Editorial Blog

Andrew Symes is the Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream, and Senior Editor of this website. These articles are mostly concerned with authentic, biblically orthodox Christian faith and its interaction with the Anglican Church, especially the Church of England, and the wider culture. Please press the ‘Refresh’ or “reload’ button to ensure you see the latest blog post at the top of this column.

Some thoughts on church planting

Posted by on May 14, 2019 in Church Plants, Editorial Blog | Comments Off on Some thoughts on church planting

Some thoughts on church planting

by Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream.

Is the received model of full-time, housed and salaried pastor for each local church necessary or even biblical? How else do we ensure good teaching, pastoral care, leadership?

Roland Allen was a high church Anglican who served in the Church of England and then as a missionary in China in the late 19th/early 20th century. He wrote his classic critique of contemporary mission methods in 1912 [helpful summary here], arguing that they were based on contemporary colonialism and ignored the lessons of St Paul. Not surprisingly it wasn’t until 50 years later that leaders of overseas mission organisations began to take notice. Allen is still largely ignored in Church of England theological training institutions, even though we are now in a pioneer mission situation just as the church was in China in the 19th century.

Allen’s basic premise was that the apostle Paul was driven in his mission by, and fully trusted, the Holy Spirit. While he did focus his preaching and church planting on urban centres, and his method was to begin in the synagogues, he often had to separate from them and move to other locations which were determined by the people who responded to the message. He assumed that as long as a number of people were genuinely converted and had a rudimentary understanding of the life of Christ, Old Testament ethics and the background to the way of salvation, principles of worship, and a testimony of new life in the Spirit, a local church had been established. He believed that because the congregation was an expression of the body of Christ, within it there would be provided the gifts needed for teaching and pastoral care, evangelism, and leadership. While Paul did collect money from the churches for the church in Jerusalem, he did not appear to take a salary for his own work, and nor did he interfere in the administration of finances, property etc for the new church, whose local members handled these things from the beginning. Paul would move on from a church established in this way after a short time, and believe not only that the congregation would survive, but that it would bring the gospel to the whole surrounding region.

By contrast, missionaries from the Church of England (and by implication, from most Western countries) would bring a complicated package of church paraphernalia: buildings, salaried clergy, Western-style administration and worship; they would see the local believers as ‘sheep’ who would need looking after for years. If indigenous leaders emerged, they would be put through years of Western-style training, before usually being sent not to their own communities, but other churches under Western oversight. Missionaries would complain about the immaturity of the Chinese church which necessitated this paternalistic approach, but in fact, according to Allen, it was a result of a misunderstanding of the gospel, which restricted the work of the Holy Spirit.

35 years after Allen’s prophetic book, all Western Christians were forced out of China. Many were convinced that the church would die, but in fact what happened was the biggest advance of the gospel in terms of numbers of converts than at any other time in history, as millions of Chinese turned to Christ under communist rule from the 1950’s onwards.

Does this have any relevance to England, or the West generally, as we face a time of rapid decline in nominal Christianity, pressure on orthodox believers to conform to secular values, and financial shortages?

While statistics show that numbers of people regularly attending C of E churches continues to decline, this needs to be balanced against the fact that many evangelical churches outside the C of E are growing, and that there appears to be an unprecedented effort in church planting happening right now, including within the C of E. However, most C of E church plant initiatives begin with the appointment of a full-time minister with salary and housing package, funded from central resources, and the equipping of a building. While this is not wrong in itself, it may have some disadvantages, especially if seen as the only valid model, much as the ‘colonial’ methods were seen in Allen’s day.

Conventional thinking: People in pews are ‘sheep’ who need ‘feeding’ in word and sacrament by experts.

Allen’s thinking: The biblical image of shepherd and sheep is only one of many images for the church. The concepts of the body with many parts, the gifts of the Spirit, the priesthood of all believers radically challenge the ‘professionalisation’ model; the family, the building are all pictures which do not presuppose a salaried leader and passive followers.

Conventional thinking: The larger the congregation, the better. Large churches can produce better quality in terms of music, children’s work, social events, to attract and keep the congregation. Large organisations need skilled full time people; smaller ones need people with the time to make them grow bigger.

Allen’s thinking: this can become worldly rather than biblical. If the church attracts by making people feel comfortable with the building, the coffee and the exciting kids work, it is less likely to risk repelling people with counter-cultural teaching on discipleship. If it’s aiming to look impressive, it is less likely to risk alienating Diocesan or civic leadership with prophetic stances on issues of biblical principle.

Conventional thinking: Church has to be done ‘right’, following inherited administrative processes, worship patterns, unspoken social norms of the institution, leadership selection.

Allen’s thinking: the gospel has to be preached right, and a group of genuinely converted believers guided by the Holy Spirit needs to come together in love, for worship, prayer, study of the word, outreach.

But does this actually work?

It’s worth remembering that most churches in the world, especially in the global South where the church continues to grow, do not have salaried pastors. In fact the preachers and pastors in most churches are not only unpaid or poorly paid, but without any formal training. This is why one of the best ways of supporting mission today around the world is to resource locally delivered, low cost informal methods of training in bible understanding and servant leadership, like the BUILD Partners programme in East Africa. Most pew-fillers in an average C of E evangelical church have had more and better biblical input than the average pastor of an African church! In many Anglican Dioceses in Africa, one full-time salaried ordained minister looks after up to thirty congregations; each church is run by a small team of lay ministers. Some might benefit from the ministry of retired or self-supporting clergy. Some of these congregations have over 100 people attending, even though there is no coffee, no sound system and no Sunday school!

Might there be something to learn here? Of course the context is very different, and it may well be that the work required to get a church off the ground is much harder in most of Europe. But a number of thriving non-C of E churches here operate with a team of bivocational, self-supporting leaders; some start that way and then pay a full time pastor when the congregation has grown enough.

The lessons from Roland Allen’s study of Paul’s mission methods are not to rule out salaries, buildings, centralised administration and other aspects of the scaffolding of church life, but to prioritise the biblical gospel message, and to trust not finance or gifted individuals but the work of the Holy Spirit in the different members of the local body of Christ. This is especially important as new expressions of Anglicanism outside the Church of England are being contemplated and started.

Should we stop talking about ‘Cultural Marxism’?

Posted by on May 7, 2019 in 2-Important Posts, Cultural Marxism, Editorial Blog | Comments Off on Should we stop talking about ‘Cultural Marxism’?

by Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream.

I’m going to have a go at a simple definition of Cultural Marxism (CM).

The main contention of Karl Marx was that power is controlled by a class of rich people (the bourgeoisie), who oppress the much larger class of poor people (the proletariat) and deprive them of liberty and their true humanity. A revolution is needed to overturn this situation and create a new order of equality and justice. Once this has happened, the State needs to carefully control politics and the economy, to ensure ‘correct’ thinking and behaviour among the citizens, and root out reactionary conservative forces seeking a return to the old order.

This has been tried in practice in a number of countries over the past 100 years, almost always with disastrous results (latest: Venezuela), where people end up being oppressed far more than before. As the 20th century progressed, many European intellectual philosophers realised this. They accepted the basic underlying premise that according to Marx and his followers there is a serious problem with the worldview and power structures of the West which seem to produce war and injustice.

The way to change this, and to usher in a better society, they said, is not political revolution and a change to a state-controlled command economy (as in Soviet Russia and Maoist China), but cultural change. Through gradual control of education, the media, arts, the law and other key areas of society, the worldview of a generation can be transformed, critiquing and rejecting ‘oppressive’ ideas (such as the historic Judaeo-Christian view on God, biblical text, human identity, sex, gender, marriage, family) and moving towards a new vision of ‘liberation and flourishing of humanity’ as defined by the new thought-guides. Hence ‘cultural’ rather than political/economic Marxism.

This definition is not perfect, but let’s move on to the debate around the idea, what it’s called, whether we should talk about it and how. Today’s polarised political climate has meant that rather than taking a nuanced and diffident view, accepting the historical and contemporary reality of CM but seeing it as one of a number of trends making up the a bigger picture, the phrase has become a weapon for both ‘sides’ in the culture war. For many conservatives, CM is sometimes used as an explanation for everything they see as wrong in society (ignoring the flaws in their own worldview), while those on the left, ironically the ones most influenced by CM, portray the idea of CM as a myth invented by far right extremists.

Why should Christians care? According to some church leaders, we don’t need to understand why there has been a cultural change in our society. The only thing we need to know is that nominal Christianity has collapsed, most people in our country don’t believe in Jesus and so don’t act like Christians, and all that is needed is evangelism. For those on the other side of the fence, many of the recent ‘progressive’ trends such as ‘equal’ marriage, ‘no-fault’ divorce, easy availability of abortion and hate speech legislation are self-evidently good and should be supported by the church.

But in fact, mature Christianity requires us not to ignore the contemporary ‘big ideas’ or uncritically accept them, but to analyse the culture around us and the ideas which shape people’s attitudes. We’re not like goldfish who don’t have the capacity to notice that the water around them is getting dirtier, or to ask why. We are able to do the “double listening” advocated by John Stott, where we hear the world with one ear and the word of God with the other. We are able to see, to feel, to reflect and speak on a culture and its underlying worldview, like Jesus himself who did not just speak positively about the Kingdom of God and his own identity as saviour and Lord, but also warned against wrong but influential thinking (“beware the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod” Matthew 16:5-12). Likewise the apostle Paul warned about being “taken captive by hollow and deceptive philosophy” (Col 2:8), and showed his skills of cultural analysis in Athens, where he spoke showing his understanding of the mindset behind pagan temple worship (Acts 17:16f).

A good example of this can be found in recent UK government statements on persecuted Christians. They do not just identify the problem and offer sympathy, but name part of the reason for Western inaction on wrong thinking. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said: “I think it is partly because of political correctness we have avoided confronting this issue. I think there is a misplaced worry that it is colonialist to talk about a religion that was associated with colonial powers.’ And Bishop of Truro Philip Mounstephen spoke of a “misconception that Christianity is an expression of white, Western privilege” when “In fact, Christianity is primarily a phenomenon of the global South and the global poor.”

Although they are not using the phrase, what Hunt and Mounstephen are identifying is an aspect of cultural Marxism, for which “persecuted Christian” is a contradiction in terms, like “minority vulnerable ruling elite”. We need a simple shorthand to describe the ideas driving our cultural change, which is resulting in the marginalisation of Christians, especially those with conservative views; the sex and gender revolution, increasing attempts to police speech and thought. “Political correctness” and ‘cultural Marxism’ are in the category of such shorthand.

But there are problems with the term ‘cultural Marxism’. Firstly, it’s hard to understand. The writings of Adorno, Gramsci, Marcuse, Derrida and others are notoriously impenetrable. Any summary, such as I attempted in the first paragraphs of this piece, is bound to be on one hand over-simplistic, and on the other it’s the kind of stuff that either loses people or sends them to sleep after two lines.

Those who make admirable and helpful attempts to explain CM and its effect on our culture, such as here, face another problem. Such is the power of social media and the effects of ‘groupthink’ that even a careful explanation of CM is attacked with a false logic: “Surely Marxism is good in that it aims to help the poor and end injustice?” the argument goes. “Therefore any criticism of Marxism must be associated with lack of care for the poor, minorities, the environment?”

A recent article on the otherwise excellent Gospel Coalition website claimed that because the disturbed young man who attacked a synagogue recently was in contact with far right groups and complained about CM in his social media posts, and because some of the original ‘Frankfurt School’ were Jewish, therefore anyone who talks about CM negatively must be an antisemite. This kind of crude association closes down any sensible discussion of ideas. It’s difficult to think of a better example of the chilling influence of CM than to see a conservative evangelical Christian denying the existence of CM. Worse, the writer effectively accuses any concerned Christian brother or sister using CM as an explanation for certain harmful ideas as sharing the same views as a violent fascist. This is a form of bullying and censorship, like those who want to rule out any analysis of a religious basis to terrorism as ‘Islamophobic’.

Our task is surely rather to expose the ideas of both the right and the left, and critique them from the perspective of biblical Christianity. But the point remains: is CM such a toxic phrase that it’s not a hill worth dying on, and better to use some other expression? Perhaps that depends on the audience.


See also: The progressive march of tyranny through the church, by Joe Boot, Christian Christian


We cannot be both Christians and Marxists, by Jason Morgan, Public Discourse

An example of ‘good separation’ as new Anglican church is established outside the C of E

Posted by on Apr 30, 2019 in 2-Important Posts, Church Plants, Editorial Blog, Free Church of England | Comments Off on An example of ‘good separation’ as new Anglican church is established outside the C of E

by Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream.

For many faithful members of the Church of England, Christian experience is defined almost entirely by the local fellowship. The weeks just before and after Easter constitute the season for Annual Meetings in parishes and congregations. These deal with issues of finance and buildings, but many churches will also use them as an opportunity for a spiritual audit, looking at setbacks and successes over the past year, and putting forward strategies and vision for the future. These can be times of celebrating another year of survival against the odds or even growth, and of  building unity in a shared commitment to mission and ministry. The members can thank God for his guidance and strength in enabling the church to be a source of light in the community, and they can pray for the new initiatives being attempted.

The parish is not a stand-alone unit though, but part of a Diocese, and a national denomination with a particular relationship with the wider society and nation. As the culture becomes more secular, indifferent to religion and increasingly hostile to biblical Christian faith, the Church of England tries to accommodate this in a positive way while at the same time attempting to remain recognisably Christian in its doctrine and practice. This may result in many of its leaders adapting and compromising their beliefs, retaining outward symbols of Anglican tradition and worship while reinterpreting the meaning of faith so as to be acceptable and uncontroversial in the eyes of society and government.

In the light of this, some clergy and laity are asking themselves the question (even if they may not be mentioning it to their congregation or PCC): is being part of the Church of England helping or hindering local church mission? It may be that the local fellowship is solidly committed to a bible based approach, but the Diocesan leadership is showing in different ways that it does not share this understanding of gospel ministry. Or the local church itself may be mixed. Unlike a ‘gathered’ church where those who share the same beliefs travel in from miles around, many C of E parishes contain a combination of Christ-centred believers pursuing costly counter-cultural discipleship, and those who don’t get the radical challenge of God’s word, and are in church for a religious veneer over a worldview and values which are essentially secular. 

Since the famous exchange between John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones in 1966, and then the successful National Evangelical Anglican Conferences of the 1970’s and 1980’s, the majority of bible-believing Anglicans in England have held to the argument that the benefits of staying in the C of E outweigh the disadvantages, and that evangelicals can continue both to pursue effective local ministry, while either attempting to influence, or ignore the wider denomination. But what if the general direction of the C of E, as perceived from statements and actions by Synods and Bishops over time, makes this more and more difficult? What if committed lay people begin to drift away to non-Anglican churches, and a growing crisis of conscience develops among clergy and laity who remain? 

Meanwhile, because of the emergence of Gafcon, which validates as truly Anglican those faithful churches which have separated from national structures, as in North America, Brazil and Scotland, it’s possible now to be part of new expressions of Anglicanism outside the Church of England – options that were not available in the days of John Stott or JC Ryle. So the idea of planting new congregations under the auspices of, for example, Anglican Mission in England or Free Church of England is being entertained by a growing number of C of E clergy and supportive members of their congregations.

Rev Dr Peter Sanlon is such a clergyman. He has for some time been publicly critical of the theological direction of the C of E. In 2018 he published a book, ‘The Bible Theft’, detailing the C of E leadership’s move away from biblical teaching (review here).  As vicar of St Mark’s Church of England Parish, Tunbridge Wells, he openly shared his concerns with his parish leadership and congregation, as well as with the Diocesan leadership. After some time of preparation and negotiation, he and a small team have begun Emmanuel Anglican Church, a new congregation of the Free Church of England congregation which meets in the library of a community centre on a housing estate about a mile down the hill from the centre of town.

The decision was influenced by the history of the town: a fellowship with the name of Emmanuel Church was established as part of the foundation of the Countess of Huntingdon in the 18th century. ; this later became part of the Free Church of England but closed in the early part of the 20th century. So the new church is actually a revival of an old one.

In February the Diocese of Rochester announced Sanlon’s resignation as vicar of St Mark’s C of E in order to transfer to become Rector of Emmanuel FCE. 

On 25th April a service was held in the Showfields Centre site, where he was formally received into the FCE and appointed as minister by FCE Bishop Paul Hunt, who preached on the foolishness of the cross and God’s power for salvation for those who believe (I Corinthians 1), an appropriate text for Easter week, and also to remind us of the need for faith in God’s gospel message and methods at the start of such a daunting mission venture. Andrea Williams of Christian Concern led the prayers.

[from left to right: Mrs Andrea Williams, Mrs Sanlon, Rev Dr Peter Sanlon, Bishop Paul Hunt]

It was clear from the service that the Free Church of England retains a number of aspects of ‘traditional’ Anglicanism, such as 16th century BCP liturgical language, and in some cases clerical robes, though with contemporary music. In this it differs from the Anglican Mission in England which is intentionally informal and perhaps geared to those potentially put off by any ‘churchiness’. FCE has a fully-fledged ecclesial structure with canons and Bishops; AMiE is in the process of working theirs out. Both movements share the same understanding of the gospel, are connected to Gafcon and its UK branch, and though currently small and without any of the huge resources of the Church of England, are being seen as important vehicles for orthodox Anglicanism by growing numbers of clergy and laity looking for an alternative to the C of E.

While the Archbishop of Canterbury talks of ‘good disagreement’, meaning the holding together of those with radically different understandings of Christian faith in the same church, the emergence of Emmanuel Anglican Church (FCE) demonstrates ‘good separation’, whereby Dr Sanlon, St Mark’s Church and the area Archdeacon have worked in a professional and friendly way to ensure the establishment of the new church without bitterness, in fact with good will on both sides.

See also: Peter Sanlon – my decision to leave the C of E. YouTube video.

Easter is a message of hope for the penitent, not for those who pronounce themselves innocent

Posted by on Apr 16, 2019 in 2-Important Posts, Divorce, Easter, Editorial Blog | Comments Off on Easter is a message of hope for the penitent, not for those who pronounce themselves innocent

By Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream.

There is something about the idea of “no-fault divorce” which goes beyond the issue of how to regulate marriage and family in the 21st century. It can also be seen as an illustration of psychological and spiritual self-management in a post Christian culture.

The argument which has won the day goes like this: few people nowadays believe that marriages should last forever; in reality relationships have a life span which when ended should allow people to separate with a minimum of hassle and cost. Currently, laws are in place to ensure that a divorce needs to have a reason such as adultery, abandonment or unreasonable behaviour; this leads to acrimonious legal bickering and dragging up past actions, when the best thing is surely to let bygones be bygones, separate, divide assets, move on with life.

The changes in law have come in for a lot of criticism from conservative commentators (for example here). They point out that making marriage like a temporary contract will be harmful on several levels. While those in favour of the new ‘no-fault’ system argue that children prefer their parents to be separate and happy than under the same roof and unhappy, this is not born out by the evidence, which suggests that ‘broken homes’, far from being a stigmatising and out of date concept for normal variations in family structure, in fact actually do harm child development. ‘No-fault’ provides no incentive for faithfulness or working through problems in a relationship. As one woman said when interviewed on the BBC recently, it will lead to the creation of a fiction, where everyone pretends that the husband (for example) who has had a series of affairs hasn’t done anything wrong, and the suffering party has no way of publicly expressing or recording her point of view. And is it really true that more people might get married if they can see a wide open exit door? More likely marriage is seen as increasingly irrelevant.

But beyond these specific issues, the concept of a ruling elite taking on themselves the right and power to declare ‘no-fault’, to absolve selfish adults from guilt, can be seen as a profoundly spiritual act with wider ramifications, especially in the Easter season.

My daily bible reading recently took me into the early chapters of Leviticus. These ancient writings offer a window into an alien culture, where a nation of tribes consisting of tight-knit communities were encouraged to live in awe of almighty God, in thanksgiving for his past rescue and daily provision, and in constant awareness of his all-seeing eye, his holiness, and the default alienation caused by human sin. Leviticus 5 shows how in various ways, people can become defiled unintentionally; chapter 6 gives examples of intentional wrongdoing. In both cases, because of God’s love for his people and faithfulness to his promises, provision is made for ritual atonement made through sacrifice (a mark of repentance), so that the sin can be forgiven and the guilt removed.

These systems carried with them potential for corruption.They could fill peoples’ lives with increasingly detailed and petty regulations, as with the teachers and Pharisees of Jesus’ day, who lost sight of the life in all its fulness through relationship provided by a loving and gracious God. They could create a massive religious machine which enslaves and impoverishes the faithful, and enriches the providers of religious power – as in some examples of medieval church leadership, and contemporary animism or Christian prosperity teaching especially in parts of the global South. But at least these errors were, are, based on understanding the truth of the reality of the holiness and power of God, his judgement against sin, the need for atonement through sacrifice.

The approach of the secular West today is different. Where previous systems have tried to control the instruments of religion and ritual associated with dealing with sin and guilt, today’s high priests of the culture have not done away with the concept, but have taken on themselves the authority to redefine it. If there is no God (unless perhaps a God of pure “love”), then the idea of violating his standards of holiness is ruled as imaginary and pre-modern. So the writings of ancient Israel have no bearing on our lives today: the bible may say we have done wrong, but we can declare ourselves to be “not guilty” – as in no-fault divorce. But then, other categories of behaviour (for example publicly expressing the belief in the reality of hell awaiting unrepentant sinners, or questioning whether Primary school children should be encouraged to see themselves as gender-fluid), are seen as sins violating our own self-designed community standards for which there can be no atonement or forgiveness, just punishment – as famous rugby players and ordinary schoolteachers are discovering.

Who decides what is right and wrong, whether someone is guilty or not, whether there will be forgiveness or punishment? To which authority in the universe should we give our allegiance? Much of the final week of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem is focussed on these questions. Jesus is proclaimed King on Palm Sunday. He is specifically asked by what authority he performed the symbolic acts riding the donkey and rearranging the moneychangers stalls in the temple (Matt 21:23f). His parables (the tenants, the wedding banquet) are about a King and those who refuse his authority. Matthew records Jesus’ polemic against the religious leaders (Matt 23), who like the secular cultural leaders of today, “shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to”. Matthew 24 and 25 show God as the cosmic judge, with the power to decide the eternal future of every creature.

But then the narrative focuses on one man and his tiny band of followers: “After Jesus had finished saying all these things [about the sovereign power of God the judge], he said to his disciples…the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified”. And so begin the dramatic events culminating in Calvary, and then the empty tomb. Why? Because we are alienated from God by our rebellion, and in desperate danger of judgement.

Absolving ourselves of responsibility and sin by declaring “no-fault” to one another, is a fiction which leaves us guilty and facing the hostility of the King. But, amazingly, gloriously, the death of the Saviour opens the curtain – all who acknowledge their sin, say sorry and believe are forgiven and restored, even those who deny him and run away in his hour of need. “No-fault” can never be said of human beings or broken relationships. Struggling marriages and the human psyche in general need the Easter gospel, not secular make-believe.

Bonhoeffer: the prophet against the culture-controlled church

Posted by on Apr 9, 2019 in 2-Important Posts, Editorial Blog, Martyrs | Comments Off on Bonhoeffer: the prophet against the culture-controlled church

By Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream.

Today (April 9th) is the 74th anniversary of the execution of Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Nazi guards in Flossenburg camp, just a month before the end of the war. A doctor witnessing the hanging later said “I have hardly ever seen a man die so entirely submissive to the will of God”.

Eric Metaxas’ masterful account of Bonhoeffer’s life shows clearly how he was formed by insights gained during the early years of his ministry. The brilliantly talented young theologian-pastor-musician completed his doctorate on the sociology of the Church in only 18 months while maintaining a full social and cultural life; by age 24 he was qualified as a university lecturer and was spending the second of his years abroad (the first was in Barcelona). But while he knew how to master his profession and enjoy life, Bonhoeffer was consumed, hemmed-in perhaps, by a desire to see Christ glorified, to see the church operating as it should with devoted disciples of Christ living seriously for him, and for the gospel to confront evil in the world and change it for the better.

Interestingly, his prophetic concerns about the lukewarm church, liberal theology and social injustice which were to drive his ministry in Germany in the last third of his life did not originate there, but in America, where he was based at the famous Union Seminary in New York. While Bonhoeffer had often taken issue with the famous German liberal theologians back home, at least they were concerned about truth, and used reason to come to their conclusions. Bonhoeffer felt that liberal theology in America was not using the mind in the same disciplined way: “There is no theology here”, he wrote; “they become intoxicated with humanistic phrases, laugh at the fundamentalists, and yet basically are not up to their level”. Students did not seem interested in the biblical themes of sin and salvation, only the latest political and psychological theories. They entered the pastorate with a secular mindset, with the result that “the sermon has been reduced to parenthetical remarks about newspaper events”.

If wealthy, white, mainline Protestantism was being gutted by revisionist theology in 1930, proper gospel preaching and serious discipleship could be found in the black churches. Bonhoeffer was thrilled at the biblically-based and Christ-centred preaching in the Baptist church he often attended in Harlem, and was also influenced by the music, completely different to the stuffy hymns of his own tradition. A few years later this would bear fruit as trainee pastors in the Confessing Church movement would listen to Bonhoeffer’s gospel music record collection and be urged to worship God in a similar way!

But of course this was a time of severe racial discrimination and segregation in America. Bonhoeffer was appalled, and saw worse in the southern states when he visited there. The Germany he had left did not have an equivalent: there was racism and antisemitism of course, but it had not been institutionalised. How quickly would that change on his return. In fact, during his time in America, back home the extremist fringe Nazi party was already making rapid gains in winning seats in the Reichstag. The grotesque and terrifying racial purification project was yet to come – but for the moment Bonhoeffer saw in America how the human heart is the same everywhere; how the church can capitulate to culture and collude in injustice and oppression, and how, to establish the real church, disciples need to learn from “the piety of suffering people” (Bonhoeffer’s phrase) – in particular Christians of different races – in their theology and their worship.

On his return to Germany, Bonhoeffer was being drawn into more and more of an “all or nothing” Christian faith, and he was disturbed by the lack of spiritual seriousness of his fellow Lutheran churchgoers, whom he accused of  “playing church”. As the 1930’s unfolded, the young pastor/academic saw clearly that a weak, liberal theology would not be able to resist the new popular thinking which looked forward to the socio-political revival of Germany under a strong leader as a kind of secular salvation, with strong undercurrents of resurgence of ancient nordic pagan spirituality, glorifying violence.

Metaxas describes the national struggle between the Confessing Church, authentic counter-cultural disciples such as Bonhoeffer on one hand , the new ‘German Christians’ advocating racial segregation and syncretism with Nazi ideology on the other, and the majority in the middle, with sympathies on one side or the other but wanting a quiet life. In the short term, Hitler wanted the church on his side, and did not persecute it as long as it progressed towards willingly submitting to become the servant of the state’s programme. The ‘German Christian’ leaders used state power to increasingly impose regulations and restrictions affecting the church. Bonhoeffer opposed this, arguing that the church must support the state in exercise of legitimate rule, but when the state starts to set itself up as the ultimate authority without accountability, the church must question it, help its victims, and ultimately jam a stick into the spokes of its wheel.

1930’s Germany saw the creation of a new, counterfeit Christianity, which replaced the cross with the swastika, the idea of universal human sinfulness and guilt before God with the guilt of the Jew and the sinless victimhood of the post-Versailles Aryan German, and the spiritual meaning of the resurrection with the idea of the victory and dominance of the volk. This creates a crisis in the church: “the confusion that inevitably arises when the Christian faith becomes too closely related to a culture or identity”. It’s not difficult to see parallels with counterfeit faith seen in many of today’s mainline churches.

Bonhoeffer’s implacable opposition to rapid change in Germany was not based in a knee-jerk conservativism or a hankering after the past. It was a conviction about the reality of God in Christ, the truth of the bible as his word, and the necessity of applying Christ’s Lordship to the whole of life not just church. He saw the solutions firstly in being part of church councils and trying to turn things round from within. Then, as this seemed less likely, making a stand (for example the famous Barmen Declaration) and creating distance, differentiation, between the true church and the institution aligned with the world. Establishing good theological education was vital – using methods which did not try to do a form of “good disagreement’ with the liberal worldview in their state-controlled institutions, but actively countered them. He knew that pastors needed to be formed not just by study, but in a community where disciplined discipleship and celebratory worship was learned and practiced together. Ultimately, he reluctantly saw that violent action against the state may be necessary to prevent further catastrophe, but the plot to kill Hitler, in which he was remotely involved, failed.

His ministry resulted in misunderstanding, opposition, imprisonment, early death. Wouldn’t it have been better to keep his head down, survive and be there for the rebuilding after the war? Who can understand the purposes of God fully, but the bible and church history teach that the martyrdom of the prophets is never wasted. Certainly Bonhoeffer’s story and his writings became inspirational for many in the post war years. We need another like him.

‘Churchianity’ challenge to evangelical complacency

Posted by on Mar 26, 2019 in 2-Important Posts, Editorial Blog, Mission, Uncategorized | Comments Off on ‘Churchianity’ challenge to evangelical complacency

by Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream.

The ongoing protest at Parkfield School in Birmingham gives an insight into the inevitable clash of values between Islam and secularism, small-c conservatism versus progressivism, but also into majority views on Christian mission among the overlapping Anglican and evangelical constituencies.

At Parkfield, well over 90% of the children are from Muslim families. The majority of parents, standing up against the attempted indoctrination of their children by LGBT activists under the guise of ‘promoting tolerance’, are not radical Islamists. They are social conservatives with a strong community spirit, and concern that the state should work in partnership with them for the education of their children, and not impose moral and religious agendas in direct conflict with the traditions of the family. Similar protests have been held by mostly Christian parents from Caribbean and West African backgrounds in South London, so this is not just an clash of Islam vs the West. As education becomes increasingly ideologically contested, what has been the response of white, middle class evangelicals and Anglicans, and why?

The Diocese of Birmingham, whose Bishop is from an evangelical background, appears to be supporting the Parkfield School leadership in their aim to teach small children the philosophy of LGBT Pride in order to promote values of ‘inclusion’ and ‘equality’. The Diocese may have wrongly understood the Equalities Act, but more seriously, they have sided with the secular worldview of the sexual revolution against the need to promote and defend orthodox Christian doctrine in the public space, and the need to witness graciously to the teachings of Scripture to those of other faiths.

What about other, more orthodox evangelical churches? A small number of individual Christians have been standing with the courageous parents in Birmingham, but have received considerable criticism. Some have accused them of engaging in an inter-faith project which waters down the distinctiveness of the gospel, or even being ‘useful idiots’ for those wanting to impose sharia law. Others have suggested that Christians shouldn’t really be getting involved in this kind of social action, as our concern should be about evangelism and the building up of the church, not issues like government education policy.

In a booklet written for Christian Concern entitled ‘Churchianity or Christianity?’ (more details here), Dr Joe Boot gives some detailed analysis of two commonly-seen approaches to mission. The first, exemplified by the Diocese of Birmingham’s dismissive response to request for help from Muslim parents concerned about their children’s exposure to inappropriate Relationships and Sex Education, is explained by Boot like this:

They believe that the kingdom of God must broader than the walls of the church…[they] shift the locus of hope from the church institute to the state…the kingdom of God is increasingly identified with persons, movements and institutions pursuing…’equality’, so that a kind of politicisation of salvation occurs, with the state functioning as de-facto high priest in bringing about a secularised deliverance from oppression…God-centred inward renewal producing external transformation is replaced by external political coercion as the route to the kingdom.

This is a re-run of the missiology popularised by the World Council of Churches in the 1960’s, to which liberal Anglicanism has always been prone: the gospel is associated with a progressive utopian vision, and ‘mission’ is getting the slow and conservative church to wake up and follow a secular programme of social justice. This attitude must neglect or even deny central Christian doctrines of sin and salvation, holiness and Christ’s uniqueness, but also as we’re seeing, it takes the side of adult concerns about sexual freedom, and fear of criticism from powerful lobby groups, over against the protection of children against inappropriate sexualisation.

The main target of Boot’s criticism however is contemporary evangelical pietism which avoids controversial clashes with society’s leaders and agendas, because it associates God’s kingdom entirely with the church. In this model, believers are encouraged to focus on personal spiritual growth, investing gifts and resources in church buildings and activities, but not develop a vision for transformation of the culture – certainly not in any way that might be seen as unpopular. The society in which we live which is seen as a given – it might be benign, neutral or hostile but we can’t do anything to change it nor should we try. Boot calls this “churchianity” – a designation which a generation or two ago used to refer to nominal, formal Christian observance without heart conversion, but here is applied to born-again people restricting the miraculous life and ministry empowered by the indwelling Spirit of Christ to individual salvation and church life, rather than the whole of creation.

Well-known Washington DC-based Baptist pastor Mark Dever is given as an example of ‘churchianity’ thinking, but Boot could just as easily have taken English independent evangelical leader John Stevens’ view, as set out in his book Knowing our Times (see a very positive review here)Both pastors are highly influential; they are commended for being firm and clear in adherence to historic Christian doctrines, committed to evangelism and the growth of the church. Both recognise the increasing slide towards secularism and even paganism in the USA and Britain, and the challenges that this brings to Christians.

However both pastors are critical of attempts by churches or Christian campaigning groups to oppose bad legislation, which for example facilitate abortion or same sex marriage, damage family life or threaten freedom of speech and conscience (which have affected bakers, street preachers, Christian teachers and parents among others). John Stevens accuses such Christian cultural activism of being motivated by a nostalgic desire to return to a mythical golden age of Christendom; rather, as he repeats many times, “we should not be surprised” that the laws and values of our country do not reflect Christian values, because most people are not Christian. The answer is to evangelise and build up the church, not to try to shape the nation’s morality and laws.

This ‘churchianity’ thinking, according to Boot, is traced back to the medieval Christianisation of Greek philosophy by scholastic theologians. Accepting the idea of Plato and Aristotle that reality is composed of a higher, invisible realm of forms, ideas and spirit, and a lower material realm, they saw society, culture and the state as belonging to the latter, and the church and salvation as acting only in the spiritual part of reality. The church in the time of the enlightenment built on this dualism: state and culture are the realm of reason; church and individual spiritual life the area of faith. The result is a church in a corner, not seeing the world as its responsibility – in fact, though it believes in Christ’s universal Lordship, it has “surrendered one area after another to Christ’s enemies” (Boot, p21).

The irony, according to Boot, is that many proponents of ‘churchianity’ are theologically rooted in the Reformed tradition, but follow Lutheran rather than Calvin in attitudes to culture and mission.

How should we respond to systemic unbelief and its effect on all aspects of culture? Most evangelicals would say the aim is to build up the church, and encourage faith and obedience to God there. Boot, quoting a number of theologians with Dutch-sounding names, insists the aim should be to promote systemic and comprehensive submission to Christ in all areas of society.

Government’s secular humanist sex education policies have been driven by ideologues who know how to change culture. There is some resistance to the agenda from ordinary Muslim mums and dads, withdrawal by evangelicals, and submission by liberal Protestants. Boot’s critique of the latter two responses is challenging and should contribute to a profound rethinking of mission paradigms among faithful bible-believing Christians. The call to faithful Christians to confidently proclaim Christ’s Lordship in the whole of life rather than just the church, needs to be heard, but Boot’s vision of the solution (expanded in his major work, The Mission of God) could be seen as unrealistic. Before the church can begin to re-shape culture in the way it did in the time of King Alfred or the Reformation, it needs to unite around the truth and take a stand against what’s wrong. We need further thinking on the church’s engagement with spiritual powers of evil, in serious analysis, in disciplined intercession, in caring, creative and costly witness, in prophetic word and action.

Welsh Anglicans gather around ‘Essentials’

Posted by on Mar 19, 2019 in 2-Important Posts, Church In Wales, Editorial Blog, Orthodoxy | Comments Off on Welsh Anglicans gather around ‘Essentials’

by Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream.

“If you despise the day of small things, the Church in Wales is not for you”, said the Archdeacon of Cardigan. The comment received a loud ripple of chuckles from the 150 strong assembly of the inaugural meeting of Anglican Essentials Wales on 15th and 16th March. Anglicans in Wales are not numerous, and declining; few congregations number over 100. On one level the modesty is justified.

But at the same time, this gathering represents a significant statement. As was pointed out, an equivalent conference taking place in the Church of England, aiming to unite different constituencies of conservative evangelical, charismatic and anglo-catholic, around an agreed agenda of theological orthodoxy in the face of a revisionist hierarchy, would need to number 5000 people to reflect the same proportion of the national church as a whole.

Also, the Essentials Wales meeting signalled genuine unity in diversity: delegates were of a range of ages with a good number under 40; the worship (with distinctive Welsh singing) was consciously a mixture of traditional and contemporary; female clergy shared the compering duties with traditionalist complementarians; clear bible-based evangelical preaching took place next to candles. A reformed theological seminary was commended by one speaker, the Walsingham pilgrimage by the next!

Archdeacon Strange’s introductory talk set the scene. The Church in Wales is at a crossroads. The authority of Scripture, and the gospel of Christ based on the apostolic deposit is apparently no longer accepted by much of the Church’s leadership, who derive an understanding of God’s character and a vision of human flourishing from experience and anecdote. Christ is presented as a good option among many, illustrating God’s love rather than uniquely achieving salvation. And Bishops appear to genuinely believe that uncritically embracing tenets of progressive politics, and new ideologies of sexual liberation, is being counter-cultural rather than being subservient to the spirit of the age.

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali gave the first address, on ‘Mission and authority’, and also closed the conference by presiding at the Communion service. He reminded the gathering that Anglicanism has always been clear about Scripture having the final authority, not only over tradition and reason, but also over cultural norms and in ethical issues thrown up by contemporary science. He devoted some time with his customary clarity to setting out key principles of interpretation of Scripture. While Christianity has always been very flexible in translating itself into different culture, Anglican leaders in one culture act unilaterally should not go against the authoritative controls of orthodoxy, and create something unrecognizable by other faithful Christians. He ended by calling on Anglican Essentials Wales to become a movement for renewal and reform.

The authoritative Scriptures tell of the human condition of alienation from God through sin, and present Jesus as unique Saviour and Lord. Such a message is being undermined in the Church in Wales as in other Western Anglican Provinces, but the faithful can make a difference by preaching it with confidence. This was the theme of the second talk, by Lee Gatiss, who showed from church history going back to the early fathers, and from the Anglican formularies rooted in the Reformation, that authentic Christian mission has always been based on the understanding that faith in Christ alone is essential for salvation.

The diversity of the conference was illustrated further on day two, when the main speakers were Lorna Ashworth, a conservative evangelical formerly of General Synod and Archbishops’ Council, and Philip North. Not surprisingly, the Bishop of Burnley steered clear of comments about theological differences between the conference delegates and their Bishops. He began by affirming his adherence to evangelical understandings of Scripture and the person and work of Christ, but recognised that many in his audience would not necessarily agree with some of his focus, which was on the need for the church to take seriously the power of the sacraments to visually illustrate the message of Christ’s death, our need for conversion, the subversion of the world’s values.

Mrs Ashworth took Paul’s evangelistic principle of being “all things to all people” to explore how the faithful church can remove unnecessary obstacles to make the gospel culturally relevant, while being counter-cultural in not compromising on the essentials of the faith, trusting in the Spirit’s work. Her talk was followed by heartfelt exchanges during the question time, on some realities of practical application, including the pain and tension felt by those who want to remain faithful to Jesus and his word, when a loved one embraces the gay lifestyle.

The development of a grassroots orthodox movement is timely, given the clear signal from the Welsh Bishops that the revisionist programme will continue. The name ‘Anglican Essentials’ takes its name from a similar vision in Canada in the mid-1990’s, which eventually led to the formation of the Anglican Network, part of the Anglican Church in North America. There was no discussion at this conference of a similar secession; rather, for the moment, a determination to unite within Welsh Anglicanism around the restatement of Christian truth, and commitment to mutual encouragement and continued evangelistic mission in the face of an increasingly hostile environment in church and nation.

The Anglican Essential Wales Statement of Faith can be found on their website, which will soon feature a Communique from the conference.


Can British Anglicanism reinvent itself as a counter-cultural movement?

Posted by on Mar 12, 2019 in 2-Important Posts, Church of England, Editorial Blog | Comments Off on Can British Anglicanism reinvent itself as a counter-cultural movement?

by Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream.

The idea of a national church, represented in every settlement, with concern for and influence in politics and culture, theologically and liturgically aligned to the worldview of the bible, apostles and early creeds, clearly ‘reformed’ ie steering clear of contra-biblical accretions of medieval Catholicism, but generous in its distinguishing between essentials of the faith and ‘adiaphora’ – this is all part of what has been described as “the genius of Anglicanism”. The English church of the 16th and 17th centuries grew out of bitter controversies of the time to become a way of doing church which has successfully taken root in many nations and cultures around the world.

While its lack of detailed confessions of faith or a Magisterium has made it susceptible to syncretism (the mixing of Christian worship and ideas with pagan and secular influences), the same is true of other Protestant denominations, as well as Roman Catholicism itself. Anglicanism remains bible-based in its foundational documents, especially the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer and the Homilies, and so in theory it should be a good vehicle for faithful worship and mission. But in practice in recent times, a failure of leadership in the institutional church, a capitulation to theological liberalism and secular pragmatism, and relentless decline in numbers of those who attend, means that genuine questions are being asked about the future of the Church of England, even if Anglicanism in other contexts is thriving around the world.

This was the subject of the annual Jesmond Conference which took place in Newcastle on 11-12 March. The Conference format has been the same for the past five years: bible expositions, a series of four talks by veteran vicar of Jesmond Parish Church David Holloway, and opportunity for round table discussion. Holloway has long been a proponent of radical action within the C of E, testing the boundaries of the law: this has included declaring his church to be in impaired communion with the Diocesan Bishop, facilitating “irregular” ordinations under the auspices of a South African Anglican denomination, planting new churches outside Diocesan control, and even in 2017 supporting the consecration of his associate minister, Jonathan Pryke, as missionary Bishop, to symbolically kick-start an experimental new model of being the Church of England.

It was Jonathan Pryke who delivered two excellent expositions from Revelation 2, clearly setting out the apostle’s challenging and relevant prophecies, and making applications for today’s church. These talks contained an important devotional focus on the authoritative origin of the messages, the glorious risen Christ himself, the Lord of the Church. Pryke highlighted the contemporary feel of the letter to Thyatira, with its condemnation of “Jezebel” and her followers, church members who celebrate sexual immorality, and others who turn a blind eye to blatantly false teaching; the promise of judgement if there is no repentance.

But this was not just finger-pointing at others from a self-congratulatory conservative evangelical point of view. The letter to the Ephesian church warns about the loss of the “love you had at first”, where the Christian life becomes a duty-driven, joyless drudgery rather than motivated by love for the person of Jesus and excitement about the good news of salvation. I was particularly struck by the conditional promise given to those in Thyatira remaining faithful but weary and perhaps doubting whether continued contending for truth and goodness has any impact: “to the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations”. The idea of a small group of faithful believers who are a minority without much influence even in their own corrupt church having a global impact seems absurd, just as it does when we read the context of the Great Commission at the end of Matthew’s gospel. But the history of Christian mission shows it to be true. Here in Revelation 2:26 the promise of gospel influence for the church is specifically conditional on continued obedience to Christ by individuals in the small, often unseen areas of life.

David Holloway’s four talks were entitled ‘The genius of Anglicanism’, ‘The reality of the present’, ‘Law and courageous leadership, and ‘Future possibilities’; they can be accessed in full on Clayton TV. The series began with the historical origins of the C of E and Anglicanism, and then moved to the contemporary contrast between the biblically orthodox foundations (enshrined for example in Canon A5) and endemic theological liberalism, or put another way, a complete loss of confidence by much of the current leadership in the original tenets of Anglicanism. Holloway spoke from experience of decades of observation when he described liberalism as mutating to accommodate the spirit of the age, with ultimately no integrity or credibility.

The implications are serious not just for the church, but for the nation, as there is clearly a link between church decline, the breakdown of sexual morality, marriage and family life, and dangerous threats to civil order such as we are seeing in some urban areas. The responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of Church of England Bishops, many of whom are guilty of ‘conduct unbecoming’ by overtly supporting pagan ideologies and practices such as gay pride. However the situation is not helped by an increasing tendency towards pietism among many evangelicals, who rationalize non-involvement in issues such as abortion, free speech, and sex education driven by the LGBT agenda, claiming that any attempt to influence society for good outside a narrow evangelistic focus is “Christendom thinking”. There were useful inputs from representatives of the Newcastle-based Christian Institute as well as London-based Christian Concern on this point.

Another issue of disagreement among evangelicals is whether we should be optimistic about the possibility of the reform of the Church of England for the evangelisation of the nation (Holloway’s view), or more pessimistic in view of the scale of apostasy in the church, lack of interest in the gospel in society, and hostility from government. This latter view envisages a return to faithful, often small communities preserving the faith for future generations; teaching children at home, articulating a radically counter-cultural worldview, linked to orthodox international movements. Whatever we think, it’s important to preserve unity, and also to remember Burke’s dictum that “nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little”.

Thanksgiving for the life of Michael Green

Posted by on Mar 4, 2019 in 2-Important Posts, Editorial Blog, Evangelism | Comments Off on Thanksgiving for the life of Michael Green

Anglican Mainstream report.

Andrew Symes writes:

The famous image of Christ, lantern in hand, about to knock on a door overgrown with weeds, with no discernible handle, was painted by William Holman Hunt around 1850. Posters and other copies are to be found all over the world, including a ten foot high version behind the Communion table at St Aldates, Oxford. It was appropriate that this should be the visually arresting backdrop for the funeral of evangelist, scholar and pastor Michael Green, who would have preached many times on Revelation 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock”. Perhaps some of the many hundreds of those gathered to pay their respects on March 2nd had come to faith years ago because of Michael’s urgent call to “open the door to Jesus” based on that verse?

The service was introduced by the current Rector of St Aldates, Charlie Cleverley; Michael was a predecessor there from the mid 70’s to the mid 80’s before he went to teach evangelism and doctrine in Vancouver. Bishop of Oxford Steven Croft also said a few words, remembering how when a student during that time, he had studied Hebrews in Greek with Michael one-to-one: “under Michael Green, generations of ministers of the gospel were formed and shaped”. Bruce Gillingham, a former colleague of Michael’s at Wycliffe Hall, and who accompanied him on many mission trips, then led the service with his usual humour and grace, noting that Michael himself often interrupted liturgy with informality. (That reminded me of an occasion back in the mid 1980’s when Michael spoke at the University where I was studying; after his talk he invited us to “be laid back in the Lord and invite the Holy Spirit to minister to us”, which I recall annoyed some of the more buttoned-up members!)

Bruce Gillingham read a short note, “written in that familiar spidery writing”, which he had found in a book of Michael’s by his bedside as his life was drawing to a close. A mark of Christians in the face of death is to mourn, but not as those who have no hope. Jesus promised that his followers would be with him in his Father’s house. To depart and be with Christ, seeing him face to face, is far better. 2 Timothy 4:6-8: “the time for my departure is at hand…now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness”. As with airports, said Bruce, a departure means a farewell, but it is not an ending, rather a journey to a known destination.

Very moving tributes from families followed. Rosemary, Michael’s dear wife of many decades (they first got to know each other while serving together on the OICCU[1] executive committee around 1950) read Isaiah 41:10 which she said Michael had learned by heart as a teenager and which sustained him through his life. Tim, the eldest son, long-serving missionary in the East, outlined his father’s biography, mentioning his considerable gifts and achievements but also capturing a strong flavour of the man as father, friend and unique person. His impact around the world was remarkable, and his energy and passion for the gospel meant that he was still writing and preaching until just before his death at the age of 88. He was servant-hearted and generous, but notoriously frugal with himself; he loved spending time with family, and fishing when on holiday, but sometimes could not resist using some of his leave for writing the next book! (he wrote 50 in all).

After his return from Canada and then the US, Michael continued teaching at Wycliffe Hall; he and Rosemary settled in Abingdon near Oxford, and became part of the Christ Church congregation, whose vicar, Keith Dunnett, paid tribute to Michael’s preaching, pastoral care of individuals including Keith and his wife, and his passion to reach the nation with the good news of Christ. 2 Timothy 4 with its call to “preach the word…do the work of an evangelist”, and Paul’s testimony “the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed” was an appropriate Scripture at this point, read with the visible emotions of sadness at their loss and pride in their father’s life by Sarah, Jenny and Jonathan, Michael’s other children.

Lindsay Brown, long time leader of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students and veteran of many university evangelistic missions with Michael, gave the main address. He began with more biographical details, then remarked that Michael’s attitude was the opposite of that of early 20th century politician Lloyd George, who saw youth as blunder, middle age as struggle and old age as regret. Instead, those present could celebrate a remarkable life of achievement and selfless service, which ended joyfully, at peace, looking forward to the future.

After noting some key points from 2 Timothy 4: the call to evangelism, the relationship with the Lord, the hope of heaven, Brown suggested we remember Michael for three particular traits. He was courageous, not afraid to challenge people with the gospel, using God’s word like a fencer (a sport at which he excelled as a young man). His ministry was always contemporary – his early evangelistic books in the 60’s had a freshness which set them apart from some of the “worthy, but dull” style of the time. Well into his 80’s he still was thinking of new ways to engage students, using music, drama, even using rap poetry!

And then he was Christ-centred. Brown concluded with a story of Michael preaching in a prison in India, where for some reason he was wearing ecclesiastical robes, perhaps at the request of the high church chaplain. Explaining what Christ has done for us, he asked a prisoner to remove his dirty rag of a shirt. Michael took off his pristine white surplice, put on the dirty shirt, and put the robe on the prisoner. “The place erupted”.

All who attended were given a copy of Michael’s most recent publication, ‘Jesus for Sceptics’, which has been translated into many languages and is the best-selling evangelistic book on European campuses today. This is typical of Michael’s enduring international impact. Before the service was concluded with the committal and a blessing from former Archbishop George Carey, we were given a challenge: who will take up the baton? The faithful church needs to encourage, nurture, resource and pray for the new generation of evangelists who will communicate the message of the One who stands at the door and knocks, in a society which has largely forgotten him, and where ‘another gospel’ (2 Tim 4:3-4) is, sadly, increasingly found in the church itself.

Andrew Symes is the Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream.

Chris Shell writes:
     After lunch, the proceedings resumed with over 20 ‘open microphone’ tributes. Had it ever been doubted, Michael emerged as the ‘five-talent man’, and even to some degree the ‘other Wesley, to stalk this land’, for whom his mentor Eric Nash had long ago repeatedly prayed; yet his enriching and unique character, even with all its imperfections, was more treasured still.
     Former Cabinet minister Revd Jonathan Aitken remembered Michael as ‘friend, mentor, tutor, and prayer-partner’, recounting an occasion when his unrelenting soul-winning instinct (‘it’s no good influencing the fish – you’ve got to get them in the net’) found him and the convert-to-be wandering head-in-clouds across the Oxford Playhouse stage. And ‘I did bag him for Jesus’, rejoiced Michael.That was always his ultimate joy: we also heard how at James Robson’s conversion he leapt in the air; and how to a drunken man he called that joy ‘better than making love’.
     Long-time colleague and friend Revd Andrew Wingfield Digby spoke of Michael’s never-say-die faith when Andrew’s whole cricket team were left stranded visa-less the night before their flight for an India tour that involved playing the national XI. As Andrew pounded on the vicarage door at 11pm, Michael had to cut short the casting out of an evil spirit (‘But what about the evil spirit, Michael?’ ‘Oh, I told him to wait.’). There was a further story of telling successive batting partners also to ‘Wait! Yes! No! Sorry!’ – among other warts-and-all eccentricities.
     Revd Charlie Cleverly told of how Michael led a man to Christ right in the midst of Communion being passed along a row, and then shouted ‘Bring back the bread!’ once the commitment was made.
     Evangelist J John, with his wife Killy, spoke of the mentor who pushed him hard to undertake university missions. Accordingly, he led 102 of them, though when speaking in tandem with Michael he felt like the after-dinner mint to Michael’s 3-course meal.
     We heard from former Oxford colleagues Revd John Samways (Michael’s 7 wickets for 3 runs on page 1 of The News of the World – all because he’d bagged the downhill end) and his predecessor Preb. John Woolmer (the incredible tale of the resurrection of dilapidated St Matthew’s church, as Michael cried ‘Fling wide the gates!’ after 30 minutes of ‘seeking’ prayer, and received the first convert through the open doors almost at once). Bishop Colin Buchanan spoke of army days, and of the ancient friendship triumvirate with Julian Charley: their era at the London College of Divinity / St John’s Nottingham ‘changed the nature of theological education’.
     Carl Armerding and Bill Stewart travelled from Regent College, Vancouver – where the impact of Michael and Rosemary’s brief stay (1987-92), during which both faculty and student body experienced a notable renewal, is still definitive for the current President, Dean, and board.
     Several younger UCCF workers gave their tributes, including ‘young Michael’ Ots. A bewildering succession of multiple UK and international university mission-talk programmes, even at Cambridge yet again, marked Michael’s 88th year – his ‘departure’ (in the Pauline sense) was always going to be in a blaze – and how this impacted the young co-workers and students who were with him! Even with his heart at one-third capacity, his energy and effervescence remained legendary. Daughter-in-law Rachel pleaded with him to take a holiday; inevitably he responded that there’d be plenty of time for that in heaven.
     Finally, Michael’s beloved wife Rosemary spoke movingly of her husband’s remarkable initiative and leadership gifts, and his passion for students. The institutions of LCD / St John’s (till 1975) and St Aldate’s (1975-87) were transformed. Gowns and choir-robes went out; Christian-names, shared leadership (according to giftings) and a stronger female profile came in. Michael and Rosemary were themselves the shining example of shared, complementary ministry – which they both adored. The session ended with a heartfelt ovation for Rosemary, and a recommitment by her and others to the evangelistic spirit and the eternal gospel.
     Dr Christopher Shell, a married father of 3 who attended St Aldate’s 1984-90, manages a large Christian store and is an occasional speaker at academic New Testament conferences.


Some earlier tributes can be found here.


[1] Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union

Sex education compulsory; worship optional; children at risk. How should we respond?

Posted by on Feb 26, 2019 in Church of England, Editorial Blog, Sexualisation | Comments Off on Sex education compulsory; worship optional; children at risk. How should we respond?

Sex education compulsory; worship optional; children at risk. How should we respond?

By Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream.

During General Synod last week, what the organisers hoped would be a minor administrative change passing under the radar was picked up on Thursday by a number of national media outlets as a variant of: ‘Sunday services no longer compulsory in the Church of England’. It was pure coincidence, but highly symbolic, that as we posted the Guardian’s report on Anglican Mainstream, the next item on our news page would be about sex education becoming compulsory for even the youngest ages of schoolchildren.

Of itself, there is nothing controversial about the Synod announcement. Altering the canons to remove the need for every parish church still in use to hold a service every Sunday morning and evening would simply bring law into line with reality. Many churches never have evening services, and in multi-parish benefices it has long been the case that some churches in smaller villages will have a service once a month, while the vicar focuses on the churches with larger attendances. Up until now vicars or lay readers really should have been reciting Morning and Evening Prayer alone in empty churches every Sunday, or they will have been technically breaking the law – it seems sensible to make a change, and this has been discussed in previous Synods.

But despite this, the image of a church in terminal decline and essentially unimportant is not dispelled by headlines about making Sunday worship optional.

Similarly, widening Relationships and Sex Education to ensure that children learn how to protect themselves online, and get along with people from different family backgrounds, might not appear controversial. But the revamping of RSE is a move away from the historic understanding of education in partnership with parents (especially on issues of religion and morals), to one that looks increasingly like the imposition of an ideology, through the school system, which is godless and immoral.

Christian Concern, who helped to organize a multi-faith meeting of protest and prayer outside Parliament during the debate on RSE on 25th February, have produced an excellent briefing on the implications of these changes. It is not just that influential lobby groups such as Stonewall and Educate and Celebrate have infiltrated national education, producing materials for teachers to use and proving speakers for assembles which relentlessly promote LGBT themes and ideas to children. Nor is the problem just that head teachers have been given increasing powers to direct the policy and curriculum of schools of RSE. Ideologically-driven Principals pushing policies and materials promoting the ‘inclusion’ agenda have already created clashes with parents from Muslim and Christian backgrounds, who regard this to be inappropriate or even immoral.

These things are alarming enough. Melanie Phillips writing in the Times [£] says:

The impulse to spread tolerance and protect children from harm is commendable but this is not the primary aim of this policy. It is rather to impose the doctrine of equal sexual lifestyle choice. This doctrine is not a neutral concept. As a direct attack on normative morality, it is an ideology that schools have no business imposing on pupils….many parents have already expressed great concern over the way sex education is prematurely sexualising their children…

but the bigger issue is the overarching power that the State has taken upon itself, to override the wishes of parents in their children’s education, assumptions that are guaranteed in various international accords on human rights. As Christian Concern say:

If parliament asserts a right to determine which beliefs a parent can or cannot instil in his or her own children, it infringes upon a fundamental liberty upon which the social order is established. By usurping a parents’ role as the custodians and guardians for their children’s development, parliament threatens religious liberty and the freedoms of conscience, belief, and even speech.

The contrast between General Synod, legislating to reflect the national decline in churchgoing and lack of interest in the things of God, and Parliament, legislating to ensure that no child escapes the new moralities of secularism, could not be more marked. It is certainly not a coincidence that, symbolically, worship becomes optional at a time when training in immorality becomes compulsory. This trend is found in other areas as well: the C of E’s ‘Living in Love and Faith’ project makes the historic and bible-based teaching on sex and marriage optional, while “full inclusion” of those living and promoting a different ethical position is compulsory. Abstinence for people who have same-sex desires is optional, but keeping hold of those desires is compulsory.

However, many well-meaning Christian parents and teachers, including those associated with Church of England schools, don’t seem concerned about the changes in sex education. “Surely we should support programmes in schools which teach children to be kind?” The answer of course is that good schools have always fostered an ethic of care and respect, making bullying and bigotry unacceptable, beginning with a relationship of mutual support between the head teacher and the parents, who should have ultimate responsibility for instilling morals and values according to their worldview. But now that increasingly, bullying, bigotry and even ‘extremism’ is associated with simply holding traditional views on sex and marriage, Christian parents and teachers can no longer assume that all is well. They may need to prepare for conflict if we are not to see the ‘sex-positive: all consensual sex is good’ message being taught to all children from an early age by default.

But should Christians be appalled at the sexualisation of children and the erosion of rights and freedoms of parents, or should we just shrug and accept that this is an inevitable result of secularism? Should we be actively involved in protecting children by countering misguided and even evil laws, or should we just do evangelism and discipleship within our local church, since what happens in schools is none of our business, and we can’t expect things to change unless people become Christians? Certainly this has never been the Anglican position: mission is not just getting individuals converted and into church, but also about changing society for the better. If people are speeding on my local road and children are at risk, I cannot simply fold my arms and say “we shouldn’t be surprised – the drivers are not Christians”. Nor is the ministry of practical care just a matter of helping those affected by a sinful world. To paraphrase Bonhoeffer, our job is not only to help people crushed by the wheel, but to stop the wheel itself.

The sexual revolution is getting out of control. If my church is not able to take a stand by at least clearly articulating the bible’s positive teaching on sex and the dire warnings of Christ for those who lead children into sin, should I perhaps think about going to, or even starting, another one?