Rockin' Christmas Books 2: "No Regrets" by Ace Frehley

In the early 1970s American rock 'n roll was at a shockingly low ebb. Few of the superstars who ruled the heights of Woodstock survived into the following decade. New harder acts like The Stooges and Alice Cooper showed the way of the future but had little impact within the mainstream. From 1970 to 1973 British bands ruled the States - The Who, Stones, Yes, and (of course) Led Zeppelin. Then, astoundingly, the USA produced two bands who became primary influences on mainstream rock for the next two decades - Aerosmith and KISS.

Between them, Joe Perry and Ace Frehley encouraged a generation of teenage boys (who otherwise would have become climate scientists or health care professionals) to spend hours striking rockstar poses in front of their bedroom mirrors. Perry and Frehley took the blues-rock of the 60s British superstars (Peter Green, Mick Taylor, Clapton, Townshend, etc) and gave it a major American shot of adrenaline and glitz. While Perry has so far elected to Let The Music Do The Talking, Ace has recently shed some light on his glorious and alcohol-soaked career.

Let me start with some of the same gripes that I had about Tony Iommi's book. First up, No Regrets has to be one of the most unimaginative titles ever presented. It appears to have no reference to Ace's career. I can think of several better titles off the top of my head - Trouble Walkin', Insane, even Rock Soldier. It's the same Work Experience Kid doing the cover as well - boring fonts, boring pictures. Most unattractive.

These flaws are easily forgiven, however, because Ace Frehley is one hell of a storyteller! This book has everything the serious (or even casual) fan of KISS could want. KISS were never a band to do things by half, collectively and individually. Each of the four original members were given licence by their fame to indulge in their passions. For Ace, this involved alcohol, drugs, fast cars, and card games. In the midst of it all we have the story (from Ace's perspective) of the band who gave the world some of the greatest rock riffs of all time.

Unlike Iommi, Ace Frehley has no problem with exposing his own faults and failings. Car chases and accidents are recounted in gory detail. The reader learns that Frehley was (twice) saved from drowning while under the influence of alcohol by the eternally sober Gene Simmons. Many other stories of life on the road and experiences in the studio permeate the narrative. It is a gripping tale from first to last.

Of course, no great tale is complete without a great villain. Frehley's nemesis, unsurprisingly, is the driven bassist Simmons, who in the past has had some blunt assessments of the impact of Frehley's addictions on the well-being of the KISS brand. The animosity between the two dates to their first meeting, but neither could deny the chemistry that Frehley brought to the band. One of Frehley's aims in publishing this book is to directly refute some of the barbs that have come from Simmons over the years, as well as firing a few return shots of his own.

Of course, the book isn't perfect. Frehley does gloss over the less glamorous period of the late 1980s and dire predicament his career was in by the time of the reunion of KISS in 1996. Additionally, readers may be somewhat alarmed that he firmly believes he was abducted by aliens. Yes, you read that right. This story first came out during an interview on the Eddie Trunk radio show about five years ago, where a clearly drunk Frehley related a tale of strange lights in his backyard to a bewildered and increasingly uncomfortable Trunk. Amazingly, he does not back down from the story (or even consider the possibility that it may have been a tequila-induced hallucination. What this does to the credibility of the rest of the narrative is a matter of individual judgment.

On the whole, No Regrets is a much more satisfying account of the story of KISS than the highly airbrushed "official" accounts currently on offer. In addition, the reader gains an insight into the mind of one of the true legends of rock guitar. Highly recommended.

Four bottles of Cold Gin out of Five.

Reformed Romantics: Marriage and OT Covenant Progression

If we are correct in our observation that the place and function of marriage and sexuality is related directly to God's character and rule, then we would expect to find that the coming of the Abrahamic covenant would impact on a theological view of human relationships. This is exactly what we find.

Genesis 4-11 continues in establishing the theological worldview of the first Jew, Abraham. These chapters are better read through Theological rather than Historical glasses (though I believe historical facts are contained there). A reader cannot help being struck by the rapid progress of humanity within God's creation, which is attested to in the genealogical lists. Far from being "space fillers", these lists show that the marriage and sexuality functioned exactly according to God's purpose even while the relationship between Human and Divine was ruptured. Humanity was fruitful and multiplied. However, this fruitfulness was about to be given a special dignity in a particular instance.

To a childless man of pensionable age in southern Iraq, God made promises of Land, Descendants, Nationhood, and Blessing. Of all the families in the world (who had no trouble in reproducing) God selected the most unlikely candidate for fathering a dynasty. It was done in order to show God's power and grace to the whole world and to repair the damage done by the first man in Eden. For Abraham and Sarah, marriage and children were no longer merely part of a creation mandate, but they were now to be the method of transmitting God's grace not only to their descendants but to the whole world. The sign of circumcision was not a random choice, but a deliberate red flag that Fertility was the hope for the future. Moreover, it symbolised the spiritual marriage between God and Israel, an image prominent in the Old Testament.

As the story of Genesis progresses the reader is made aware that not all activity within covenant-oriented marriages seems to advance God's cause. In fact, the actions presented are a mixture of Covenant Progressive and Covenant Subversive. Sarah bears Abraham a son (Progressive) but also directs her husband to adultery and allows herself to be a sexual plaything for foreign rulers (Subversive). Rebbecca bears two sons to Isaac (Progressive) but dishonours her husband by supporting the younger son to deceitfully gain the covenant blessing (Subversive). This will be a pattern repeated though the Old Testament, indicating that while marriage and childbearing will be the means of covenant progression it was never a perfect means. The system prospered only because God's faithfulness was stronger than the faithless families to whom he swore his covenant.

Rockin' Christmas Books 1: "Iron Man" by Tony Iommi

The approaching festive season for me (and many others) usually means Books. Books as presents, books for presents, books to divert the kids, books to prop open doors/windows, etc. Many of my clerical colleagues no doubt use the slower pace of the post-Christmas period to read some of the serious theological works published in the previous 12 months that have joined the rapidly growing Must Read List. I hope to do a bit of that as well. But I also like to relax a bit and so I require books that Rock! Or rather, I love books about People Who Rock.

One of my more popular posts was this from last year, which described the various types of musical biography out there (along with some of my favourites). Well, now that I've cleared the path for you, I thought I'd devote a few posts over the next week or so to some of the latest offerings in the Rock Biography genre which you may be tempted for that Special Headbanging Someone this Christmas.

First up: Iron Man by Tony Iommi.

Iommi is the guitarist in Black Sabbath, whose detuned riffing and blistering solos gave birth to the genre of Heavy Metal. He has also shared the stage with some of the most prominent, talented, and controversial figures in rock music. Tony should have a bunch of good stories up his sleeve.

I'll get my biggest gripe out of the way first - the graphic design of this book is TERRIBLE! Front cover is a close up of Tony's face with unimaginative block lettering down the bottom. For some reason the "M" in "Man" is written in Iron Maiden script. Huh??? Given that Sabbath weren't short of good fonts on their album covers surely it couldn't have been too hard to use something that even vaguely embodied the band the author actually played in. Seriously, they either gave this cover to the Work Experience Kid or (more likely) the publisher had to put out something in a hurry to meet a deadline. Given that Sabbath announced their comeback album and tour a couple of weeks ago I get the impression that time wasn't a luxury.

Of course, we can't judge a book by the cover, and surely once we get inside Tony will keep us enthralled with tales of Excess On The Road...

Well, yes and no. Tony gives us his perspective on Sabbath's long and controversial career, and that alone makes the book important. He has chosen to construct his memoir as a chronological series of anecdotes. Each chapter runs about 3-5 pages and is presented in a conversational style, which is helpful for those (like Ozzy) with ADHD, but more than a little frustrating for anyone who graduated primary school. At best, it feels like you are sharing a pint or 60 down the pub with Tony while he shares his Best Recollections. Actually, if the publisher had framed the book in that way it would have been a much more enjoyable read. Tony has been presented by bandmates past and present as being little more than a Control Freak, and he takes the opportunity here to answer his critics and provide his side of the story. He even comes off as moderately likeable and I even found myself thinking, "I reckon I could have been in a band with this guy. He's just misunderstood." Nevertheless, Iron Man lacks two things that could have turned it from Decent Read to Quality Memoir.

Lack #1 - Effort. This book feels like someone pressed the Record button, transcribed the results, and stuck a cheap-ass cover on it. Not everyone is going to go to the level of Nikki Sixx, whose Heroin Diaries were a work of art as well as being hilarious and revolting. But even those who have followed a more traditional format (Steve Tyler, David Lee Roth, Tommy Lee, Anthony Kiedis, etc) have made sure that the reader walks away with more than a collection of short stories. Again, perhaps time pressures were an issue and Tony didn't get to realise his vision. That said, Tony has held the status of Rock Legend for several decades now - this book was going to come out sooner or later and Tony had plenty of time (in the last decade in particular) to have cobbled together something a little better than this.

Lack #2 - Juiciness. You know those cakes you sometimes get at the houses of Old People, that dry sponge with no icing that you need two pots of tea to wash down? Imagine that in book form. Black Sabbath was a band whose level of craziness on the road was at least a match for Led Zeppelin. Ozzy Osbourne has boasted that while in Sabbath he took LSD for a year just to see what would happen. You would think Tony would have some fantastic tales to tell. Well, he does, but in this instance he is keeping his mouth shut. Sure there is the occasional road story, but most are fairly tame and if you are even moderately acquainted with Ozzy and the boys you will have heard much worse elsewhere. Either Tony is so ashamed of his and others' behaviour that he has chosen to expunge it from the record (unlikely) OR the cordial (and profitable) relationship that he has re-established with the Osbourne camp (re: Sharon) and the potential for future earnings meant that he chose to keep many such stories under wraps. As such, there is no REAL insight into what it was like to be in Black Sabbath during the glory days of 1969-1983. Sure, the comings and goings of musicians and managers is documented accurately and each album is analysed for its merits (or lack thereof). The keen fan will already be aware of much of this, and will probably come away with amazement that Tony chose to keep flogging the dead horse for so long.

To be fair, maybe one of Tony's problems is that he is English, a race not known for self-examination and public confession. Even the working class of Birmingham, it seems, retain a Stiff Upper Lip at all times. In my experience, works on English musicians tend to work best when someone else is observing and interpreting the events and characters. Chris Welch's biography of Yes was a great example of a trusted insider getting notoriously reticent British musicians to say what they really thought about each other. Because Iron Man is totally Tony's story there is no-one to probe his inconsistencies and get beyond a purely subjective re-reading of events.

Fans of heavy metal and those new to the Black Sabbath story enjoy Iron Man. Despite its shortcomings it is not a bad book and gives a useful overview of the progress of such an important band from the perspective of its main creative voice. However, hardcore fans will be disappointed by its shortcomings and won't easily forgive the lack of detail regarding the band's most sordid periods.

2.5 War Pigs out of 5.

Reformed Romantics: Fallen Sexuality, Relationships, and Genesis 3

For those who might be panicking slightly, I am not intending to give a chapter-by-chapter reflection on marriage and relationships for the whole Bible! I will be moving on more quickly if you bear with me for a little longer. A quick recap:

The creation of humanity as relational beings by God is a reflection of Trinitarian character and action. With respect to character, human beings are "like" God in that they are able to relate in within a matrix of intertwining personal similarities and differences. Relationships extend outside of Self to include Other through love. In action, Male and Female are created to be partners in the work that God has given them to do which reflects godly priorities. In Genesis 1-2 this is the stewardship of the earth and the expansion of humanity. While this work remains ongoing, it is not necessary that this remain the primary task of humanity. In fact, the context suggests that the relationships between Male and Female will necessarily adapt to new tasks emanating from the priorities of God.

Total Depravity is a theological touchstone of the Reformed tradition. As John Calvin puts it:

...all parts of the soul were possessed by sin after Adam deserted the fountain of righteousness. For not only did a lower appetite seduce him, but unspeakable impiety occupied the very citadel of his mind, and pride penetrated to the depths of his heart. (Institutes II.i.9)

It is obvious that human sexuality and gender relations must be impacted by the rebellion. The question is how far this fallenness extends. Has marriage been "ruined" by the Sin of Eden?

There is no need to read into Genesis 3 any Freudian symbolism with respect to reptiles and fruit. Corruption of interpersonal relationships, with particular pertinence for the romantic variety, is evident from Gen 3:7. Romantic dysfunction is a result, not a cause, of the Fall. Yet it appears this is not an Epic Fail scenario. While in v.16 an increase in childbirth pain is given as a curse, the woman also receives an assurance from God in that the whole process of childbirth and marriage remains a blessing. The waw at v.16b should best be read as disjunctive, implying that despite the agony the woman will retain a desire for her husband and he will retain headship over her in a marriage covenant. The NRSV gives, I believe, the best translation ("...you shall bring forth children, yet your desire..."). The NIV ignores the particle, making it unclear as to how the second half of the verse should be interpreted. The HCSB is way off the mark by ignoring this first particle and translating the second waw into a disjunctive when it is obviously meant to be a connective (Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will dominate you."), thereby rendering v.16b as a curse when it meant to be an extension of grace. Two observations can be made regarding marriage and relationships from this chapter.

First, romantic relationships between Male and Female remain blessed by God and are obviously meant to be continued in some form even given the fallen state of humanity. God did not rip Male and Female asunder in his judgment - if he did, there is no reason why the Man and Woman left Eden to continue their lives together. In bearing children they still appear to be fulfilling the work that God had given them to do. When children are finally born it is said to be with the Lord's help (Gen 4:1). At this point we cannot say that Marriage Is Doomed by sin.

Second, despite the blessings that remain with the Man and Woman, we need to take the fallen nature of sexuality and relationships seriously. I have noticed a particularly American synonym for "virginity" cropping up in Australian circles - "purity". I think it is partially due to a certain Anglo-Saxon middle-class aversion to being blunt. "I have a Purity Problem" sounds a lot more palatable than "I can't stop watching gay porn on the internet." There are two problems with the "purity" word. First, the few instances of 'agneia in the NT do not specifically refer to sexual behaviour but to a consistent pattern of godly behaviour in all matters of public conduct. A thief has as much of a "Purity Problem" as an adulterer. Second, "purity" implies the a priori existence of something pure. However, the reality is that the Chaste Virgins of Victorian Romances share the same fallen sexuality as Bangkok Lady-boys. It is not surprising, therefore, that measures designed to "safeguard" the purity of Christian youth such as Purity Rings or Abstinence Only Sex-Ed should end up being abject failures in practice. This fallen sexuality will therefore continue to manifest itself in relationships, including marriages between mature Christian persons. There is no place or context in the current age where fallen sexuality cannot undermine true love and service of either God or Neighbour.

Reformed Romantics: Helpers and Genesis 2

Much ink has already been spilt in recent times with respect to the nature of the created genders in Genesis 2. Attention has been drawn, by Ash amongst others, to the fact that the Woman is to be a "helper" (Heb: 'uzer) to the Man in his God-given tasks. Woman is to play a central role in this work. She is not Man's companion, cook, whore, go-fer, or any other demeaning functionary. Man's task would be impossible to accomplish without Woman. Tracing the use of "helper" in the Old Testament we find it applied most often to God himself. God is the Helper of Israel, the one who delivered his people from Pharaoh (Exod 18:4), protected them from their enemies (Deut 33:7), and because of his protection is the one to be praised (Ps 28:7). The fact that Woman is called a "helper" is, according to the use of the label in Jewish culture, a term of the highest honour and respect.

Two questions must therefore be answered if this passage is to serve in ongoing edification for Christians.

First: What exactly is the task that Man needs a helper for? The clear answer is to have dominion over the whole of creation by the exercise of God-shaped rule. This is to be achieved through subduing all creatures of the earth and bearing of children to be a future generation of stewards. This is a task that will continue as long as the present age. In order for humanity to continue a new generation must always be born and animals that are not continually subdued will turn feral, which would not serve either their purpose or ours. We must say that in the plans of God the ongoing institution of marriage between Man and Woman must be considered Good.

Second: Does this Imperative Of Eden remain central to humanity's place in the purposes of God? If we marry and keep a few chickens in the backyard are we then "truly human"? When the biblical narrative is taken as a whole it is clear that, in terms of human relationships, God desires more from us than simply pairing up for procreation. In fact, I am tempted to ask whether this facet of our humanity, Good as it remains, shifts from Centre to Periphery in the purposes of humanity.

As the Bible unfolds more and more is commanded of humanity by God. Our task, in other words, shifts from one of Dominion to one of Redemption following the entry of Sin in Genesis 3. If this is the case, then it is only logical to assume that the way in which Woman continues to be the helper of Man must also change. It follows that, if procreation is not the main game, then patterns of godly relationship should shift away from the Marriage, though the Goodness of such relationships as they are proscribed by God remains.

Next time: How does the marriage relationship support the shifted task of humanity once Eden is in the rear view mirror?

Reformed Romantics: Trinitarian Love and Genesis 1

Thesis: If we want to have good teaching about the place of marriage/relationship in the Christian life we must start with serious reflection on the Persons of the Trinity.

At the heart of the Creator God there are relationships between three Persons bound together by a mutual indwelling of Love. These Persons do not exist as mere modes of an ultimately unknowable divine being, but this God has His being substantially in three Persons - Father, Son and Spirit. These Persons are not confused though they are united in the one Godhead. Christians worship a God for whom love and relationship are foundational rather than secondary activities. Each Person is in ordered relationship with the other two Persons. The creative and redemptive activity of God is an outworking of this reality.

Notice that in the New Testament two of the Persons are given the familial descriptions of Father and Son. A proper understanding of the funtion of divine analogy means that we cannot think of these titles as being projections of our limited experience of family relationships onto the divine, but that the created order reflects what is in accord with the divine nature. Human fathers and sons, therefore, are analogies of the higher reality, rather than the reverse. Since God has chosen to reveal Himself in familial terms we must approach any discussion of the question of family and relationships with the utmost seriousness. It is unfortunate that books on marriage are frequently filed under Christian Living rather than Theology in our bookstores. This may be an indication that the authors mistakenly feel that serious theology has no place in these texts. I would beg to differ.

The consequence is that when humanity is created in Genesis 1:26-27 they are deliberately brought in to a sphere of already existing relationships between God and Creation. They are not merely creatures, but are intended to share in the rule over Creation that God as Father, Son & Spirit already enjoys. They are more like their Creator than what He has created. They have the capacity to relate to what is Other. They are given blessings before they are given instructions (Gen 1: 28-30). The commissions to fill the earth and rule over all animals should be seen as expressions of the Divine-Human relationship rather than separate from it.

The primary purpose of created humanity was not to be either gardeners or procreators, but to enjoy and participate in the sphere of divine relationships. Male and Female were created not for each other but for God. In the tasks of each they celebrate the other-person centred love that they were meant to enjoy with God.

Reformed Romantics: a few thoughts

I have now reached the age where wedding invitations have slowed to a trickle. This is a great comfort to me. I am now spared from a succession of steamy afternoons in non-airconditioned sandstone monstrosities while a pair of dear friends plight their eternal troth, not to mention the neverending argument with She Who Must Be Obeyed as to whether it is important to "like" the purchased wedding present. [I am of the opinion that the first item that can be located on the register that is within budget is the ideal present. I don't care what it looks like or what it does - if the Happy Couple put it on there then they will be overjoyed to receive it. Let all the Men say 'Aye'!] My present occupation also means that I am now more likely to be conducting a wedding service than having to stay awake through one. The demographics of my faith community peers (mostly in their early 30s) means that most of them have paired up now anyway.

Except for those who haven't.

I am friends with a number of single Christian men and women whose youth (like mine) is slowly fading. They are, almost without exception, godly and kind people. For some their singleness (note: I hate that word but have yet to come up with a better one) is a peripheral fact of life. For others it is a crushing burden that impairs their natural Christian joy. These people are not selfish or immature or "unwilling to settle". The door to romance has simple not been opened to them up to this point.

The advice given out to the unmarried in our Christian circles is often very unhelpful, and I believe this stems from a lack of sufficiently theological reflection on the place of marriage. Several years ago I sat in a Men's Hour led by a pastor whom I greatly respect. His advice to the young men was that they had no excuse not to get married as there were more women than men numerically in the church, so if they didn't find a husband there then they would be tempted to seek an unbeliever who would most likely lead them away from faith. The implication of this, of course, was that if any single women fell away under this shepherd's leadership then it wasn't really his fault but was instead the fault of the young men for not "snapping her up quick enough". I had thought that this sort of advice was no longer given, until I heard it being basically repeated by another pastor I greatly respect several weeks ago.

Over the last few years I have been reflecting that perhaps some of the pain being felt by single Christians today is a result of a dysfunction in our overall view of what Christian marriage could and should be. In my final year at Moore College I did a theology paper on Marriage & Children in response to the rise of the Quiverfull and Childfree Christianity movements. As I did my research I came to the conclusion that much of the "Christian" view on marriage is not much more than natural theology blended with Anglo-middle-class morality. Even in solidly evangelical works such as those by Christopher Ash the theological focus is firmly on Genesis 1-3. Almost nothing is said about the deeply familial language of trinitarian relationships, not to mention the radical re-evaluation of our social patterns that the Cross of Christ must bring. In light of this, it is not surprising that the messages of encouragement in the chapters on Singleness in many books rings resoundingly hollow.

I believe that we need to start again. We need to take a fresh look at how the Gospel should shape our patterns of love, marriage, family, and children so that the Christian pattern of living is transformative rather than conformative. It will mean rethinking how we order our public gatherings, how we structure our youth and children's ministries to be informed by these principles. It will mean repenting of hopes that were never meant to be and of finding joy where we never thought possible for it to be found.

I'm planning on writing these posts as I go. While I have done some work on this area in the past, there is a lot which I have not yet thought about. I'm hoping that as I put some of my ideas out there that many of my readers (whether married or single) may challenge me on my exegesis and interpretation.

Album Review: "Unity" by Garage Hymnal

[Disclaimer: The author is married to a backing singer on Garage Hymnal’s debut album, Take My Life.]

The rise of Garage Hymnal as a major contributor to the local worship music scene has been nothing short of impressive. Their 2006 debut, Take My Life, was a slightly patchy affair, born out of the environment of a loose collaboration of musicians bound by a healthy dose of raw talent and a delight in the Word of God. Nevertheless, it boasted several strong moments (the title track and “Rejoice” in particular) that signalled that these were a young bunch to keep an eye on. By the time of their self-titled release of 2009 the group had coalesced into a much tighter unit, with the focus on the honeyed lead vocals of Alana Rodgers and Stephanie Vanden Hengel. Sonically the group offered delightful tunes that betrayed the influences of modern pop rock (e.g. Coldplay, Evermore, Something For Kate) and quirky indie (e.g. Architecture In Helsinki).

However, by this stage it was clear that they band had grown into a different kind of “worship band”. While spins on Christian Radio increased, precious few of the band’s songs made it into widespread congregational use (with the possible exceptions of their home churches). Is it possible that Garage Hymnal were making a genre switch from Worship Music to Christian Pop?

Perhaps in an attempt to ‘get back to their roots’, Garage Hymnal elected to make Album #4, Unity, a live album. Not only that, but it was to be recorded at St Stephen’s Anglican Church, a traditional edifice amid the hip grunginess of Newtown. Their website says that Unity...

“...offers twelve new songs for churches to sing together. Centred around the theme of our life together as a church, this album is a passionate prayer for unity...”

It is also a strong bid for mainstream acceptance of their worship vision.

While live worship albums have on the increase in recent years, following on the success of the Hillsong and Sovereign Grace teams, it is worth remembering that such recordings have been popular ever since the days of Thomas A. Dorsey. Yet bringing a set of new songs in front of a live audience and counting on their enthusiastic support is an act of courage. Judging by the applause, Garage Hymnal seemed to have had no trouble winning over their crowd on this occasion.

In keeping with its title, the lyrics on Unity abound with plural pronouns. The songs remind the listener that individual salvation has both contemporary and eternal communal applications. Worship is not restricted to my heart or voice, but only when the voices of the elect are joined together is Christ truly honoured. We live together, we worship together, we expect together...

Unity grounds part of its message in an homage to Christian worship of past generations. The adaption of Charles Wesley’s lyrics in “Psalm 140” isn’t revolutionary, but the theological focus on the uplifting of Christian affections through the work of Christ is most welcome (particularly following the recent visit of John Piper). “We Praise You” on the other hand taps into a more ancient stream through its reworking of the Te Deum, revealing a maturity and knowledge of worship history that is encouraging. Unfortunately, “Fairest Lord Jesus” (based on a 19th Century translation of lyrics from German Jesuits) has roots more in Romanticism than Scripture, and the winsome vocals make the song more than a little twee.

The original songs on offer follow a theme of faithful perseverance while awaiting eschatological redemption. “Unity” takes its cue from Jn 17:11 in applying Trinitarian relationships to the proper expression of Christian unity. “Stand Firm” reminds of the necessity of waiting together for the return of Christ in faith. The fact that there is no Penal Substitution song does not mean that the cross is absent, but rather the death and resurrection of Jesus are the unspoken foundation of present hope.

Musically, this album aims for high standards and unquestionably delivers. Arrangements are tight, with the piano and guitar interplay of Andy Judd and Greg Cooper tastefully done. Perhaps the greatest strength of the album is that the lyrics consistently scan well and are emotionally engaging. For example, the opening verse of “Sunday Came”:

Sunday came, darkness hides in shame
Desert plains, greet the morning sun
Mourn no more, feel the rising joy
Hearts revived, dust returns to life

Pure poetry!

So, if all that is true, why am I less than enthusiastic about this album?

First, there are sonic problems. Producer David Nicholas has an impressive pedigree, but the high ceilings of the recording location have produced a cavernous echo that results in a sonic wash which obscures many delicate musical moments (particularly in the quiet passages). While echo worked for Pink Floyd in Pompeii it doesn’t work so well for Garage Hymnal in Newtown. Another issue (common to live worship albums) is that the audience applause often intrudes on the beginning of songs, making it awkward for under-resourced churches who may rely on recorded music to lead their congregations.

But, more importantly, I am unconvinced that Unity has achieved its stated goal. Garage Hymnal wanted to make a Contemporary Worship album; what they made was another Christian Pop album.

A music co-ordinator who is keen to find appropriate material to introduce to their congregation will find the pickings on Unity sadly slim. Melodies are not well developed and are unnecessarily syncopated. The result is that those songs which are potentially singable would require too much work by a time-poor worship leader to rearrange with no guarantees that a congregation would pick up the tunes easily. The songs are undeniably catchy, but more “sing along in the car” than “worship together in church”. This is a shame, as Garage Hymnal is better than a Sydney Anglican version of Cold Chisel.

Garage Hymnal’s track record suggests that they have the potential to make a great contemporary worship album. Sadly, Unity ain’t it. As it is, this is still a fine collection of tunes that would be perfect for your next carpool up to Katoomba.

Hebrews 10:25 and Confidence In Christ

If you had to pick the Top Christian Guilt Trip Verse, I reckon Hebrews 10:25 would at least make the short list. Beloved of pastors and Bible Study Leaders everywhere, this verse is likely to appear in any conversation that begins with the words, "Soooo...where were you last Sunday?"

Any absence from regular fellowship can be elegantly dealt with by appealing to this remarkable proof-text. The wayward sheep will be rebuked by the plain words of Scripture and will (hopefully) return to an acceptable attendance pattern.

But to what exact situation does Hebrews 10:25 refer? What is the cessation in meeting that the writer is warning his readers against? Can this verse be used as a catch-all for the spiritually slack?

In his very thorough commentary Peter O'Brien admits that the exact circumstances of those who have ceased fellowship are not clear, though the fact that the writer has raised the "falling away" issue several times previously (and will do so again later) shows that apostasy was likely to have been a pressing concern for the Jewish-Christian receivers of the letter. O'Brien suggests factors such as persecution, indifference or apathy can be broadly implied from the text. While these issues probably played a role in halting regular meeting, I am of the opinion that the most important issue for these apostates was a lack of Confidence In Christ.

The stress on Jesus as the New and Better High Priest in Hebrews is hard to ignore. In fact, once the writer has reminded the Jewish Christians of the basics of belief, chapters 5-10 are devoted almost exclusively to this issue. A viable scenario is that a lack of a cultic system or priesthood in this new Christian movement would have given those believers of a Jewish background a certain amount of unease. For centuries the descendants of Abraham had relied on a Levitical priesthood to intercede with God on their behalf. The ceremonies and duties were strict - a failure to follow them correctly would have resulted in a break in fellowship with God. Now these Christians seem to have done away with all of the ritual rigmarole - no priests, no sacrifices, no incense, no ritual washings. Was God going to accept this as proper worship? Was the holiness of the Creator being denied? Maybe it would be better if we left these Christians to their hymns and prayers and brought a nice lamb to the Temple Priest to make sure God is going to accept us...

As I have been leading my weekly Bible studies on Hebrews, it occurs to me that the advocation of Jesus as the new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek appears to have been for the sake of restoring confidence to those Christians who were struggling with the lack of cultic practices. It was hard to believe, given the strict nature of the Mosaic regulations, that God could be happy with simply Faith Alone. There would have been many who were Just Not Sure, and so they needed reassurance.

What does this have to do with the use of 10:25 in our age? Well, I believe that this verse is not the Rebuke To The Self-Indulgent that it so often becomes. Instead it is the reassurance to those whose confidence in Christ is wavering, for those who feel burdened with sin, and those who feel that God does not hear their prayers.

I have been challenged in the last few days by Scripture to be very careful as to how I use Hebrews 10:25 pastorally from now on. Don't get me wrong - if someone isn't at church for no better reason than they went to see the Tigers lose again then they should definitely receive a boot in the backside. I'll just use other verses of Scripture to do it and instead save Hebrews 10:25 for the person who needs their confidence in Christ reaffirmed.

Tools and Carbon Taxes

When I comes to climate change I believe that I am neither an alarmist nor a skeptic.

Having done a bit of science at university level, I am aware that there is precious little about scientific knowledge that could be deemed Uncontested. Absolute scientific proof can usually only be determined in Controlled Lab Conditions, something that the global atmosphere distinctly lacks. Scientific tests can give at best imperfect results when attempting to prove abstract theories in Real Life. Moreover, long range climate predictions given by scientists who have only the vaguest idea as to whether it will rain next Tuesday need to be taken with a large shaker of salt.

On the other hand, it is only common sense that an increasing global population that consumes a growing percentage of natural resources and is only moderately interested in cleaning up after itself may have some negative impact on future generations. It would be nice, if not polite, to at least make some attempt at considering consequences and acting appropriately.

It seems as if the weight of Conventional Wisdom in our antipodean nation has swung towards the idea of a Carbon Tax as THE way to curb carbon emissions into the future. Levels of carbon emissions over a certain amount by the Big Polluters will incur a government levy under this scheme, the idea being that companies want to keep their running costs low and so will avoid behavior that lands them with a large Pay Now Or Else bill from Ms Gillard. If there is to be a solution to environmental Armageddon then it must come by and through the Market, the final arbitrator of all that is Good and Right in our modern times. Economic experts are almost unanimous, we are told, in declaring that this will be the most Cost Effective way of lowering greenhouse pollution in our nation.

So why am I uncomfortable about all this?

The story starts in my granddad's shed. Pa spent most of his retirement years making furniture out of wood (one of his chairs has a special place in my office). The beauty of his handiwork was partially achieved through personal skill, but just as important was the use of the right tool for the right job. Pa impressed this upon me from an early age, and the sheer number of tools in his workshop was a testimony to his belief in this principle. Using, for example, a spanner to knock in a nail would not only produce a dodgy job but would also damage the tool so that it could not do the job that it was made to do.

My point is this: trusting in Economics to solve a Social Problem is a case of using the wrong tool for the job at hand.

The way that economists and politicians (not only from the Left) talk you would be forgiven for mistaking the Market and Society for the same thing. This is a bleed from early 20th Century socialists, who had no problem in reducing individuals to the status of economic units. It is assumed that what is good for the Market must, by definition, be good for Society. If society needs a little tweak of its direction, then it is only natural that a push of the economic tiller will adjust our social direction.

I didn't do much study in economics in high school or any at all at university, but there is one thing that appears blatantly clear: the only function that the Market has in this world is Making Money.

Markets are under no obligation to fix the environment. Share prices don't care if you bought a hybrid car or a 4WD. Balance sheets aren't interested in whether the polar ice caps are melting. Corporate boards do not serve secondary agendas, only the bottom line. Implying that a federal tax on an aspect of business production will necessarily deliver the social change desired is a Hit And Hope scenario of major proportions. It's using the wrong tool for the job. In fact, it's worse than that, as it is using the tool most likely to deliver the opposite outcome from the one intended.

A carbon tax places the responsibility for environmental solutions in the hands of those that even the politicians admit are principally responsible for the present situation. It requires corporations to be proactive in cutting emissions rather than simply passing on associated costs and eventually to trade carbon credits as a viable commodity (one that has had a distinctly rocky track record where it has been tried so far). The only way this ends is with those already with Market Power growing stronger while the government rakes in more money from the pockets of working Australians while crowing about The National Interest. Local innovation and small business will be crushed under the weight of higher prices across the board. Those who have swallowed the socialist view of Market=State, whether they currently sit on the Left or Right, are equally responsible.

Surely the more prudent approach should be to take the power away from the corporate giants who have no vested interest in change and instead place it where it will achieve lasting results: community solutions arising from local innovation and small business. Economic regions must be given the power to decide what is in the best interest of those living within them rather than the interests of international corporations or foreign investors. Development grants for clean energy research and implementation need to be front and centre. Planning for energy generation needs to be taken out of central administration and given to those who know their areas best - wind, solar, geothermal or nuclear solutions could be possible while making long-term investments in regional education, thereby cutting reliance on Chinese or American conglomerates.

We need to think Smaller not Bigger. The disadvantages to this way of doing things are obvious: it will cost more and take longer. This is true. But didn't our parents always tell us that if something was worth doing it was worth doing right the first time? There is a reason that old growth forest logging has endured so long - it's Cost Effective! It's easier and cheaper to chop down an old tree than plant a new one and wait for it to grow. This is where Market Forces always let us down.

Those on the Left love centralized solutions because it feeds their need for total social control and those on the Right can be happy to go along with it if it makes their rich mates happy in the meantime. But the time has passed for self-interest. Along with looming environmental challenges, Australia faces a growing concern for its economic independence, with the manufacturing sector battered at every turn and growing rates of youth unemployment.

The answer for our environment lies in communities taking ownership of how they are impacting their environment and harnessing the know-how of those who have a vested interest in success. The solution is in our youth, who demonstrate again and again that they care about the future of their planet and are champing at the bit for an opportunity to make a difference. The solution is in local business and community empowerment, together a mighty combination that could move mountains if given enough room to show what they could do.

This is why I hope our leaders vote No on a Carbon Tax. Not only is it the wrong tool for the job, it would destroy the only tools we have that could do the job properly.

The Church Planters: A Musical

(Apologies to all for my lack of inspiration over the last month. Apologies also to Mr Brooks for this sudden burst of inspiration!)

OK, lemme pitch ya this for a plotline. Think we could get it made?

A worn out church planter sits in his midtown office counting his woes. His last few church plants have not been successful and the current state of diocesan poverty makes it unlikely that he will succeed again. The arrival of a financial whiz-kid who dreams of the glamourous life of a church planter heralds a new dawn.

The kid explains that, with a little "Creative Accounting", it is possible for a church plant that flops to make more money than one that succeeds if donations/pledges exceed evangelism expenditure. The elder sees the possibilities in an instant and embraces the young man with glee.

Together they start on a massive fundraising drive while simultaneously constructing a church model that is Doomed To Fail. They decide that the essentials for such a church will be:

• A distant relationship with the Jesus of the Bible. If people heard the truth of his teaching they would be convicted of sin and turn to God in repentance. You can't escape from Jesus, so best to say that he was a mystic-hippie with a primarily socio-political agenda (like so many others before and since). No-one will fall for that one!


• Making the Gospel all about The Self. Why would people come to a church that just tells them what they already believe?


• Promote ungodly virtues. Emphasise at all times Success over Suffering, Choice over Obedience, Greed over Contentment, Experience over Wisdom, Pleasure over Joy.


• Teachers who are personally distant and logically incoherent. No-one will follow them.


• Make the people work for God's Grace. Only if they sing louder, slave harder, and give more will they be worthy of salvation. If you can convince them that there is a Higher Level that only the most Spiritual can achieve then so much the better!
  

The church planters then start such a gathering, convinced that no-one would belong to a church that bore such scant resemblence to the faith of the apostles...

To their dismay, the church is the Runaway Hit Of The Season! People arrive in droves, keen to get a spiritual pick-me-up without the need for radical personal change. The faithful saints who had given money now demand its return, unwilling to be associated with such rank apostacy a moment longer. The church planters, caught between a rock and a hard place, are forced to continue their Runaway Hit in order to stay ahead of their creditors. The show ends with them bewailing their amazing success.

Pink Floyd, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Power of Prayer

It appears that Roger Waters is about to bring his recent production of The Wall to Australian shores after successful tours around America and Europe. Despite the overwhelming commercial success of Dark Side Of The Moon, it is The Wall that is closest to Waters' heart and the work that embodies his philosophical and artistic vision. This fact alone should alert the world to the fact that the composer/author may be more than a little sociopathic with shades of paranoia. If you need confirmation, go ask David Gilmour.

However, the truth is that The Wall is more than Waters' dream. It is also the soul-cry of the Baby Boomer Generation as it is hounded by its twin fears of Economic Depression and World War. In the story a young man, Pink, suffering from the loss of his father in war and the harsh austerity of English society, attempts to find fulfilment through rock music. As his star rises he finds his isolation growing, represented by a huge wall that separates musicians from audience. Finally, Pink lashes out at his situation and breaks down the wall, but the truth is that this is a Utopia Moment. Destroying the social disconnection means surrendering significant personal power, something which is anathema to Waters and his generational contemporaries. This is evident also in the spiritual choices of that generation and those subsequent - conformity to traditional structures is forsaken in favour of "my own path to God". Despite the often fair criticisms of traditional religion, it is clear that Western culture continues to drift even further away from God and true community. The Wall remains standing...

My own studies have led me to read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, a controversial figure from the late 1st Century AD. Some have seen in his writings evidence of a firm ecclesiastical hierarchy with the presence of an aposotolically appointed bishop as the safeguard of Christian unity. It is true that Ignatius had a very tidy mind when it came to church polity and wanted proper respect shown to those placed in positions of authority. Those who see the seeds of a One-Denomination-For-All-The-World position equated with that of the early church I believe misread Ignatius' intention, which could be accurately summarised as, "Hey, fellow Christians in yonder city! I've met your bishop and a bunch of your presbyters and deacons and they are Most Righteous Dudes! They believe in the Gospel of Jesus, so a really good thing to do is to be united with them and listen to their teaching. Don't chuck away God's blessing by trying to start your own thing on the side - that's like giving a free kick to the False Teachers who have been causing so much trouble lately."

The real kicker for me was a comment Ignatius made regarding unity and prayer:

Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. (Ep. Eph. V.)

Now, Ignatius is not saying that the bishop is a Prayer Signal Booster who gives group prayers more power to be received by God or get to the front of the cue. His contention is that if the whole of the church is united with godly leaders in petition to God then there is a certain "spiritual weight" that exceeds that of those who willfully abstain from proper communion (even if they have not yet succumbed to heresy). Prayer has power when God's people speak with one voice.

This had me thinking about the resources that are available for our communal prayers that often get under-utilized. Prayer diaries are available not only diocesan leaders but also our key mission organizations at home and abroad. Often these resources are treated as "a good source of ideas" for those composing our weekly prayers but with no compulsion to use. Yet would it not be a significant step if our weekly communal prayers were more coordinated, whether at a regional or diocesan level? Obviously, our ecclesiastical structures are much more complex than they were in the 1st Century and we must beware of applying Ignatius' advice inappropriately. But I believe that it would give our congregations encouragement (not even mentioning the added power to prayer) if they knew that there were things every week that there were things that all the other congregations in their mission area/region/diocese were also praying for, particularly if those responsible for leading these structures had made unity of prayer a priority. At significant moments or times of crisis when our leaders have called for unity of prayer I have found our congregations more than happy to respond. How good it would be if this pattern were the norm rather than the exception.

Evangelical Software, Anglican Hardware

Despite an already full calendar of local conferences/workshops/events, A Fresh Look At Mission took place in the centre of Sydney last Friday. Despite my aversion to large gatherings of Christians in a single locale I was sorry that I was unable to attend (factors of distance and having spent a lot of time recently out of the office swayed my decision). From what I have heard it was a very productive time for all concerned and I hope there will be further events as the topics covered seemed well worthy of attention.

What struck me as I read a report of the day was the content of the talk given by my beloved former teacher Dr Michael Jensen, who noted the reluctance of many young evangelical students to embrace Anglicanism as a way of expressing their theological convictions [note: as I was not at the talk I am relying on the accuracy of the above link and I hope not to misrepresent Dr Jensen in any way]. Jensen's argument appeared to run that all evangelical convictions must ultimately be expressed in some kind of ecclesiology. He likened the relationship to one of computer software and hardware (a subject I know next to nothing about). If evangelicalism is the "software", then Anglicanism is not only an appropriate but the best "hardware" on which to run the program. Jensen suggested that Anglican ministers should be more proactive at selling the "hardware" to young entrepreneurial evangelists and church-planters eager to win people for Christ.

I agree. I am an Anglican not by accident but by conviction. I walked into an Anglican church at the age of 17 mostly based on the fact that people I knew would be there. At various points I chose to stay because I believe the Anglican Church provides an appropriate framework in which to witness to the historic Christian faith. I could have changed denominations at several points but preferred not to.

However, I have an important question (that perhaps someone who attended the conference can answer): what exactly is the "Anglican hardware" that we should be promoting?

Sydney Anglicanism has always been a bit of a strange beast. A bit like old Uncle Neville at the family Christmas lunch, who is intent on keeping the seasonal traditions alive while wearing his trousers back-to-front. Good motives always, but sometimes lacking in the execution. Even our evangelical friends find us a bit tiresome occasionally. But about 30 years ago things really started going off the rails and many of our Anglican distinctives were chucked in favour of being more "culturally relevant". If Dr Jensen thinks we should dig some of these out of the cupboard, then let's go! But which ones, exactly? And to what extent?

Many will point to the 39 Articles or the teachings about the nature of church set out in the Ordinal. But these cannot be properly regarded as "hardware" - they are more like the Operating Instructions (ignore at Your Own Risk). Other Anglican distinctives exist, but at the present time they are subject to either indifference or outright hostility by both clergy and laity. Here are some of the typical Sydney attitudes towards Anglican "hardware" that I have observed:

Prayerbooks - Stable door open, horse bolted. Last attempt failed. Try again if you really must.

Buildings - A pain in the neck. Spend as little as possible. Or meet in school halls. Sacred space is a myth. [Note: This does not apply if you happen to be a "strategic" church which mysteriously burns down. In that case, spend whatever you want!]

Sacraments - Feel free to depart from mainstream Evangelical view on administration if your conscience allows. "Baptism-lite" option now available.

Robes - To be worn at ordination and at the funerals of Archbishops.

Bishops - They take up resources that could be used for practical ministry. If you want one, make sure they can pay their own way.

Worldwide Communion - Never gonna happen...

So, what's left in the "hardware" box? Have I missed something? Is any of the above reclaimable? What did we chuck that we should not have?

Pointless Church Disputes and the 'Van Halen Theory'

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a minister in want of a good fight with his congregation need only fiddle with the seating arrangements.


In two previous church communities which I have been involved with disputes have broken out because the minister in charge had what he thought were very good reasons for changing the seating arrangements. Such a 'minor' issue was interpreted by both congregations as a Blasphemy of the Highest Order (in one case the issue was dropped, in the other a reasonable compromise was reached). Others in pastoral work whom I have spoken to about this have assumed an expression of mutual suffering and black humour. I have been wondering again recently as to why church seating in all its forms is an acknowledged Live Fuse.

The less-generous explanation that is usually trotted out (usually by overstressed ministers) is that the laity (unlike the clergy) are people of Worldly Habit whose dislike of interference with their personal space stems from Unacknowledged Sin and Immaturity. Their aversion to change shows that the Gospel is not Priority #1. It's not as though we were asking them to wear hair shirts or walk barefoot to Canterbury. If only our people were more Godly they would know not to make a Pointless Dispute about such an issue.

Despite such an argument being extremely condescending, my main problem is that it is often personally inconsistent. It is made to apply even to those who would normally be counted as our most devoted Partners and thereby fosters an atmosphere of suspicion. Is there another explanation, one more generous to those we pastor and encourage week to week regarding the state of their Immortal Souls?

I have come up with 'The Van Halen Theory'.

Those of you unlucky enough to have been born in the Gen-Y time span probably don't realise the impact Eddie and the boys had on rock 'n roll in the 1980s. They were Huge. When their debut album dropped in 1978 Eddie Van Halen made all other guitar heroes not surnamed Hendrix instantly irrelevant. Stadium tour after stadium tour then followed made up of the most slammin' hard rock imaginable backed with a massive lighting and pyrotechnical display. Then there was the infamous Rider...

In their list of personal and technical requirements given to venues/promoters before each concert, Van Halen included one item that has gone into rock legend: a bowl of M&Ms with all the brown ones removed. At the time this was seen as another example of rock royalty excess. Yet, when asked about it later, the band and their management revealed quite a different motive than simply to play with the caterer's mind. The logic went that, since such a large and technical production was being put on night after night, attention to detail was essential. In particular, the health and safety of those working in the road crew was paramount as there was so much that could go wrong. Therefore, if the band walked into their dressing room and found the M&M clause unfulfilled (in whole or in part) they might rightly ask the question: What else has been screwed up around here?

If we wanted to be generous (and I think there is licence for being so) we might say that our church seating has become the laity's M&M clause. I think that most every congregation recognises some change to be a good thing and would probably rejoice if the contract for the supply of Arnott's Family Assorted was not renewed. Yet at some point a Meaningless Change can signify Significant Change, and it looks like the zeitgeist has decided that the seats are where our congregations have drawn the line. The thought runs: If the seats are getting moved around this week, what is this guy going to start saying about Jesus next week?

Opposition to chair-moving typically comes as a shock to the humble cleric, who sees no reason why this should be the Heresy Marker, but it really should not be if he has taken into account the compact of Spatial Responsibility. Laity and Clergy (in the Anglican system at least) have a compact to defend the Gospel in their gatherings. The Minister takes responsibility for the Pulpit and Table (and a Choir if he is really unlucky). The Laity also proclaims the Gospel in the meeting, but in a different way and different space. When a young man dons the collar he fundamentally Changes Space, and therefore inherits an insensibility to the perspective of his sheep. Things that Don't Matter to him Matter very much to the saints whom he expects to listen patiently to his droning on too long in the pulpit week-by-week.

Imagine, for a moment, that a minister of a fairly Low parish should be confronted at the next vestry meeting by a popular vote to install two plain candlesticks on the Table. Now, candles are very nice and I use them myself whenever a Romantic Atmosphere is required in the home. It also may be argued that a simple light on the Table might draw attention to the True Light during or sacramental celebrations. For all the plausible arguments that might be made, there are probably not many Evangelical Anglican ministers whose hackles would not arise at the intrusion of such a Symbol of Popery on his table. Next week it might be incense, icons, prayers to Mary, offerings for the dead!

Now consider how your poor parishioner feels about you stealing his seat.

I throw it out there as a theory. You've heard me bang on too long. If you've bothered to read right through you may now reward yourself by watching this.

Baxter #4 - Teach Your Children (and Adults) Well

One of the great Australian memoirs of the 20th Century was Robin Dalton's Aunts Up The Cross. In it Dalton recalls her eccentric upbringing in bohemian Kings Cross in the years leading up to World War II. Her house was filled with an assortment of genteel relatives in reduced circumstances, including a great-aunt who would wear a fox-fur cape and sunglasses to bed. Dalton recalls her mother as a woman imbibed with the Australian love of gambling in all forms, in particular horse racing and Bridge. Despite her mother's passion for cards, Dalton herself never learned to play Bridge as she was often told (directly or otherwise) that playing bad Bridge was in such poor taste as to border on a sin. It was easier for her never to learn, a move which reveals that despite the obvious bond between mother and daughter that permeates the narrative there was no plan to pass on this particular family passion in a relevant and non-threatening way.

In the second half of The Reformed Pastor, Baxter turns his attention to the task of catechesis. He is of the opinion that, despite the many advances that the English Church had taken over the previous century, the laity were still woefully ignorant of the most basic aspects of the Christian Faith. Worse still, when questions of faith did arise they were generally unwilling to go to their local ministers to have their minds set at rest. Baxter has already stated that he felt that the clergy were generally well equipped to answer such questions and indeed had rejoiced at the fact that the standard of ministers in the realm was so high. Preaching from the pulpit had proved not to be effective at combating general ignorance. Therefore, Baxter contends that a primary responsibility of the clergy should be the active education of those under his care in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is not enough to assume that they will pick up knowledge by osmosis or private study.

Baxter proposes that each minister have a plan to visit his sheep in turn, to enquire as to their spiritual health and knowledge, and to instruct them privately on any points on which they are confused or ignorant. While not wishing to detract at all from the ministry of the pulpit, he feels that this must be complemented by private instruction if it is to have the most profitable impact. He rightly discerns that during sermons the preacher cannot pace his message to suit all people equally, and so many will either get left behind or become distracted during the message. However, in private consultation, the minister can open the Scriptures and repeat his points carefully to make sure the individual understands what is being taught and can have opportunities for questions or objections. In such a way the individual is matured in their faith and comes to know that the minister is as much a private instructor as a public orator, making it more likely that the minister will be consulted on matters of faith and doctrine again in the future. Such a ministry breaks down the barriers between clergy and laity, gives general confidence to what is being taught, and will head off superstitions or heresy.

Over the last several days I attended a ministry conference where congregation retention across demographics was discussed in the context of the diocesan plan for church growth. It struck me that while our evangelism strategies (and implementation) could always be better, our greatest problem is not one of evangelism but of catechesis, particularly in our youth ministry. NCLS figures show that we have no problem in attracting numbers to our children and youth ministries, but there tends to be a dramatic drop in adolescence and early adulthood. I believe this results from a glitch in our thinking with which Baxter can assist. Much effort is given to strategies for running programs, events, and pastoral strategies for youth. Little is given to catechesis, despite its strong avocation by generations of evangelicals.

I am aware that this issue has been addressed before, but I am adding my voice to the chorus. We need to get serious about instructing our youth in the apostolic and catholic faith. It is inexcusable if we are in the situation of asking our senior youth what a Sacrament is or what the Creeds teach and get only blank looks in reply. As far as I am aware there are not any local diocesan resources for instructing our youth in preparation for Confirmation. On that note, when exactly did Confirmation become an Optional Extra? We need to start younger and do better!

Baxter #3 - Humility Through Introspection

A criticism frequently levelled at the Puritans is that a tendency towards introspection led to misapplication of perfectly good theological principles. Perhaps they were the Gen X of the 17th Century. I could imagine John Owen or Richard Sibbes gently weeping into their small beer as they contemplated the profundity of the latest offerings by The Pixies or Mudhoney on their Ye Olde Walkmans. Then again, maybe I can't...

Yet, to be absolutely fair, the aim of Puritan theology was never navel gazing, but an honest examination of their souls in order to discover how they might serve God with more openness and honesty than was usually the case. Such indeed was the aim of Baxter in Chapter 3 of The Reformed Pastor.

At first I wondered as to whether some of this material would have been better united with Chapter 1. Certainly, much similar ground is covered. Yet here Baxter goes deeper than just common fault-finding. His aim is to uncover the sources of ecclesiastical rot, which must be located in the sinful soul.

The first problem to be dealt with is Pride. Because of Pride ministers fail to take care of those of their flock in most need of God's love, reserving their services for a Better Class Of Sinner. Pride is also responsible for a tender conscience, giving ministers an over-sensitivity that makes it difficult for them to accept (or others to give) fair criticism. Once again, I believe that Baxter and Chrysostom are approaching the same problem from different angles. While Chrysostom believes that evidence of vanity should exclude the unworthy from the priesthood, Baxter believes that all ministers should examine their motives and eliminate the vanity they find as much as possible. Baxter is positive that, with help from the Holy Spirit, improvement can be achieved. Chrysostom appears to hold character as set in stone. Although, as Dr. Phil says, past behaviour is a good predictor of future behaviour.

The second sin in Baxter's sights is Sloth (or, as he puts it, neglect of pastoral duties). Baxter has no time for those who, having accepted the Lord's challenge to put their shoulder to the wheel, find the work tiresome or not to their taste. How appropriate is this message in the modern age, when distractions assault even the most faithful Gospel worker! Baxter urges all ministers to devote themselves not only to serious study but also to the improvement of their preaching. He desires all to be earnest in their proclamation so that many might be moved to repentance. I think that earnestness is a preaching trait not seen as much as it should.

Also up for criticism is the factionalism of church politics. Baxter acknowledges that alliances and disagreements will be a natural part of any institution. However, he has strong words for those devotion to Sect over Saviour leads to unnecessary division, upsetting the Christian desire for peace. I am aware that Anglicans in Sydney have a reputation for loving a theological scrap, but in my association with many ministers I have rarely found this to be the case. Most would prefer cooperation to be the order of the day, but when faced with serious gospel challenges will not allow the message of Jesus to be compromised. As one of my revered teachers puts it, at least in Sydney matters are out in the open and discussed freely instead of being concentrated in shadowy cliques that include only the few.

Lastly, it is gratifying to see (in answer to some of my concerns of last week) that Baxter does not eliminate the issue of church discipline altogether, but instead gives it some attention in this chapter. On the positive side, he thinks that it is not given sufficient importance by pastors, going so far as to say that a minister who neglects discipline in his parish is just as bad as one who neglects poor preaching. On the negative, Baxter does not go into sufficient detail as to what a church with a healthy discipline system should look like. Perhaps his introspection up to this point makes it difficult for him to deal in tangibles.

I think it would be impossible for any minister to read this chapter of Baxter's work and not have their conscience stung in at least one tender place. These are the words of an experienced pastor who has seen it all before and had his heart broken as a result. While Baxter's list of sins is not comprehensive (representing only the major failings of his own time) there is much to be gained by a few moments quiet reflection of Baxter's still salient points.

Baxter #2 - Heeding Those In Your Care

In the dim distant past I was fortunate enough to study psychology at university. As a result I always have plenty of material on hand to spice up dull dinner party conversation - 'werewolves', dissociative fugue, why that anti-AIDS "Bowling Death" ad was ineffective, etc. I also learned how to decode common mental tics like Deja-vu - that eerie feeling of having been/seen/heard something before. Despite what the psychics may espouse, deja-vu derives from a misfire in your synapses when, on the presentation of a stimulus, your natural 'Recognition -> Emotional Response' process is reversed. Your consciousness then attempts to compensate by giving you the "We've Been Here Before" feeling. Perfectly natural, but in this case it really is your mind playing tricks on you!

I had such a feeling reading through chapter 2 of The Reformed Pastor this week. However, in this case, I could pinpoint exactly where the feeling came from...

Baxter continues his discursus on the oversight of the church by expanding on his key text of Acts 20:28. After instructing his readers that they must begin by taking heed of themselves he then describes how they must take heed of those whom God has given them. It is at this point that the feeling of deja-vu kicks in. It is obvious that Baxter owes a great deal to Bucer in his second chapter. His identification of the different types of 'sheep' to be dealt with follows Bucer almost exactly and his instruction about restoring those who are lost in sin also follow Bucer's pattern. This in itself is not surprising. Though Bucer's work had not appeared in English, the debt that 17th Century Puritanism owed to 16th Century Geneva made it natural that Baxter should turn to the Reformation texts for inspiration.

Baxter, following Bucer, takes pains to outline the seriousness of the work of guarding souls and calling those who have not believed in Christ to put their faith in Him. He views the congregation as the central charge of the pastor, and expresses disdain for those weak leaders who seek a comfortable living or ecclesiastical preferment rather than preaching the Gospel. None are to be neglected, but the lost are to be sought, the injured healed, the weak strengthened, etc. Those who are interested in some of the niceties would do well to read my previous posts on Bucer - the effect would be the same.

I then began asking myself, since Bucer and Baxter appear to be of a similar mind, which of their treatments I preferred. After careful consideration it is my view that not much was gained in the 100 years that separate the two tracts, and in fact a few points have suffered in the ageing.

No-one for a moment questions that Baxter strove to be biblical in all his opinions. The problem is that he does not go out of his way to demonstrating it. In many ways the main weakness that applied to Herbert also applies to Baxter - a lack of broad engagement with Scripture to justify their positions. Perhaps this was just a question of contemporary style - I haven't read enough of the 17th Century divines, either Puritan or Moderate, to make a judgment. It was, of course, possible to quibble with Bucer's exegesis (indeed, given the advances in biblical scholarship, you would be concerned if you couldn't), but at least you could feel comfortable that he was attempting to use a range of texts to justify his pastoral applications. Baxter relies on one text, and while there is nothing objectionable in his conclusions it would have been nice to see him justify them occasionally.

An area in which Baxter differs markedly from Bucer is over the issue of public penance. It will be remembered that Bucer maintained that restoration of proper application of public penance was essential for the health of the church in those cases where gross sin has seriously damaged community as evidence that the repentance of the sinner has been genuine. Indeed, Bucer devoted a large portion of his treatise to this subject. However, Baxter ignores the subject completely, willing to take declarations of contrition as evidence enough of repentance. Bucer felt that pastoral discipline should extend to both the internal and the external spheres, while Baxter seems rooted in the former. Bucer's opinions swayed me initially and I have not had cause to alter my judgment.

This is not to dismiss Baxter's approach completely. On the whole he expands upon the work that Bucer had done previously, and his prose is both affecting and compelling. It is hard not to be moved while reading Baxter to do the very best possible in our pastoral roles. At some moments, however, Baxter's enthusiasm appears to run away with him and he is not as systematic as someone like Calvin would have been. Several of his points regarding the manner of oversight overlap greatly and it is possible that this section could have been simplified. However, this was probably a tendency of the age and should not be judged too harshly.

Baxter #1 - Test Yourself

Greetings my public!

I must grovel for your pardon at not having updated sooner, but I was caught up in the maelstrom of Easter followed by a delightful holiday. During my absence I have slowly been ploughing through Richard Baxter's major pastoral work The Reformed Pastor. A couple of observations before I begin.

First, I must admit to being less than convinced of the merits of Puritanism. This is not to say that I disagree with the major theological thrusts of the great 17th Century divines (Sibbes, Owen, Baxter, etc). Indeed, from what I have read, they contributed a great deal to our understanding of Scripture and provided valuable reflection on the work of the Genevan Reformers of the previous century. However, it is clear that Puritanism was more "fine china" than "sturdy mug" - prone to easy fracturing and therefore must be handled gently. I am yet to form a judgment on their ecclesiology (perhaps Baxter will help in this regard) but to my eye it seems unnecessarily minimalist. Perhaps those who more schooled than myself in this period will throw up their hands at my assumptions, but I am willing to admit that my views come from ignorance. I am determined to approach Baxter in the same way that I approached Herbert, without preconceptions about the fitness of the views that I will find. I am aware that Puritanism has strongly influenced my own tradition - I wish to discover if this has been an influence for the good by keeping a critical approach to the text.

Second, I am extremely glad that I read Chrysostom before starting with Baxter. As will be seen, they approach the question of "pastoral fitness" from completely different angles, shaped by their cultures and experiences. It has reminded me how deep the wells of theology can go. It seems the more I read the more I need to read.

Baxter begins his treatise like a doctor examining a sick patient. His aim is to correct the poor standards of pastoral ministry then operating in England. Those who believe that the age of turbulent priests ended with Henry VIII should look to Baxter's work for an alternate view. Laziness, immorality, careerism, and open disdain for God's Word came just as easily to a Protestant church as to a Catholic one.

The solution that Baxter proposes contrasts markedly with that of Chrysostom. While the Golden Tongue wished to ensure that only the most incorruptible of the church should be advanced to ordination, Baxter starts with the assumption that corruptibility is a beast to be kept at bay by all those in ministry. Baxter is more theologically correct in his anthropology, but this does not mean that he is comfortably with lower standards. On the contrary, it is evident that Baxter wants only those who have a true heart to call people back to God to take on pastoral tasks. But even those whose motives are pure should be willing to submit themselves to frequent and rigorous spiritual examination to see whether their lives, faith, or doctrine has begun to decay. The title of Baxter's work is therefore most appropriate - there can be no pastor who is not reformed or in the process of reformation. To ignore this need and to rely on one's own moral standing to maintain purity is a dangerous game that puts souls in peril.

[note: I don't think that Chrysostom was exceedingly in error in his anthropology (though perhaps in his later years, given the bitter experiences that were to follow, he may have been more circumspect). Instead, I think that Chrysostom took the view that past performance was a good indicator of future behaviour. Those who had shown themselves worthy and godly servants in the past, full of charity and piety, were those who were less likely to resist the temptations that come with the pastoral office.]

Baxter's work is refreshing. It smacks of practical, sometimes bitter, experience of a national church that had not fulfilled the promises of the Reformation. Despite occasional archaisms, he paints a picture of the rough waters of ministry that is eerily familiar to anyone with a modicum of practical experience. If I was to have one criticism of this first section of the book it is that Baxter occasionally has a touch of the "Athanasian Lurgy"
- repeating points he has already made when answering a new question. While it means that he is less open to the charge of not answering objections fully it does lend a certain tediousness to his prose. Perhaps he will correct this as he goes on.

Chrysostom #2 - A Priesthood of Preachers

For all the prominence given to the business of preaching in our pastoral schemas it is odd that this topic has not been addressed significantly in my previous texts. Both Bucer and Herbert, of course, make reference to the importance of preaching. Yet it is apt that it is Chrysostom who places the ability to preach as the major practical skill of pastoral ministry. For those not aware, John Chrysostom was the John Piper of the ancient church, able to both deeply move a congregation's emotions and challenge their minds on important doctrinal issues. Chrysostom was not a systematician but a preacher, and it is through the preached word that his theological contributions were made. Very few others have managed to follow his lead, though it is arguably the best theological methodology we have.

It is necessary to remember that at this point in his life Chrysostom felt himself unworthy of ministry calling, perceiving himself to be both open to the temptation of vanity and unable to resist the attacks upon his soul that would come from a public role. His harsh self-assessment leads him to think himself ill-equipped to deal with the most important pastoral task - the salvation and healing of souls. Military language and allusion permeate Chrysostom's argument. It is clear that he views the world as a place of spiritual conflict, where the weak are preyed on by the powers of darkness, protected only those equipped for the battle.

The equipment required is the Word (IV.3). It is not always a gentle balm to the wound but it is the one that God has given for the salvation of souls. Only when the Word of God dwells richly in the heart of the minister are they ready to defeat those opposed to the gospel of salvation (IV.4). It is clear that Chrysostom prefers substance over style, despite his own classical education which had stressed the importance of rhetoric. While a preacher may falter over language or use only "simple" arguments, but if he is skilled at a true defence of the Faith and accurate in his doctrine then he is more worthy than any philosopher of the age (IV.6). While the importance of a pious and virtuous life cannot be denied, the example of a godly life is of limited use against a direct attack against the truth of the Word. Only those who have skills in teaching Truth and refuting Error can save those in mortal peril (IV.8-9).

The ideal pastor, according to Chrysostom, must have two personal strengths - being indifferent to the praise (or censure) of the people and the ability to preach well (V.1). Public preaching will always result in the praise or approbation of the speaker. Therefore, ministers need to be skilled in dealing with both so that they may not be dragged down into vanity (V.4). Ministers must therefore devote themselves to study and the practice of preaching, to remove themselves from spheres where praise or censure can drag them down and instead aim for loftier goals (V.5-6).

Chrysostom's points are noetic rather than practical. Those who seek a practical guide from the patristic period would be better reading Augustine's On Christian Teaching (De Doctrina Christiana). It would be also easy to take Chrysostom's advice as a licence for isolationism in ministry, e.g. "We must remain in our closets studying faithfully, lest we go out into the world and meet someone who approves of us and therefore drag us down again." This would be to take his thinking too far. Yet it is interesting to consider his view that a descent into vanity harms not only our souls but those to whom we minister. It is in this context that his warnings should be taken. Also worthy of note is his belief in the power of the Word for those in ordained ministry. Priests and bishops are not held up as Infallible Holy-men because of their ordination vows. Rather, those who accept church office must be recognisable as people of the Word and must be driven back to it again and again in order that they might not fall into temptation and place their sheep in danger. It is a good warning to me personally not to fall back on my theological qualifications as an excuse for spiritual laxity. There is work to be done and battles to be fought!

Chrysostom #1 - A Priesthood of Love

There was an opening line of a song (the composer of which escapes me) that ran, "It's not where you start, it's where you finish." No doubt true for the corporate capitalist or those foolish people who enjoy long-distance running. Yet for pastoral theology the reverse is usually true. This is because it is often abundantly clear what a truly godly minister looks like, if for no other reason than we have the testimony of Scripture (e.g. Titus 1) to guide us. So the pastoral theologian can see his goal in the distance before he begins his journey. Yet there is the question as to where to place the first step. In my reading over the last few months I have been challenged by the writers of other ages as how to approach the task of pastoral ministry. Yet the biggest difference has not been in the practical advice but in the theoretical foundations of ministry. For Bucer, the orders of ministry were how God exercised his Rule. Herbert, on the other hand, preferred the concept of Order, so in all things the minister must act in an orderly fashion to make God's Word clear and so God's Will can be seen to be done. For Chrysostom, ministry is about Love. Chrysostom's first major theological work, On the Priesthood, is really a public apologia for past behaviour. Briefly, Chrysostom had formed a solemn pact with his good friend Basil on hearing that the local church was planning to elevate them to episcopal office. They swore that either they would both accept the wishes of the nominators or they would both refuse. However Chrysostom, in a case of duplicity that would be frowned upon most heavily in our current age, placed Basil in the position of being forced to accept ordination while refusing it himself. Basil was crushed by his friend's betrayal, but Chrysostom insisted that he had acted for the best because it meant that the church had gained a most godly servant while doubting that he himself could not accept the burdens of office. What follows is a rhetorical dialogue between the two men where Chrysostom outlines his vision of what the truly godly minister should be like. After outlining his perception of the events (I.6-8) Chrysostom begins his treatise proper with the thesis that the priesthood was instituted by Christ as an act of love for the church. Peter's threefold declaration of love for Christ (Jn 21:13-17) cannot be understood outside of Jesus' command for Peter to fulfil that love by faithfully feeding the lambs that are being left in his care. While the sheep desire to be fed by the True Shepherd, it is an expression of divine love that they are fed by those in whose care they have been left (II.1-2). Those given then role of priest to the flock are to be those who are so consumed with a love for Jesus that they will tend them faithfully even in the midst of trial and persecution. It is because Chrysostom perceives Basil's love as being so much greater than his own that he felt justified not only in his refusal of ordination but of his tricking his most dear friend so that the church should not lose such a worthy man on account of Chrysostom's unworthiness. Book III concentrates on the temptations and pressures that will undoubtedly fall on those with ministerial responsibility. Vanity (III.1-12), the attacks of the enemies of God (III.13-15) and the stress of caring for widows and virgins (III.16). Chrysostom's point is not to over-spiritualise the priesthood (though some of his comments on the sacraments might seem that way if taken in isolation). Rather, he is being realistic in evaluating the stresses that ordained ministry places on the individual to impress the fact that only those who are truly motivated by Love can hope to exercise this ministry without being crushed by the strain. Before any consideration of the practicalities of ministry come into play the foundation must be set according to the priorities of God. I was surprised by my reading of Chrysostom. Perhaps I shouldn't have been, given his reputation both as a theological communicator and perhaps one of the greatest servants the Church has ever had. His advocating of Love was refreshing, even if I may not be completely on board with his methods of promoting ordination.