group.

Let me present three Australian groups: Sydney Anglicans, Pentecostalism and Evangelical Uniting Church people. Each of these three groups has its own subculture, unwritten rules and ways of doing things. All three, in my opinion, have errors in biblical interpretation which manifests itself in ungodly behaviour.

Of course, God knows that these groupings exist - but He also knows that his church, the body of Christ, is one.

I'm not advocating some form of top-down, ignore-all-differences sort of solution that has been offered in the past. I don't know what the future will hold for these groupings. However it is becoming clearer that the emergence of the internet has led to many crossovers between these different groups, which is why I can appreciate the musings of the Signposts people as they work for change within the Pentecostal church in Australia.

A few years ago I came up with this simple table to describe the four different ways that groups can approach each other. It is based upon two basic ideas: The level of engagement and the level to which differences are ignored or expressed:

	Disengagement	Engagement
Differences are ignored	Who cares?	"Ecumenism"
Differences are expressed	Those evil people	Loving Confrontation

Let me pick a group. Let's say Sydney Anglicans and their view of Pentecostalism. I would probably place them in the box labeled "Those evil people" because there is most definitely a desire to express differences (by explaining how unbiblical modern Pentecostalism is, mainly), but there is no real engagement with them. The result is, in practice, things like sermons and magazine articles critiquing modern Pentecostalism but without any form of relationship being formed.

Let me reverse it. How would Pentecostals view Sydney Anglicans? I would say that one part of it would be similar ("Those evil people") but I would hazard a guess that many Pentecostals wouldn't care. In other words, they're not really interested in Sydney Anglicans or what they believe. This ends up fitting into the "Who Cares" box - differences are ignored, and there is no engagement to speak of.

Here in Newcastle we have a whole bunch of churches that get together every few years to host "Hunter Harvest", a biannual evangelistic event organised between mainly Pentecostal, Anglican, Uniting and Roman Catholic churches in Newcastle. While there is a firm level of engagement, there is an explicit attempt to ignore differences (or "celebrate" them). This results in "Ecumenism", which I have placed in inverted commas because I am referring to it in the way that most evangelicals understand it, rather than it being interpreted in its literal sense.

I would say that the first three boxes - "Who Cares", "Those Evil People" and "Ecumenism" - are not what God wants of us. God wants us to move beyond our grouping, our subculture, and reach out in love to those in other groups - yet this is not done without pain or without confronting the issues that divide us. "Loving Confrontation" is the best place for all groups to be because that is where the issues are being dealt with while trying to work out how to love one another.

It means, for example, that while I stand firm on the core of my belief system, I make a concerted effort to reach out and understand Christians from a different grouping. Of course the way I do this is far from ideal, but I wish to head in this direction.

One great advantage that we have with the internet is that we now have the ability to communicate with those in different groupings. I have no Pentecostal friends that I meet in the flesh, but I at least can listen to their thoughts and dreams and pain when I go to signposts. Similarly, I have no friends who are Uniting Church Evangelicals, but I can read their articles and listen to their plans when I visit their website.

Just recently I have been contacted by some friends I went to Bible College with. At the time (1992-93), he and his wife were seriously considering ministry in the Uniting Church while I was pretty much ensconced in Sydney Anglicanism. As a result, we had some big differences. But we didn't ignore one another, and neither did we agree with one another and neither did we hold our tongues when it came to expressing that. I was very blessed by having him and his wife around to challenge me - and I hope in some small way I was able to challenge them.

So I suggest that you try to make friends with those outside your comfort zone - while at the same time not being backward in your beliefs with them. I need to do this more - I think we all do.



© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 License.

MTS

I've started a discussion thread over at Sydney Anglicans about the issue of MTS "failures". I have taken down the recent post about MTS and AFES in the meantime - I'll put it up later if/when the discussion dies down.

MTS and AFES: The worst of both worlds

An interesting article:

The Ministry Training Scheme, in its Sydney-Anglican incarnation, and
its clones, generally looks like this: take a mature Christian with some
experience in voluntary ministry, put them into a 1-2 year, often
full-time, ministry position, give them on-the-job training and
mentorship, and pay them a fairly sub-standard wage.

Sounds a lot like an apprenticeship, really. But it's not, and ex-MTS
apprentices have nothing formal to show for what they've been through.
Furthermore, MTS is often used as a pre-Theological Education scheme.
So, you do your MTS, then you go on to a Theological College of some
sort.

So: unlike an apprenticeship you get no qualification, and no
compensation for the hard work and low wages you undertake. And to
continue to work in full-time ministry, the expectation is that you will
then go and take full-time study to qualify for that.

Fundamentally my problem revolves around this: MTS takes people at a
time of life when they generally need to be saving towards paying for a
theological education, and puts them in a situation where they will
struggle to make ends meet, with little in the way of other
compensation.

Sydney Anglican stats

• Census figures show a 7.7% decline of "Anglicans" in Sydney (from 799,573 in 2001 to 738,388 in 2006.)


• NCLS figures show a 26.5% increase in church attendance in Sydney Anglican churches (from 43,271 in 1999 to 54,768 in 2004.)

Implication: Less nominalism, according to Sydney Anglicans website.

(Thanks to CraigS)

Me and Ministry

My attempted journey into full-time paid Christian ministry is not a nice one. In fact, it is quite discouraging, and should be a warning to those who attempt it.

I am writing this post for the sake of Craig Schwarze who asked me about my history with MTS and what happened. I know that Matt Teakle will want to know as well, as will many who know me personally.

In 1991 I made the decision that I wanted to go to Bible College. I tossed up between Moore Theological College (MTC) and Sydney Missionary and Bible College (SMBC). The problem was that I was unsure of whether I was suitable to enter full-time ministry, and I was eventually convinced that I needed time to work this out. Nevertheless, I made the choice to go to SMBC just for the sake of getting to know God and the Bible better. I decided against MTC because the costs for independent students was high, and if I wanted a subsidy I would have to become an Anglican Candidate - which pretty much meant that I had to be convinced that f/t paid ministry in the Sydney diocese was what I was aiming for. I also had the problem of not being university educated, something that would have made my time at MTC exceptionally hard.

In hindight, my decision to go to SMBC was a good one. I have very fond memories of my two years there. Theology lectures with Neil Chambers and Bruce Smith (the latter being an eccentric and amusing man); Biblical Theology with Stephen Renn; Preaching with David Cook. When I started college, Anna was my girlfriend so I was officially "unavailable" to any of the females there - which was a good thing since the place was a "fishbowl". Anna and I broke up and then got back together late in 1992, and eventually married in June 1993 - halfway through my second and final year (I did the Associate Diploma of Divinity and Mission).

While at college I began to learn how to preach. From very early on people began to speak about my preaching, and how much they appreciated it. I remember one sermon I gave at college chapel I gave on Hebrews 1.1-4 ("God spoke to our forefathers..."). It was a heavily theological sermon, and I remember emphasising how important it was to have a Biblical understanding of Christ as God. After chapel, some students talked to me and discussed with me - spontaneously - about how the sermon had convicted and taught them. Later that day, David Cook, the college principal and one of Australia's better preachers, took me aside and asked me what my future plans were. When I told him that I wasn't too sure and that I'd be going on MTS, he said "You really should seriously consider a preaching ministry". For the rest of the year I was one of David Cook's "specially chosen" students who would occasionally sit down with a select group of others and have coffee with David and his wife Maxine.

The church I went to at the time - which shall remain nameless because I don't want to bad mouth it publically (besides, many of my readers know it) - decided in mid 1993 that they would start up their first "official" MTS (Ministry Training Scheme). Three guys had been chosen from the congregation - Rhett (a youth leader), Wayne (who did a lot of children's work) and Peter (also involved in youth leading). Two of them - Wayne and Peter - had been part of my 1993 Bible study group that I started and ran called the "Ministry Training Group" (MTG). In that group we studied "Two Ways to Live", the Matthias media "Personal Follow-up" course, a course on Hermeneutics ("Postcard from Palestine") and a study in personal relationships ("Encouragement" by Larry Crabb). It was really interesting seeing the people in the group develop, especially Wayne and Peter who were obviously experienced and knowledgeable. After a while I managed to convince the senior pastor that I should also go on MTS.

My year at SMBC ended and I graduated with my Bible College diploma. As graduation got nearer, I was informed by the senior pastor that there was no money available to employ me, even at the exceptionally low wages that MTS people got at the time. A friend at church had a donation drive for me, and managed to scrape together enough financial commitment from the evening congregation for me to receive half the MTS going rate at the time. Another person - Liz - also went on MTS but she was funding herself somehow.

So 1994 began and I started my "apprenticeship" in Christian ministry. My responsibility was scripture teaching, leading Evening church and going through the church's "Green Cards" - cards for member and visitor to fill out during the service - in order to get feedback on the sermons or identify visitors and contact them.

But what I didn't expect was the total lack of preaching. At this point I need to point out that the church in question is a reasonably large and well-known Evangelical Anglican church in Sydney's North. In terms of preaching power, the church was reasonably well-resourced, but the Evening service was essentially run by one of the church's assistant pastors. This guy - Andrew - had gone through MTS and MTC in the 1980s and started ministering in the church in 1992, the same time I started college. He's a nice guy, but I felt that his sermons were a bit laboured. Even then I felt that I was a better preacher. But I kept my mouth shut and rightly reminded myself that spiritual pride is not all that becoming. Besides, I argued to myself, I was doing all these other things that were important for me to learn - things that would complement my preaching.

Andrew was also the product of St Matthias Centennial Park. Philip Jensen, the "Ian Chappell" of Sydney Anglicanism and rector of Matthias, had set up a highly successful and expertly run ministry based around evangelism and expository preaching at the University of New South Wales (UNSW). MTS people from the 1980s had all been from Matthias, and had been put through a training system based around the University ministry. Now the problem was that I was not a uni graduate, and Andrew's paradigm of ministry was pretty much controlled by his own experience. Andrew was my boss and my "trainer".

I made mistakes - I'll freely admit that. But they weren't moral or spiritual or theological ones. I found unstructured time hard to deal with, and I also found that I was quite at sea when it came to being super-organised. I was also living around Parramatta - 15 minutes from church but still a long way. Wayne also lived in the same suburb, but I was limited to travel by motorbike while Wayne had a car where he could pack lots of things into.

As the year progressed, I became quite frustrated by my lack of preaching and how difficult I was finding my type of work. I need to point out here that I was scripture teaching, and I was also leading a Bible study group, and was the "MC" for Sunday night church. All these things I did well. It was in the area of organisation that I was having problems.

In 1995 - my second year in MTS - Andrew suggested that I get involved with the Christian group at Macquarie University. Even though I was not a "uni person", I nevertheless swallowed my doubts and went on campus to do evangelism and lead Bible studies. The problem was that there were political issues in the Christian group. A number of years earlier, the Anglican university chaplain had had an argument with the official AFES group (Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students) and had gone off and formed his own, independent, group. His group was called UBS - University Bible Study, while the official AFES group was CU - Christian Union. UBS, however, was based more on the UNSW model, and the former chaplain who had created this group had actually been the head of AFES for a number of years. As a result, there had been some acrimony between the people who ran the two groups. When I turned up, efforts had been made to join the two groups together - a process which occurred while I was there. However, the CU student board were very suspicious of my presence. To them I represented a power play on behalf of AFES officialdom and I was treated very coolly. It didn't make for good ministry. Nevertheless I still managed to study the Bible once a week with a PhD student at the uni who also went to my church. We had great times talking about God and praying together.

In addition to this, my 1995 workload included meeting with a group of single Christian guys for breakfast once a week. They all lived in the same house together, and I would get there at 7.00am to have Bible study and breakfast with them every Friday. Two of the guys had major problems with one another - one guy was unreasonably homophobic while the other guy had been converted from a homosexual background and was still working through issues. I spent quite a bit of time talking to latter guy.

Anna and I also ran a weeknight bible study group that I fondly refer to as "The Bible Study Group from Hell". All the people in the group were fringe members who often didn't turn up to church. The reason was simple - they had big chips on their shoulders about the church culture and certain people in leadership, and were not afraid to express their displeasure. They also often forgot to bring their Bibles to Bible study (duh!), and when they did remember to bring them, they would very rarely look at the text when discussing the meaning and application of the passages in question. They were a hard group, they were bitter and twisted, but God was able to use Anna and myself. Gradually God softened their hearts and opened their minds to the Bible. One married couple in the group moved out of Sydney and attended another church where they became heavily involved in the music ministry there - which was better than the nothing they were doing at our church. Another couple - a boyfriend/girlfriend who later got married after the group finished - became regular members at our church and involved themselves in all sorts of activities. As far as I know they are still at the church, faithfully serving God's people there. The group was certainly the hardest I had ever encountered, but is certainly the most rewarding because of the way God used Anna and me in their lives - they could have easily given up church in anger and bitterness and/or fallen away from the faith.

I was also scripture teaching in High schools in the local area. I learned how to control a class and prepare scripture lessons. I was able to speak the Gospel to many non-Christian kids, and also had the opportunity to speak to an entire school (one of Sydney's most prestigious and successful selective schools) where I was able to tell hundreds of kids the Gospel.

So what went wrong? Despite the fact that God was using me to teach people the Word and the Gospel, I was still struggling to organise myself in other areas. The "Green Card" system wasn't really working for me, and I was also asked to set up and run a "Welcomer's ministry", which meant that I would get a group of people from the Sunday Evening church and co-ordinate them so that they would be able to identify and welcome any newcomers to the Sunday evening service. We had upwards of 250 people every Sunday night, so newcomers were often present, but I always felt strange about having to create a ministry that should be happening naturally. If people on Sunday nights were not welcoming newcomers, then why set up a special "group" to do it? It irked me that I had to set up a structrual and organisational solution to a problem that was spiritual in nature. I also remember reading about a church where newcomers were surprised at the warmth of greeting they received from people, but, after a few more weeks, were not impressed when they realised that the only reason why people were nice to them was that they had been rostered on to a welcoming committee. To them it sounded false, and they left the church soon afterwards.

Then the big day came, around June 1995. Andrew called me in to talk about my future. My plans were simple - in 1996 I would go to Moore College as an Anglican candidate. I was already learning Greek and reading theology. Andrew told me, however, that he and the Senior pastor had determined that I was not yet suitable for ministry. My lack of organisational skills was a major point, but this was linked to some supposed psychological or emotional deficiencies I had. Therefore they could not support my candidacy. Maybe later on in life, Andrew said, would I be ready.

I was shattered. I did not expect a refusal. I went home and my wife and I discussed this in tears together. We prayed that God would lead us and help us.

At no time did I doubt that Andrew was wrong. I had implicitly trusted his judgement. My time on MTS was there so that I would learn skills in ministry and to be assessed by older, wiser Christians. Although I "felt" led to be in ministry, I had also determined that God would guide me through the wise counsel of others that he had provided. This didn't make it any easier though.

I decided that I would quit straight away and find work in the secular world. I finished my 18 months on MTS at the end of June 1995 and became officially unemployed. The only ministry I kept up was the Bible study group from hell. At the time I also went away for a week with a musician mate of mine, Greg Dixon. Our holiday was a song-writing experience for his new album, and I wrote the following song:

Future Imperfect
(Neil Cameron/Greg Dixon)

The future seemed so clear cut, now it's fallen with a thud
I could see years into the future, but now it's clear as mud
What to do, what to say, enjoying life or bringing home the pay?

A willingness to serve, yet direction gone astray
I can't believe the state I'm in, I don't know what to say
What to think, what to feel, jump back on the Ferris wheel

The paths are many, the goal is clear
The clear headed vision should ward off fear
But for now let me shed this tear

A few odd jobs later and I eventually found myself applying to go to Macquarie University (the same place I had ministered in) to study to be a High school English and History teacher. I started this in 1996, which was a hard year for us spiritually. Anna and I often failed to go to church. It got so bad that the senior pastor took me aside one night after church and gently reminded me that we should keep meeting together as God's people. Anna and I led another Bible study that year as well, but we had had enough for a while and decided we needed a rest in 1997. In 1998 we moved to the Wednesday Night church where we struggled to fit in. In 1999 Anna starting having grand mal epileptic seizures, and I was failing a few courses at uni.

During this time something was going on at Evening church that concerned me - it was a guy on MTS named Simon. Simon headed up the Evening church service and was a very gifted individual. He was a blond surfer and had a naturally exuberant personality. I also remember him as part of a Bible study group in 1992 I had. He was still quite young then - I think maybe 20 or so when he was in my group. However, despite his good points, he was quite often critical of things that I would do. It got to the point where one night I had to sit down with Simon and Rhett to work things out. Rhett assured me that Simon's critical nature was only temporary. It wasn't. When Simon continued into MTS and gained responsibility, it appears as though he trampled anyone who was opposed to his ideas. Lay leaders in the evening service were driven mad by his controlling behaviour. One - a woman who led the singing - was driven to tears on a number of occasions by Simon's attitude. She even needed mediation with an associate pastor to try and work things out between him and her. Unbeknownst to me, she and maybe a few others spoke to Andrew about Simon's problems. Andrew responded by saying "well, another six months and he's finished MTS and will be at Moore College and out of our hair" (or words to that effect).

A few years later, Simon was the student head for a Moore College Mission to a church in Sydney's North Shore. He stayed at the house of a rather rich and well-to-do church member who, chance would have it, was also a good friend of Anna's mum, who was staying there at the time. Both Anna's mum and this woman were driven mad by Simon's actions. At one point he tried to squeeze more people into a church hall than what was legally allowed. Both the woman and Simon got into a battle over this. Anna's mum remembers Simon exhibiting all sorts of controlling behaviour that was totally out of place for a Christian, let alone a Christian leader.

These revelations were important for me. Andrew had not approved me for ministry, but he and the senior pastor had approved Simon for ministry - yet this despite his obvious behavioural shortcomings. Simon was rude, controlling and proud. I don't get into ministry but Simon does. What does that say about Andrew and the Senior pastor's ability in spiritual discernment?

Let me quickly look at the Bible here. In 1 Timothy 3 it gives the qualities that an Elder should have. Simon failed to be "sober-minded", "self-controlled" and "not quarrelsome." These parts of his behaviour were obvious and he should never have been allowed into Moore College (and certainly not have been able to be ordained and serve as a church pastor, as he is now doing).

But what about me? Do I fit these qualifications?

It is hard not to sound like I'm big-noting myself, but I know that I am "able to teach". I'm very conservative and reformed in my evangelical doctrine, so no one can accuse me of speaking through my rear end. So what about my Christian character?

Since moving to Newcastle in 2000, I have preached more than ever. In fact, in 2001 I preached more sermons in one year than all the sermons I preached from 1992-2000 combined. Anna and I, and our kids, are now Presbyterians and we attend Charlestown Presbyterian church. Much of my preaching has come at our Swansea and Redhead parishes, as well as other churches around Newcastle. I have preached at the Presbyterian churches at Raymond Terrace, Stockton, Wallsend and Cessnock, and preached once at Hamilton Baptist Church. In the time since 2000 I have learned a great deal as a preacher - enough to know that God has still gifted me in this area. In 2003 I convinced Anna that we should apply with the Presbyterian Ministry and Missions department to see if we could become Home Missionaries - a sort of non ordained Presbyterian minister who works in smaller and less financially viable churches.

The interview in August 2003 went well. Nevertheless I was knocked back - but only because I had yet to be more experienced in Presbyterian church polity. The head guy at M & M even emailed me to assure me that I should re-apply again in the future. I discussed this issue with our minister at Charlestown, and he agreed that the best thing for me was to become an elder and be appointed to the church's session. One of the things that needs to happen in this process is that the church needs to vote. Although Elders are sometimes chosen on ability, a focus upon Christian character is paramount. If my "life and doctrine" were unsound, the church would not accept my ordination to the Eldership.

Again, it sounds like I'm big-noting myself here, but I have to point out that no one at our church complained about my life and doctrine. When the vote was held, I'm fairly certain that there was no opposing votes. What this meant was that my Christian brothers and sisters had formally and publically stated that my Christian character and morals fitted that of an Elder as defined by 1 Timothy 3.

In August this year, Anna and I again applied as Home missionaries with M & M. This time around we were interviewed in exactly the same way as we had been before. In fact, at least half the questions that were asked could have been answered if they had read my application letter from 2003. A few days after the interview I was contacted by the 2ic. He said that the committee did not think that I was suitable for full-time ministry. More than that - they had decided that they were not going to inform me of the reason why. All this despite the fact that our pastor and many of the Elders think that I am suitable.

There is one missing element to the puzzle here - I suffer depression. In order to manage it, I take Efexor, an antidepressant. I have also been through some cognitive-behavioural therapy with a Christian psychiatrist. These have helped immensely. Moreover, I am managing my depression well. My last major depressive episode was in 2001, although I admit that I do get "down" occasionally - but not enough to be debilitated. As part of my interview process this time around for M & M, I asked my psychiatrist to give his professional written opinion of the state of my mental health. In his opinion, my mental and emotional state should not affect in any way my performance as a pastor.

So I really should finish. What was wrong with MTS? In my opinion, when I went through it, it made the assumption that successful ministry depended upon various forms of organisational structure rather than upon the ability to preach and teach the word. I am one who believes that a successful pastor is one who is able to model the Christian life to those he cares for. A successful preacher is one who allows himself to be deeply affected by God's word, rather than being able to just identify 3 points and a one-sentence summary of the passage's meaning. A successful discipler is one who is able to get alongside people in their joys and sorrows, not one who is able to delegate this reponsibility to others.

In 2003 I met up with Wayne again. Wayne was one of the guys who was on MTS with me, and was in my Ministry Training Group in 1993. He had gone through Moore College and ended up working as a school chaplain. Unsubstantiated charges of inappropriate behaviour were levelled towards him by another chaplain, and the guy went through a depressive episode - a breakdown if you will. He eventually left the school and, in 2003, was pastoring an Anglican church in Sydney. When I met up with Wayne again, I asked him if there was anything about my time on MTS that he was worried about. "Well", he said "I know you were having trouble organising yourself, but I still have problems doing that now. To tell you the truth, I could not understand the reason why Andrew and the senior pastor didn't think you were suitable. I certainly had no major doubts about you."

About a year ago I went to the baptism of a friend's baby in an Anglican church in Sydney's west. The minister of the church was the same guy who had organised funds for me. Also there was the woman who had been driven to tears by Simon's behaviour. Another guy there was Steve, the PhD student who I read the Bible with regularly at uni - he is Dr. Steve now. Steve, after finishing his PhD, went on MTS as well. His experience wasn't great either, and he related to me that his trainer (a different person to Andrew) had also recommended that he not be suitable for ministry. He struggled with this, and is managing to continue M.Div studies at SMBC. But he also told me that, abotu 3-4 years after his major discouragement, his former trainer, in a moment of clarity, admitted that he had got it wrong about Steve.

One more thing - I know of one guy who also did MTS at the church who was treated exceptionally badly. I don't know why, but the guy just found his experience there to be soul-destroying. I don't know where he is with God at the moment, btu I know he is no longer at that church.

Maybe more to come - but I have to feed the baby. Make comments please.


From the Theosalient Department

© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

Frequently Asked Questions about the Author





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 License.

Homosexuality and the Anglican church - the inevitable split

It may be ironic, but it is the courage to commit to a system of beliefs that will ultimately tear the Anglican church apart, permanently.

The issue of homosexuality is now at the political forefront for one of the world's largest protestant denominations. On the one hand, the church has a growing conservative base that, for various reasons, cannot accept homosexuality as an acceptable form of human relationship. On the other hand, there are many who see homosexuality as not only acceptable, but also an issue of human rights.

It is a complex situation, but it essentially boils down to two very different understandings of how to determine what God actually wants.

Conservative Anglicans, especially Evangelicals, quite rightly point to The Thirty-Nine Articles (the official statement of faith of the Anglican church) which state in Article 6:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

Taken to its logical conclusion, Evangelicals essentially argue that the Bible and the Bible alone determines what to believe - not church tradition, not any subjective feelings, not the use of the intellect or logic.

There is no doubt that the Bible takes a dim view of homosexuality. Nowhere is its practice condoned. There are large sections of scripture devoted to explaining why it is sinful. Evangelicals believe the Bible, so they will naturally oppose any idea or practice that comes into conflict with that belief. Whatever your own personal opinion, the fact is that Evangelicals are courageously defending their beliefs in this area.

The problem is that those who support homosexuality have the same courage and commitment. These Anglicans see themselves as part of a different church that does not accept the sole authority of the Bible, but includes things like Episcopal authority (Bishops), engaging with modern philosophy and discerning God's truth through the process of consensus or personal meditation.

These progressive Anglicans have accepted homosexuality, not on the basis of some form of relativistic attitude, but in the belief that homosexuality is a legitimate form of human sexual and relational expression. Moreover, because homosexuals have been persecuted and criticised by those in power in the past, acceptance of homosexuality is thus an issue of human rights. To oppose homosexuality is, for these progressive Anglicans, a great crime for human dignity.

But the Anglican church is more than these two polar extremes. There is a broad base in the middle, and many of those in this middle ground are naturally disturbed by the goings-on of these two extremes. When you listen to these people, you tend to hear things like "Well, it's a complex problem", or "There are no easy solutions", or "We need to listen to both sides". Such an approach places unity above all things. Unfortunately such an attitude does not solve the problem, nor does it respect the stance of each of the extremes.

The problem is that, for a conservative, legitimising homosexuality is essentially the same of legitimising paedophilia. For a progressive, opposing homosexuality is essentially the same as condoing slavery or racism. The solution from those in the middle - to emphasise unity and encourage everyone to get along with everyone else - totally ignores the root of the problem.

There are only two solutions. The first solution is for one group to gain more and more power, and then expel the other group. The second solution is for the church to split, and for each group to take power over their respective part of the church. There is no third way. It is either victory or death.

This inevitable result will occur, not because people have failed to "take a stand", but because people have been courageous and taken a stand. There is no doubting the commitment and courage of those on both sides of the debate. What we have to realise is that, barring a direct act of God to change the views of one side, the only result can be schism.


From the Theosalient Department

© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

All good Evangelical Anglicans end up becoming Presbyterians

Women Bishops are now on the agenda... again. As someone who ditched the Thirty-Nine Articles and embraced the Westminster Confession I can't help but feel a slight bit of concern for my Evangelical bretheren in the old church.

All this may sound strange considering my pedigree - member of St Paul's Carlingford 1988-2000, MTS 1994-95, circumcised on the eighth day, a Hebrew of Hebrews and so on. But moving to Newcastle was good for my soul because there was no way in the world that I would go to a Newcastle Anglican church. So I went to Charlestown Presbyterian - and learned anew the greatness of Reformed theology outside the influence of Sydney Anglicanism.

I honestly think now that Sydney Anglicanism (or, more correctly, the Evangelical faith as expressed generally in the culture of the Sydney Anglican diocese) is not as Reformed as I thought it was. With John Woodhouse at Moore College disagreeing with historical Reformed thinking in regards to the sacraments, something must be up.

It was about a year ago that I discovered that Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology were two different things - albeit related. My problem started at SMBC, where our Old Testament lecturer Stephen Renn taught us a unit entitled "Biblical Theology" which had running through it a continual reference to Covenant theology. I still have Renn's "A Covenantal Framework of Scripture" (parts I & II) within reach and I will read it again one day. I'm sure that Stephen Renn explained things properly at the time - I just probably didn't listen as well as I should.

Covenant Theology gives a wonderful theological explanation to the sacraments - Baptism and the Lord's Supper - that seem to be lacking amongst Sydney Anglicans. As a typical Sydney Anglican, my understanding of the Lord's supper was influenced by the weekly celebration of Pizza and Pepsi at Wednesday Night Church at St Paul's. "Dinner before church" essentially became the Lord's supper - but it was never really explained and so people treated it just like any normal meal and, if they were late to church, they didn't participate in it.

Baptism was the "Sacrament that dare not speak its name". In all my years at St Paul's there was no deep theological explanation of what it meant. Considering the presence of many visiting Baptists or ex-Baptists in the congregation, there was also no attempt to explain why children were baptised. It was simply a matter of "Some people baptise kids, others baptise adults - that's all fine". One meeting at Wednesday night church I found a believer who admitted he was not baptised - but he was a regular member of the church. His attitude was that he didn't care much.

Of course, we aren't saved by being baptised or having the Lord's supper. But I think that these things are results of our faith, and those who ignore them are disobeying Christ's commands.

Covenant Theology explains both Baptism and the Lord's supper. The idea is that, just like the Old Testament people of God, the New Testament community is made up of true believers and unbelievers. Moreover, the community has an outward "sign" that they are members of the community. In the Old Testament, members of the Covenant community were circumcised on the eighth day. In the New Testament, the members of the Covenant community are Baptised. It is a once-off physical event which signifies a deeper spiritual link with God through Christ. So we therefore have a link between Circumcision and Baptism - the former is replaced by the latter (Colossians 2:11-12).

But the Old Testament people of God had an annual meal of rememberence to commemorate their rescue from Egypt during the exodus. This was the Passover meal. Of course this was replaced by the Lord's Supper for the New Covenant people of God.

I am rambling a bit. This is not a post for me to explain in detail why pedobaptism is Biblical!

There is one more thing that Sydney Anglicans have overlooked - the mechanics of Predestination and Election (the two are different, but closely related). This is another reason why I question their Reformed nature. It's not that Predestination is not believed - it is certainly believed by most Sydney Anglicans. The problem is that there is a culture of "don't ask, don't tell" - whereby discussions about the issue are implicitly banned because of the trouble it brings to Christian fellowship (a ban that is not enforced from the top, I might add, but is part of the general church culture).

You see a few years ago I discovered the principle of "Monergistic Regeneration". It wasn't that I disbelieved it beforehand, it's just that I had never understood what it meant. Essentially it is the idea that sin is so powerful that human beings cannot, by their very nature, respond to the Gospel. In order to do so, they have to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit before they repent and have faith. It is this fact that makes Gospel preaching and Scriptural expositions so spiritually powerful, for they are used by the Spirit to change people's lives. When we look at the mechanics of salvation close up, we see that Monergistic Regeneration is the way in which the elect come to faith. When we draw back and look at the whole, then we recognise it as Election and Predestination. Without an understanding of Monergistic Regeneration, Predestination remains a philosophical concept more to do with the nature of God and his relation to time, as well as human freedom. When we understand Monergistic Regeneration, Predestination is given a soteriological side that makes it so much more attractive (because it deals more specifically with Grace) and allows us to understand the philosophical side more easily.

I'm sure that my own Sydney Anglican experiences are coloured by the specific church and culture that I was immersed in, and that there are other similar, but different, cultures within the diocese (eg St. N.T. Wright's at Broadway). Moreover, although I am slightly critical here of Sydney Anglicans, I will always be grateful to God for the great truths that he revealed to me while being a Sydney Anglican. Yes it has its problems, but overall, I honestly believe that the good outweighs the bad - many times over.

Except maybe for MTS - but that's the subject of a future posting.

From the Theosalient Department

© 2005 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.5/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
You are free:
* To copy, distribute, display and perform this work.
* To make commercial use of this work.
Under the following conditions:
* By attribution. You must give the original author credit.
* No derivative works. You may not alter, transform or build upon the work.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author.