It’s a Bit Quiet Around Here…

I’ve been planning my version of 2011, and noticed a happy conjunction of dates.

Easter occupies the last Sunday in April. Not particularly good for those looking for a holiday after term 1, but there you are.

Mothers Day, as usual, is the second Sunday in May. I’m going to persevere with making this work for inviting mums.

That leaves us with the first Sunday in May sitting at something of a loose end. How fortunate, then, that Sunday 1st of May is the day before the 400th anniversary of the publication of the KJV. I’m planning to do a sermon on something to do with the doctrine of scripture – likely its perspicuity and our wealth of opportunity to read it! ‘The Ploughman’s Son’ is the title, referencing Mr Tyndale above.

(And it makes for some kind of link to ‘The Noble Wife’ the following week, where I think Marguerite of Navarre will be my worked example of Proverbs 31. Hopefully that will save me from cliché!)

 

There was lots of noise for Calvin last year – but I’m not hearing so much about 2011…

Defining Evangelicalism

It was asked, and a cut and paste was fairly easy.

My final year project at college examined the evangelical movement in post-WW2 English Anglicanism. I was attempting to assess whether things ‘went wrong’ and if so, how far; hence, a necessary step was to have a go at defining evangelicalism. I’ve never had a problem with self-confidence, and so after surveying all and sundry’s efforts, decided to come up with my own answer. I’m still quite happy with it, and it was really the only thing the marker liked in the whole project, so…

 

‘From the survey above, it is apparent that a blended approach is best, one that recognises that a definition of evangelicalism must incorporate both methodology and history in its essential features. Even given this, however, it is worth considering what controls the selection of components. The temptation to give this role to the priority of Scripture is strong, but at the very place where Stott might convince one of this, he goes deeper: ‘The hallmark of evangelicals is […] a submissive spirit, namely their a priori resolve to believe and obey whatever the Scripture may be shown to teach. They are committed to Scripture in advance, whatever it may be later found to say. […] They see this humble and obedient stance as an essential implication of Christ’s lordship over them.’[1] Beyond the commitment to Scripture is a recognition of divine sovereignty. Peter Jensen has described this as the key to a sharp definition of evangelicalism.[2] What is common to most of the attempts at definition already mentioned is their foundation in the sovereignty of God. This is literally the quintessence of Bebbington’s quadrilateral. To be even more precise, it is the sovereignty of God in the gospel: biblicism reflects God’s sovereignty in the revelation of the gospel, crucicentrism his sovereignty in its focus, and conversionism and activism in humanity’s response to the gospel. Similarly, Stott’s commitment to Bible and gospel – both tied to divine sovereignty – leads him to the Nottingham theme of obedience to Christ.[3]

Thus, if we accept that being evangelical means holding a Christian faith that responds to God’s sovereignty in the gospel, one more advantage is apparent. As the antithesis of sin, it is clear that nobody can hope to be perfectly evangelical; there must be a grey area that gives ‘room to move […] without resorting to disenfranchising one another.’[4] Evangelicals of different generations can be recognised as such, despite their different emphases, because these emphases consistently arose from their recognition of God’s authority. Different lists of evangelical essentials can be drawn up, as long as they emanate from this central point. Treating God’s sovereignty as it particularly relates to the gospel generates the evangelical method of the primacy of Scripture. And finally, the value of evangelical tradition can be weighed from this same perspective. Accordingly, the standing of the evangelical movement in the Church of England can be measured in terms of its faithfulness to this fundamental conviction.’

[The reference to Nottingham is to a gathering of evangelical Anglicans that’s usually thought to mark the point at which they strayed. I’d argue that they continued down a path already begun.]

---

[1] Stott, Essentials, 104.

[2] Peter F. Jensen, unpublished address, given at the 75^th Anniversary Celebration of the Sydney University Evangelical Union, 8/10/05.

[3] Stott, What is an Evangelical?, 14.

[4] Thompson, ‘Saving the Heart’, The Briefing 151: 4.

 

So, that’s what I meant by a high view of God’s sovereignty. I think it’s what shapes who we are.

New Horizons in Local Church Theology

Sounds like an impressive book title. But no, I’m just working on next year’s preaching plans.

 

 

However, the new horizon bit is true. Our church has, in the space of the last couple of years, suddenly achieved a whole bunch of major goals that they’ve been working on for years. We now have a ‘rectory-standard dwelling’ next to the church (for us to live in, and it’s lovely), and come November, we’ll be made a ‘provisional parish’ (no longer a branch church of our neighbours up the road at Gerringong). 

In other words, in the living memory of some of our members, St Peter’s has grown from a half-dozen old ladies sitting up the back to a decent-sized church with a couple of congregations, and enough resources (people, time, money, property etc) to stand on our own two feet, metaphorically speaking.

It’s been a long time coming…and so now there’s a bit of ‘now what?’ floating around. All ambitions have been achieved. The last thing we want to do is sit back and cruise – this town is enough of a retirement village already!

 

So…it’s time to start looking for a new horizon – new things to aim at, under God. And I’m thinking that a decent chunk of a preaching program would be a good thing to get that ball rolling.

Here’s what I’ve come up with, thus far, in a very very draft sense. Comments welcome.

Being

9 weeks, 3 lots of 3

Weeks 1-3: Church

1. Who is the church? Where is the church?

2. What is the church for? Why is the church?

3. When is the church? How is the church?

(OK, so the grammar is a bit stilted, but you can get some sense of it)

Weeks 4-6: Our Church

4. An evangelical church (not just as a theological persuasion – but saying, who we are is based on the first three weeks and how the gospel shapes a church). But I’ll use the Douglas-Bebbington quintilateral to describe things: activism, biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, all held together by a high view of God’s sovereignty

5. A church for the Heads – ie all of our local community. We’re the only mainline church in town, so I figure I can claim it without controversy. Church should work for people of all ages/stages etc.

6. A church for all – not just our own patch, but also seeking to be for the Shoalhaven region/mission area, to be part of our diocese/local evangelical scene, and to be part of our world (ie ‘mission’)

Weeks 7-9: Us

Less developed, but basically growing out of the D-BQ (TM) – activism implies serving each other/others; crucicentrism a willingness/expectation to suffer rather than look after our futures; conversionism a personal commitment to God and his people; biblicism a love of the Word and obedience of it; sovereignty a dependence on grace expressed in prayer and more.