Sydney Episcopalian Mission Impossible

The cruise liner Costa Concordia running aground in the past couple of days brings to mind a recurring feature of ships sinking - there is a lot of movement on deck.

Depending on the urgency of the situation the pace of movement varies but there is always movement as passengers and crew seek a place offering the best opportunity for preservation of life.

That scene has its parallel in the Church and never was it more evident in the so-called evangelical church in the latter half of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century. Traditional denominational barriers have collapsed in that period as Christians seek safe haven from the onset of liberalism and consequent departure from recognising Scripture as the inspired Word of God.

While churches which brought on the slide bemoan their falling numbers and rising financial concerns those churches which gained from the transfer growth have been prone to erroneously believing they "have it all together".

Just as a sinking ship has no place affording long term survival so a church compromising at one level or another on the Word of God can offer no long term benefit to Christians.

Deuteronomy 32:36 has application here:

"The Lord will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free."

As suggested in recent days by John in his blog, much of the evangelical church, including the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney, espouses faith in and upholding of the Word of God but, in reality, they do not trust the Word implicitly. Their failing is at one or more points but it can all be put down to two key themes - they have diluted the Gospel by turning it into a man-centred message and they have ceased to make the Word of God the rule of all practice.

With respect to many co-called evangelical churches and most of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney the thoughts of man override all past interpretation of Genesis 1 to the extent of ruling out having the Word of God the rule of practice. It is no longer what Scripture clearly says but what man says it ought to be saying.

This is a recipe for failure and it is being worked out in practice. The mission of the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney to get 10% of the population of Sydney into Bible based churches by this year (although former Bishop Piper said it was to be year 2010) shows no valid sign of being fulfilled. Part of the strategy - Connect '09 - could not possibly be seen as giving the impetus for mission success. The smoothing words and celebrated 'pockets' of encouragement are a long way from the fervent activity one would expect to be seeing if the mission was on track.

Further, the Archbishop's production of figures suggesting a 5% increase in Sydney Episcopalian church attendance for year 2010 fails to identify transfer growth from denominations which have have made greater steps of departure from the Word of God than the Sydney Diocese. Transfer growth as part of only a 5% increase in Episcopalian pewsitting is a far cry from 10% of the population of Sydney being in Bible based churches.

Sydney Diocese, if you persist in trusting the word of man over the Word of God and acting in your own strength instead of God's strength you will run head first into the conviction of Deuteronomy 32:36.

Sam Drucker

The Mistaken Christ.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever " - Hebrews 13:8

Our Lord Jesus Christ by his nature, by his activity, by his word - all recorded sufficiently for there to be no mistake (only devices would lead to the contrary) - stands irrefutably an argument against any suggestion of an evolutionary process as means of the creation coming into existence - either by chance or by guiding mind.

The point has been made here before and, were he alive today, would be made by John Charles Ryle, former Bishop of Liverpool and author of many works of help to Christians in the 19th Century and subsequent centuries.

To grasp his thinking I have extracted some of his words on the passage of Scripture "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8)

"What of this very world in which we live and move and have our being? It has stamped upon it the marks of a tremendous change; it is no longer the same as it was in the beginning. It cannot be that fair creation of which God pronounced every part and portion to be very good. Doubtless we are not ignorant: it is still a beautiful world, clothed with all that is lovely to the eye, furnished with all that is necessary to our comfort, stored with everything that can make life enjoyable. You may see everywhere the traces of a Father's hand. But still, we repeat, this world is not what it once was: it is no longer the same—no more the same than the gallant ship which yesterday did walk the waters like a thing of life, and today is dashed high on the beach and lies there a wreck, dismasted, shattered, and forsaken—no more the same than the ruin of some ancient house of God, which in days gone by was set apart and hallowed for religious services, and now stands desolate and silent and alone, with weeds and briars creeping over its floor, and ivy hanging about its broken walls like a widow's garment. Just so this world has gone through a blighting, withering change; and therefore it is we see so much of lusts unbridled and tempers ungoverned and passions unrestrained and intellects degraded and affections misplaced and powers misapplied, and God neglected, dishonored, and lightly esteemed. The sicknesses which devour their thousands, and the wars which cut off their tens of thousands, and the graves of infants snatched away in the springtime of life, and the tears and distresses and troubles and sorrows and afflictions which God never placed in Eden, but of which we now hear continually—all these tell you the same tale. The world is no longer the same. All these are the handwriting on the wall to remind us that man, like an unfaithful steward, has marred and spoiled his Maker's handiwork by his own sin, and so put the creation out of order and course ...

But we have not time, beloved, to compare earth as it is with earth as it was before Adam fell; it is enough to know that by his transgression all things suffered, for after his transgression all things were altered. We would rather go on to set before you proofs which are more under your eyes and come within your own observation. We wish you to feel the full force and blessedness of the character St. Paul has given to your Lord and Savior in our text; and in order to this we think it of first importance to establish in your minds this grand point—that there is nothing on earth of which you can say it is unchangeable, it is always the same, yesterday, today, and forever ...

We would remind you, then, that Jesus has always been the same in His office, person, and nature. In these latter days He has graciously made plain to our eyes the way of salvation, by coming upon earth to teach, to suffer, and to die; He has proved Himself the Son of God with power by rising again from the dead. But still we would not have you forget He was always the same—yesterday as well as today ...

Before the mountains were brought forth, or the earth and world were formed, from everlasting Jesus Christ was, like the Father, very God. From the beginning He was foreordained to be the Saviour of sinners;"

Oh, that the Episcopalian Church of today were not predominantly blighted by degenerate thinkers occupying positions of influence over the mind of people earnestly seeking to know their Creator, Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! Oh, that they would have faith in the word of God!

Oh, that there were a proliferation of clergy and theological seminary lecturers who are of the stamp of John Charles Ryle who was far closer to the doctrine of the Reformers and Puritans than the present generation is ever likely to be! How much healthier would the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney be under such thinking and teaching? How much more likely would the Diocese have been able to avoid the financial crisis which demonstrated our being too nearer to worldly thinking than the mind of God? How much more effective in evangelism would the Diocese be than the failed Connect 09? (I know the Archbishop sensed a slight swelling in our numbers but I expect the swelling will soon be seen as nothing more than a body of air which, like a burp, will soon be expelled from the body).

To restate John Charles Ryle: We would remind you, then, that Jesus has always been the same in His office, person, and nature. This Jesus is the Son of God who once created all things out of nothing in an instant, albeit different orders on different units of six consecutive days in the beginning. This same Son of God Incarnate, some 2,000 years ago, performed all the acts one would assign to the Creator and all in the sight of many earthen witnesses. This same Son of God will one day raise up, fully formed and in an instant, all who have ever lived though they be so long departed from this world that their remains are now as nothing.

If only the many in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney had as much faith in this Son of God as they have in the world.

Sam Drucker

Speaking of rest...

Yesterday was the Newtown Festival. It attracts some 80,000 (mostly lost) people. I couldn't see any Christian outreach. Once again, right in the heart of Sydney Anglican land, a stone's throw from, that spiritual bulwark against all things non-Christian, Moore College, not a Christian stand anywhere....except a creationist one, at times doing a rather busy trade and all.

Sorry I didn't see any other Christians proclaiming Christ at Sydney's own Mars Hill. Oh well, maybe Michael Jensen and his really-much-more-Christian-than-you-creationists-because-you-preach-another-Gospel mates can set their alarms for next year and be seen to be doing some evangelism. They should be the real experts by now, what after that great success...what was its name....Disjunct oh 9? Only cost them more than a million bucks and look at the harvest. What a bargain. And they still have lots of Essential Jesus booklets by the truck load left over which they can use until 2109, maybe even stretched to 2209

No, maybe they won't be bothered turning up. Apparently they prefer to spend their time writing about Barth, Peak Oil and goodness knows what other sort of unintelligible irrelevancies our other great Sydney Anglican mate the Reverend Gordie Chengster continually spins out over at his blog.

SAD. So SAD.

Kant on Connect09

"Making plans is often the occupation of an opulent and boastful mind, which thus obtains the reputation of a creative genius by demanding what it cannot itself supply, by censuring what it cannot improve, and by proposing what it knows not where to find."
Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics (p. 10 in the Bobbs-Merrill edition of 1950)

Somehow reminds me of Connect09....and 'Do it Again in 2000 and Ten"

Connect '09 - Was God Listening?

Faithfulness brings its reward.

Recently, I was blessed to see the Lord our God at work in the lives of believers. But first, understand where I had to come from to experience that blessing.

My mind for a couple of years has been occupied with the buzz of promotional activities rallying the troops of Sydney Anglican Diocese toward Connect 09. The year 2008 saw encouragement after encouragement from organizers of Connect 09 to be praying and preparing for the big event the next year. This was to be the event crucial to getting 10% of the public within the region into bible believing churches by year 2012. That 10% were not to all enter those churches in 2009 but 2009 was the year the big connection was to be made from which would flow exponential growth in church numbers.

While unbelievers were celebrating the introduction of the New Year at 00:01am on January 1 2009 the organization team for Connect '09 were undoubtedly filled with excitement in anticipation of what the year would bring. Here was the largest evangelical Anglican Diocese in the universe about to, well, evangelize. But this was no ad hoc isolated exercise, it was to be a unified campaign where ideas would be shared. The Diocesan Newspaper would be the medium for encouraging parishes to adopt the initiatives of others. That same newspaper would carry constant motivational urgings from the Archbishop.

Well, year 2009 came and went but not without a flurry of activity albeit some parishes more active than others. Contacts were made, this cannot be denied. Some people who were not attending church decided to go to church. The name of the parish church was brought to the attention of many in the community. Added to that was presentation to many of the gospel according to Luke under the banner of "The Essential Jesus." Again, a lot would have read this and some motivated to inquire further. However, if it was not obvious beforehand, it became obvious in the latter part of year 2009 that the scale of response to Connect '09 was underwhelming - far below what was needed to predict achieving the target of 10% of the population in bible believing churches by year 2012. In the latter part of the year there emerged utterances urging continuation of Connect '09 into year 2010 and beyond. Read from that enthusiasm emanating from the success of Connect '09 or a statement that results lack fruit? I read the latter! It would be an error to confuse a flurry of activity with an ongoing connection of large numbers of people with the church.

Don't just take my observations. You can read the report on the effectiveness of Connect '09 in the latest edition of Southern Cross. I urge you to read beyond the soothing words which try to reach equilibrium between positives and negatives. Be in no doubt, there are unstated negatives.

Something presently is dreadfully wrong with the capacity of Sydney Anglican Diocese to impact the community with the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. There was prayer. There was a lot of prayer and it was directed to our Lord and God. Remember our Lord's words? - "I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18) Since the work is the Lord's work the obvious question is - "Was our Lord listening?"

I now want you to contrast that background with my recent experience of blessing.

I just happened to visit a church out of my area during its evening service. It was not Anglican. Upon arrival I noted the church building was small. It was one of those buildings which arose on the landscape of greater Sydney in a time when faith in our Lord was far more widespread in the community and each suburb was well represented by varying denominations. This building had served - how shall I say it? - a minor denomination and the dimensions of the building were sufficient for the cause. But, in year 2010, our Lord's church is, across the board, not as dominant as it was in days past. Many similar church buildings to this one had gone by the wayside, either demolished for development or sold and modified for other use by the new owner. What hope could I have for this little building or, more responsibly, the expected small body of believers who meet within it's walls? I soon found out.

Initial arrivals were elderly, about ten of them and each 60+ years of age and of Anglo-Saxon appearance. Signs were not good. Then a mixture of middle aged Asians along with more Anglo-Saxons of middle age and young Asian adults and young Anglo-Saxon adults. Then, finally, 20 to 30 teen to young adult Asians made their way into the building. Seating was almost fully occupied - I counted 56 late teens/adults in attendance. Despite this number, one elder of the church expressed to me later his disappointment that numbers were down on expectation because many students, who would normally be present, had examinations the next day and were 'cramming' for the exams. Only old hymns were sung and each with gusto - far more than most contemporary songs sung these days in Anglican churches. There was a buzz of life in this place. Why? The story is this:

A few years ago this was a dying church. The ten or so congregational members were elderly and the church was going to die with them. However, they had faith in our Lord and a desire to participate in the Great Commission (Matt. 28). Their meeting place is situated a few kilometres from a major university campus. The university is attended by many Asian students on temporary visas. This church decided to acquire a mini bus, advertise on campus the provision of free English lessons, a free meal and free transport to these benefits. There was a quick uptake to the offer. Students were also offered free transport to the Sunday services and this too was well received.

This was a missionary work because most students would be returning to China after completion of studies. Our Lord was at work here because, in the few years since commencement of the mission, there have been a minimum of 50 adult baptisms into our Lord Jesus Christ from within these citizens of largely atheistic China. I was not in a position to test the validity of conversions but discussions with congregational members during the after service supper convinced me they were able to discern a living faith.

This night of my visit was occasioned by a visiting speaker from Creation Ministries International - you know, those Biblical Creationists who, like Whitefield & Wesley a little more than two centuries ago, are refused entry to most Anglican Churches. Anyway, this little church, I learned later, had engaged Creation Ministries International speakers on previous occasions and had been delighted with the effect of the ministry.

On this night it was a long service, far longer than, in my experience, was acceptable. It went for two hours. The reason, it seems was that the church had requested showing of the film "Darwin - The Voyage That Shook The World" as well as a talk from the speaker and other aspects of a church service. Despite my reservations about the duration of the service the audience sat attentive and actually applauded the speaker at the end.

I felt I had to remain for the supper despite it being conducted in a somewhat awkward, I thought, location in an upstairs room. It was crowded and abuzz with conversation. I engaged a Chinese girl in conversation. She spoke in thoughtful, precise English verbiage. I asked how long she had been attending the church. She replied that it was her first time because tonight was the first time she could fit in the mini bus. Earlier attempts were thwarted by those who, on this occasion, were absent due to exam requirements. I also asked her what she thought about the film and speaker address. She replied "It was very interesting because, you know, we have been taught evolution in China. I have to look and consider this." I later stood by to see her collect some literature from the Creation Ministries International people and obtain from them their website details.

Just before supper was over I got the speaker aside and, in an attempt at encouragement, passed on my account of the conversation with the girl. He responded with an account of a conversation he had with a young man earlier. The young man came up to him and thanked him. He then said words to the effect of: "Tonight has been an eye-opener for me; I have to rethink so many things. This is the first time in my whole life I've heard anyone speak against evolution. Your presentation was excellent. I want to thank you very much for doing that."

I later left that little church elevated in spirit. What was, in effect, a few years ago virtually a "valley of dry bones" is today full of lively flesh filled with Holy Spirit. Who can account for the 50 or more (and counting) largely atheistic Chinese citizens coming to Australia, encountering love and hospitality from a church of senior citizens who "[We] demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and [we] take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Cor. 10:5)

May our Lord continue to bless the faithfulness of this little church of missionaries - not the least, their faithfulness to the Word of God in Genesis through which they introduce our Lord Jesus Christ, Creator, Saviour and King.

I am left to ask, has the same activity of Holy Spirit been present in Connect '09?

Neil

Stand in the ways and see and ask for the old paths

I had two rather interesting tales passed to me the other day. The concluding remark in one of these, if it weren’t true, might have quite easily served as a joke’s entertaining punchline. It concerned Moore College and its final spiritual and philosophical decrepitude. From without, and put simply, it clearly tips Moore over to the liberal side of the theological divide. More of both these stories later, but first a revisit to ancient Israel.

‘Thus says the LORD:
“Stand in the ways and see,
And ask for the old paths,
where the good way is,
And walk in it;
Then you will find rest for your souls.
But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

“And they have caused themselves to
stumble in their ways,
From the ancient paths,
To walk in pathways
And not on a highway.” (Jeremiah 6:16;18:15)

From the present’s obvious vantage point of being able to peer backwards to the distant past, I’ve often wondered why Israel found it so difficult to appropriately respond to God. Israel did believe in a “God”, of sorts. They understood that the world was created. The people understood that it wasn’t eternal or that it hadn’t just popped into existence from and because of nothing. That much is clear. But why did Israel, time and time again, take the wrong paths?

“How can you say, ‘We are wise,
And the law of the Lord is with us’?
Look, the false pen of the scribe
Certainly works falsehood.” (Jeremiah 8:8)

The prophets, repeatedly, spelled out the solution. It was clearly a product of leadership and these “God-appointed” men giving the wrong information. This specious knowledge didn’t suddenly appear one day, causeless, whole, a take-it-or-leave-it package, but incrementally worked its way into the general consciousness of the people through, and what was generally regarded as innocuous, alterations in revelation. I can almost hear the priests discussing it to the lay person: “Look, trust us. Aren’t we Kohenim, God’s elect. What’s it matter if you believe this? After all, isn’t the main focus of our nation to be on the fact that Moses rescued us from the yoke of the Egyptians? As long as you believe that God saved us, then the rest is secondary. Be reassured that the writers of sacred Scripture never meant that it should be taken so dogmatically as you suggest it should. A little bit of give between the text and reader is to be expected in our enlightened age. I wouldn’t have spent all those years studying at Jerusalem to be wrong on this.” Yes, I can very well imagine such self-serving justification.

Their fundamental error was to replace God and His revelation with themselves as the epistemological nub of their spirituality:

“For my people have committed two evils:
They have forsaken me,
the fountain of living waters,
And hewn themselves cisterns – broken
cisterns that can hold no water.” (Jeremiah 2:13)

Once you substitute God as foundational for knowledge, anything and everything is up for grabs. We should be entirely faithful to God when His Spirit has spoken and we should intellectually honestly deal with that information. Too often people obstinately ignore God’s revelation and turn to another in order to form their understanding of the world.

“Why then has this people slidden back,
Jerusalem, in a perpetual backsliding?
They hold fast to deceit,
They refuse to return.
I listened and heard,
But they do not speak aright.
No man repented of his wickedness,
Saying, ‘What have I done?’
Everyone turned to his own course,
As the horse rushes into the battle.” (Jeremiah 8:5,6)

The other morning an acquaintance visited a local Anglican church. The minister and he had previously spoken by phone about Disconnect ’09 and conversation had immediately turned to the great miracle of creation. Some time later he had walked into the church to pass on an article about the genre of Genesis 1. The minister wasn’t there but his assistant was. Again, rather quickly, they began discussing Genesis 1. My friend pointed out to the young and recently graduated Moorite that he had misidentified historical prose as ahistorical poetry. The young man believed, among other things, that if a piece of writing contains repetition then necessarily it can’t be historical narrative. It was pointed out that on the contrary there is plenty of well-known ancient “secular” historiography containing this literary device. His reply was perhaps the most astounding my friend, or indeed I, have ever heard from a Moorite: “You are arrogant because you ignore the findings of postmodernism’s critique of modernism.”

There you have it: the words of wisdom from 4 years of what I can only label ‘brainwashing’ from an institution that is supposedly serving as Australia’s theological flagship. That this represents the zenith of critical thinking is hardly reassuring. Apparently, the best they can offer is to argue that my friend should throw away his personal relationship with God, in which he attentively allows God, the author of Scripture, to speak to his mind, and instead substitute his own intellect to be the basis for and interpreter of truth. The postmodern project says that the author is dead, allowing the reader to puts his meaning - or any other sinner’s or fool’s for that matter - into the text because the author can no longer speak.

And this is why these Moore graduates can look you in the face and tell you that 6 days does not mean 6 days because God’s intended meaning, if indeed He ever had one, has a shelf-life that has long expired. God, in as much as He is the author of His Word, is silent. If He is silent, then it follows that it is up to us to “discover” what happened at the very beginning.

“Cursed is the man who trusts in man
And makes flesh his strength,
Whose mind departs from the LORD.” (Jeremiah 17:5)

What in fact is happening is that these people are replacing God at the epistemological centre of the search for truth with an ersatz, with an idol of the mind. These people – and first-hand experience bears this out - are no longer approachable by reason because they have forsaken reason and committed adultery with another nation’s gods. Gods do not have to be a physical representation but are more likely to be, and considerably more harmful if they are, the way we think and whom we intellectually rely on.

“For it is the land of carved images,
And they are insane with their idols.” (Jeremiah 50:38)

The other story occurred at a University of NSW New College function. The speaker, a neo-natal expert from Britain and ostensibly a conservative, presented a lecture on ethics, abortion and biogenetic manipulation. In conversation afterwards he explained how he had complete faith in the scientific project, God’s revelation wasn’t perspicuous and that he was free to hold to a long age view of origins. It was pointed out to him that all of the miracles of the Bible were done in no time and perfectly, yet the biggest miracle, creation, according to his own view, was exceedingly slow and error-ridden. Ignoring all reason that instantaneity and perfection are how our minds recognise God’s miraculous working in nature, he shrugged his shoulders, smiled politely, and excused himself.

Clearly, all his mind’s thoughts had not been made captive to Christ and is a perfect example of a Christian’s outlook being directed by a foreign idol, in this case, the secular Enlightenment project. This philosophical approach splits up the things of faith and the things of science, thereby, in the case of the latter, promoting an independent, God-free epistemology in which the Lord is not all in all.

In August’s Southern Cross Moore College’s principal John Woodhouse makes an extraordinary sales pitch for the college. His first supporting argument is the “godliness” of its teachers. Until I read John’s comments I’d never realised in my nearly 30 years of being Christian that it was another man’s “godliness” that we are to set our sights upon, particularly upon those same men, whom John held up as paradigms of virtue, who would also read John’s article. I’d always thought that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” and that it was Christ’s holiness that we are to be subject to. Maybe I’ve missed something from these teachers of God’s law.

But even more alarming (is that possible?!) is John’s outrageous hypocrisy. Quite incredibly he delusionally argues that Moore has a “worldwide reputation for teaching how the whole Bible and all of its parts bear witness to Christ.” John’s italics here serve as a comedic self-parody. If John actually believed that, he would understand the Gospel and Christ’s first office of Creator; but he doesn’t. Christ clearly tells us in Exodus 31 that He “made the heavens and the earth in 6 days”, and John just doesn’t believe this. John believes that the world is old, very old, and that, quite obviously, Jesus didn’t really mean this when he said this 3,500 years ago to Moses. No, despite the disciple John’s and the apostle Paul’s unequivocal statements that in Christ “all things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was made”, despite Christ Himself revealing exactly how long he took to bring the earth into existence, the principal of Moore College, on the contrary, believes that this is just not true. John’s training is in geology and I can only guess that that is where he finds his “intellectual” crutch in order to theologically reinterpret Jesus’ own words to Moses.

I shouldn’t be too severe on John. He does manage, however, to take Jesus’ words seriously, somewhat. At the end of his emphatic statement that the whole Bible serves to witness to Christ, he inserts the textual support for this claim. Bizarrely it’s John 5:39, augmented with an even more emphatic exclamation mark. This verse, as you recall, is Jesus’ own supporting argument to His claim He is from God, namely, that the Old Testament does indeed testify to this. But what is conveniently, and ironically, missing from John Woodhouse’s argument is that Jesus goes on to claim that it was Moses who wrote about Him. Furthermore, Jesus claims that if you don’t believe Moses’ words about Jesus, you won’t believe Jesus’ words about Himself. So, Moses said, after speaking with, in all likelihood, the Creator Jesus, that Jesus took 6 days to create the earth. Moore College argues that this is not what Moses meant. It then goes out into the world (weren’t they spotted standing almost inside St Andrew’s the other week trying to “evangelise”?) and argues with non-believers that it doesn’t really matter what you believe about Moses’ meaning here because you should just believe Jesus died for you.

It’s a very simple formula Jesus put forward: If you don’t believe Moses, you’ll find it incredibly difficult to believe that Jesus said, and meant, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” Teach people a pagan, atheistic philosophy that God incomprehensibly used chance, death and time to create, and then expect them to believe that out of His complete love for us, He died for us, they’ll think you’re fools. And rightly so!

God’s judgement is now upon the Sydney Anglican Diocese. Not only has its leaders committed adultery, but it even has allowed itself to follow the vilest principles of secularism by borrowing money to play the stock exchange. It has lost millions. But it doesn’t end there. Taking its lead from the cold brutality of the corporate business world, it sacks people while its clergy continue on the same salary. Yet it expects to “Connect” with the lost!

“This says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: ‘Behold, I will bring on this city and on all her towns all the doom that I have pronounced against it, because they have stiffened their necks that they might not hear my words.” (Jeremiah 19:15)

Sydney Anglican Diocese - A State of Unbelief

How can it be? The largest conservative Diocese of the Anglican Church in the world, the Sydney Anglican Diocese, launches a huge initiative to connect with the unchurched (Connect 09) as part of an even greater plan to get 10% of the population within the diocesan boundary into bible believing churches. But, on the eve of Connect 09 there is a global financial crisis which, as the year 2009 unfolds, has a devastating effect on Diocesan investments. Severe cutbacks are anticipated, with Southern Cross, the Diocesan newspaper announcing a 50% reduction in staff and reducing by about half the pages of the August 2009 edition. Ministry in many areas will experience cutbacks.

Attempts to connect with the unchurched via Connect 09 produce no reports of substantial increase in church numbers let alone the vital cause of regeneration in Jesus Christ.

All this is not what the Diocese would have hoped for when first contemplating the Archbishop's charge to the Diocese to reach people in the Name of Jesus Christ some years ago.

Well, in this writer's view the problem can be found at the top and in many avenues flowing out from there. Archbishop Peter Jensen has made it known in the past that he is sympathetic to a Theistic Evolution view of the origin of life. In his time as Principal of Moore Theological College there would have been many graduates of the College who entered ministry, are now 'at the coal-face' and hold to Theistic Evolution as an explanation of the origin of life.

Theistic Evolution is untenable with the nature of God Incarnate and His written Word expressed.

In such a circumstance what does the Lord God do? How does He respond to the many prayers for involvement and blessing upon Connect 09?

By events thus far observed are we seeing how God has responded?

Perhaps we gain further insight through the musings of Anglican Bishop J. C. Ryle in the 19th Century when he considered the gospel writer Luke's account of the angelic announcement of a son for aged Zechariah and his barren wife, Elizabeth. (Luke 1:5-25)

"What a striking example we have here of the power of unbelief in a good man! Righteous and holy as Zacharias was, the announcement of the angel appears to him incredible.

A well-instructed Jew, like Zacharias, ought not to have raised this question. No doubt he was well acquainted with the Old Testament. He ought to have remembered the wonderful births recorded there (Gen. 18:11-14; Judg. 13:2-3, 1 Sam. 1:5,19) and that what God has done once He can do again. With Him nothing is impossible. But he forgot all this. He thought of nothing but the arguments of mere human reason and sense. And it often happens in religious matters that, where reason begins, faith ends.

How exceeding sinful the sin of unbelief is in the sight of God! (v.20) The doubts and questionings of Zacharias brought down upon him the heavy chastisement peculiarly suited to the offence. The tongue that was not ready to speak the the language of believing praise was struck dumb. For nine long months at least, Zacharias was condemned to silence, and was daily reminded that by unbelief he had offended God.

Few sins appear to be so peculiarly provoking to God as the sin of unbelief. It is a practical denial of God's almighty power to doubt whether He can do a thing when He undertakes to do it. It is giving the lie to God to doubt whether He means to do a thing when He has plainly promised it shall be done.

Let us watch and pray daily against this soul-ruining sin. Concessions to it rob believers of their inward peace, weaken their hands in the day of battle, bring clouds over their hopes. Unbelief is the true cause of a thousand spiritual diseases. In all that respects the pardon of our sins and the acceptance of our souls, the duties and trials of our daily lives, let it be a settled maxim in our religion, to trust every word of God implicitly, and to beware of unbelief."

How more simply could God have rendered His account of the creation of the world and everything in it? (Gen. 1) How more clearly could He have substantiated that account as He did? (Ex. 20:11 and 31:17-18) How more demonstrably could He affirm His nature and capacity to create in past, present and future than He did Incarnate?

To reject injunction such as this is no different to Zechariah's unbelief in the message of God delivered through the angel. As such, the 'mouths' that attempt to deliver the initiative of Connect 09 will seem, for a time at least, as 'dumb' to the intended audience.

Neil

Big Day In(spirational)? I Don't Think So.

In comments to the Sydney Daily Telegraph on Charles Darwin on 7 February 2009, the Sydney Episcopalian Archbishop, Peter Jensen, said such things as "Does evolution exclude a God whose loving rule extends to the natural world? Some would say yes, but not because the theory of evolution requires it. Science neither proves nor disproves the existence of God ... Faith in a divine Creator and belief in an evolutionary universe can coexist."
If science, among other things, is the study of the creation then Archbishop Jensen has set himself against the Apostle Paul who at Romans 1:18-23 makes it clear that the study of the creation will reveal the Creator. I would throw myself into the camp of the Apostle Paul and leave the Archbishop to run last in his theology at this point.

As Neil Moore astutely observed in relation to Sir David Attenborough in a recent blog, there is no connection between a "loving rule" and a Creator who uses evolution as a creative process from the beginning.

There is no coexistence between the God of the Bible and a God who uses evolution as the means of creation. World history as recorded in Scripture makes this clear.

Connect 09 kicked off officially yesterday with live broadcasts into Episcopalian congregations around the Diocese. If presentation is a sign then I fear a flop. It was uninspiring. Words uttered were out of sync with lip movement. I hope this is not a symbol of the rhetoric of Connect 09 not matching action.

Sam Drucker

Down Among The Dead Men.

Moore Theological College is the driving force behind the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney for it is from this institution that Clergy are trained who go out to be the "Cure of Souls" and fulfil the Divine Mission in the Diocese. Indeed, it is the desire of many within the Diocese that graduates of Moore Theological College engage in church planting outside the Diocesan boundary.

More than that, some seek to have Moore graduates installed into theological institutions around the globe (doesn't that strike you as odd - a Diocese failing to achieve church growth within itself except, as some have reported here, without transfer growth from declining denominations, having the audacity to inflict its inadequacies on another Diocese which may already be experiencing what Sydney Diocese cannot achieve - church growth!). Consider the recent comments of Robert Doyle in the recent 'Moore Matters" publication where he says "Moore College has considerable experience preparing people for missionary service. ... When you take into account our networking with institutions other than Anglican, the list, is of course longer [he had earlier named some non Episcopalian theological colleges]. In a hostile world, and too often in the context of deeply unfaithful Christian denominations, we need to support each other. Several of these colleges have our graduates on faculty; many others have a history of contact, support and service. The abundant gifts and resources that God has blessed us with at Moore and amongst our constituency, and the law of the nearest neighbour, make it imperative that as far as God continues to give us opportunity, we need to produce more theological educators, and work outside our comfort zones."

Yeah! that'd be right! A Diocese in an African country has been blessed with a large congregation of believers who accept God at his word in Genesis and its reward is to be inflicted with the Moore collage of possible beliefs on origins none of which involves taking God at his word.

I wonder whether it ever enters the head of Moore 'Collage' (for that may be the more apt title) graduates that they might be more a hindrance to church growth than a help? A Diocese so reliant on what comes out of its theological institution for the growth of the Diocese ought easily be able to assess the health of its theological institution by the church growth seen shouldn't it? Of course! Well how does it look? Not good at all when you remove the "smoke and mirrors" of transfer growth from denominations experiencing advanced theological decline.

Perhaps you might hold out hope for the future because of the Diocesan Missionary Statement and the much anticipated (or is it feared?) Connect 09? Well, let me inform you of an incident giving clear insight into the future for the Diocese, its Mission and its worth to the church abroad. Remember, Moore Theological 'Collage' is the engine room for mission flowing from the Diocese.

I heard last Saturday morning on the radio three people speaking of the Newtown Festival proposed for the following day (Sunday 9th Nov). It was said that it was a wonderful festival and the previous year it had attracted 80,000 people. Now that is an impressive figure of attendance and certainly worth a look. So off I went the next day and in my journey there I noticed how remarkably close the festival site was to Moore 'Collage', only a few hundred metres from the institution. Upon entry to the site I was overwhelmed by the number of stalls and the multitude of people just browsing around, most of whom I suspect are "dead in their sins". Surely, you would think, there would be at least one church making the most of the opportunity (you know what Robert Doyle said - "as far as God continues to give us opportunity") especially Moore 'Collage' students, but no, my walk around the site failed to identify any stall there representing Moore 'Collage' or a church. What a lost opportunity! A crowd of over 80,000 people ignored by the alleged missionary college to the world and by local churches. I did see one fellow ambling through the milling crowd wearing a name tag with "St Stephens, Newtown" on it but for all it was worth he might have just stumbled out of nearby St Stephens Church, Newtown, having mistaken the festival crowd for the crowd around the church morning-tea urn.

What I did see, however, was group with a stall who were keenly proselytizing the passing crowd. It was a group calling themselves Sydney Atheists. So consider the scene. Here we are on the eve of Connect 09. Within a few hundred metres of the the engine room for mission within the Diocese is a crowd of over 80,000 people just browsing around and who is there to reach them? The Atheists!

My friends, I cannot help but have seen a vision of the effectiveness of Connect 09. In year 2010, when measuring the effectiveness of Connect 09, remember Newtown Festival 2008 ... Atheists 1 vs Moore 'Collage' 0.

Sam Drucker