Diocese's largest number ordained

[Gordon Cheng]

I was interested in this report from The Melbourne Anglican.

From the report:

The number was so large – 29 – that the ordination had to be split into the two services.

The ordinands range in age from 27 to 69 and 11 are women. 13 are in their 20s or 30s. They come from a wide variety of professions and backgrounds, and include a former lawyer, builder, banker and nurse.

It sounds promising! But on the other hand, 13 people under 40 (I'm assuming there were no teenagers ;-) ) seems to put a bit of a qualifier on whether this is a healthy picture.

I know people will be praying that those ordained will enjoy God's richest blessing on their ministries and those of their churches. But it raises the question too about what the trends are. Is this the beginning of a surge? More ministry 'boots on the ground'? Or is it a statistical blip that we need to be careful about interpreting?

[Luke Isham]

Chris semi-live-blogged one of the services.

[Jereth]

gordon I don't quite get what point you're making about 13 people under age 40. Didn't Mark Driscoll say we need more young men in ministry?

On another note: I'm wonder if someone with inside knowledge of Anglican theology can help me with this. Someone I know attended the ordination service on saturday and was really disturbed by something that the bishop apparently said to each of the new priests: he said "whatever sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whatever sins you withhold forgiveness, it will be withheld."

She was disturbed because she thinks it is heretical (given her non-Anglican upbringing) to say that human priests have the power to grant and withhold forgiveness.

What should I explain to her about this? Is it just some residual Catholic thing that was never properly reformed?

Jereth

[Jereth's cat]

gordon I don't quite get what point you're making about 13 people under age 40. Didn't Mark Driscoll say we need more young men in ministry?

I think he means 'only' 13 is a bad thing - he'd like more

[Matt Williams]

Chris said (on the blog):

"I thought the way the Arch-Bishop stood up the front and made a various number of declarations was a little too Pope like for me.  There was one particular line when he was 'ordaining' the people where he said words to the effect of, "When you forgive peoples sins they will be forgiven, when you retain them, they will be retained."  This sits very very uneasily with me as I hold that only God can forgive or retain sins."

I appreciate Chris' concern but I don't think his position as outlined is very defensible. It is certainly not 'only God', since the resurrected Jesus commissioning the disciples granted the ability to forgive and retain sins:

"Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven, if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.'" John 20:21-23

So this ministry of forgiving and withholding has indeed been entrusted to men, by Jesus. I appreciate that it is jarring to hear this commission given to human beings in front of you - but is it wrong? We cannot say that it is wrong to give this commission to men per se, since Jesus does exactly that. We may ask whether it should continue to be given to men, but there is a very strong case it should.

If you were to argue against it, you would need to demonstrate that this weight of responsibility is only borne by the apostles for the whole church, both at that time and ever since, perhaps mediated through scripture or some such position.

But it is rather awkward theologically to argue that a function that involves discernment about individual cases is given exclusively to a group of men who are not still around to exercise it. Surely the whole point of the risen Lord Jesus passing that commission on to the disciples is that he himself will not be present in body to enact those decisions in the visible church, and the disciples will be. So the disciples too needed to entrust that responsibility to faithful shepherds for the next generation, who would entrust it to others in turn. We see that they did that in the pastoral epistles.

Ministers of Christ are supposed to exercise a ministry of reconciliation as God's representatives or ambassadors (presbeuein) as not only Paul but the non-apostle Timothy claimed. (2 Cor 5:20 - 2 Corinthians is a letter from Paul and Timothy, and here they use the first person plural verb 'we represent'). This in no way mitigates that all these things come from God, but an ambassador who brings the message and exercises the oversight or interim judgement is, in fact, exercising a sort of - dare I say - mediatorial role. This mediation is not the same as the mediation of Christ, not in a way that can bypass Christ or add to Christ, is not sacrificial in any way, and is clearly different to the work of the Holy Spirit. But being the bearer of a message and the authoritative representative of God in the visible Christian community really is mediatorial at some level, as Paul and Timothy conceived it.

It seems the ordination service is combining these ideas. I too was struck by it in the service for how weighty (and scary) it was. But I don't think it is an extra chip of popery that needs to be knocked off. It really has the more direct claim on the biblical evidence.

Now this idea can be overplayed or abused, as it was in the medieval church, but it can also be underplayed. And if God in fact is going to hold ministers responsible at this level, we would not remove that responsibility by omitting to mention it in their ordination service.

Yet again I think we see the English reformers balanced their theology masterfully with a solid grounding in the scriptures. They ditched all the sacrificial aspects of priesthood from the Roman Catholic church (as per Hebrews etc) but retained the valid mediatorial or ambassadorial aspects of the role in the ordination service. Cranmer really was such a clever bunny, it often amazes me how much he got right under such difficult circumstances.

Nonetheless the idea should be balanced by the possibility of faithless shepherds. If the ordained person withhholds forgiveness as a measure of revenge or power play, I think it is dubious to expect that their fallible decisions will always be honoured by God, as though the clay could now wielding the potter to its own advantage. But the judgement on such a faithless shepherd, who may have caused untold spiritual damage in the process, is unlikely to be light. And we should not be too quick to presume to usurp the role of our shepherds every time we disagree with their assessment, since the responsibility, and the grave consequences of error, are already weighing heavily on their shoulders.

It sure is big stuff. Our friends ordained on Saturday are going to need a lot of faithful prayer and support from us.

I hope that helps, brothers.

Cheers
Matt

[Jereth]

Jereth's cat wrote:

gordon I don't quite get what point you're making about 13 people under age 40. Didn't Mark Driscoll say we need more young men in ministry?

I think he means 'only' 13 is a bad thing - he'd like more

My cat certainly is very intelligent, in fact he holds several PhDs in feline studies, but perhaps Gordo you can confirm this is what you did mean?

Hey, interesting that someone else also found that forgive sins line uncomfortable! Thanks Matt for your explanation I'll pass on your explanation and let you know their response.

This is funny what that Chris guy said, ho ho ho:
"This is essentially a service where the church forgets it's almost 2009 and reverts to some sort of 1700's style worship and liturgy."

Oh boy this is even worse!:
"It did get me thinking about my future a little.  Could I ever seriously put myself through such a service... I actually object to wearing robes because I think it's an unnescecary barrier to the Gospel.  I quote a Melbourne Anglican pastor and theologian, "There is no theological significance to robes".  I don't think I could ever bring myself to wear them.

I also don't think that I have the power to forgive and retain sins.  I would find it awkard to be told that I did.

I also know that there was a good chance that some of the people getting ordained didn't actually believe that Jesus is the only way to be saved.  I'm unsure how I could enter into a system that is so badly corrupted and essentially worships the devil by allowing such people to preach in the name of Jesus."

Jereth

[Matt Williams]

Jereth wrote:

This is funny what that Chris guy said, ho ho ho:
"This is essentially a service where the church forgets it's almost 2009 and reverts to some sort of 1700's style worship and liturgy."

Well, that's just ignorant. There were 19th Century innovations all over the place. :-)

Jereth wrote:

Oh boy this is even worse!:
"It did get me thinking about my future a little.  Could I ever seriously put myself through such a service... I actually object to wearing robes because I think it's an unnescecary barrier to the Gospel.  I quote a Melbourne Anglican pastor and theologian, "There is no theological significance to robes".  I don't think I could ever bring myself to wear them.

Ummm... this is confusing. How can someone justify never doing something on principle, which they think is of itself insignificant, because it is a 'barrier to the gospel'? Doubtless wearing robes may be alienating for some people - but to others NOT wearing robes is a barrier to the gospel. At my church at the moment that is the case - I would inevitably upset people if I refused to wear robes, thus causing an unnecessary barrier to the gospel ministry I exercise there. If the problem switched, I would be willing to stop wearing them. But a blanket refusal to wear robes, I would suggest, is really more about 'what I want' than the gospel, and it is a bit hard to believe it really issues from a selfless place. To refuse to wear a robe at the ordination service, for instance, is grossly insubordinate, divisive, and would cause needless offense to many people.

Jereth wrote:

I also don't think that I have the power to forgive and retain sins.  I would find it awkard to be told that I did.

Well, I'm glad about that, brother, because... you don't.

Jereth wrote:

I also know that there was a good chance that some of the people getting ordained didn't actually believe that Jesus is the only way to be saved.  I'm unsure how I could enter into a system that is so badly corrupted and essentially worships the devil by allowing such people to preach in the name of Jesus."

You know there is a good chance? Have any of them said so to you? I don't think slander of new priests based on some sort of imagined probability system is very appropriate in a public forum. They have all promised in their vows that they will "faithfully and humbly minister the doctrine, sacraments and discipline of Christ, as he has commanded and as this Church has received them" so I think we should assume they intend to do that. If they do not, there are discipline procedures.

Blessings
Matt

[Andrew Bowles]

"This is essentially a service where the church forgets it's almost 2009 and reverts to some sort of 1700's style worship and liturgy."

To be honest, most 'contemporary' style worship services seem to have arrived in 2009 through a time portal connected to 1975. Strumming acoustic guitars and singing about our feelings? I'll take 1662 any day! Can I get an 'Amen'? ....No, I can't, it's not in the liturgy until page 163...

[Jono Smith]

Listen fellas, Chris is actually a really good guy, a faithful disciple, and a close Brother who loves the Lord and wants to honour Him in his life and ministry.
If you read his blog or talk to him in person you'll realise that he's honestly trying to think all of this ministry/ordination stuff through carefully - so what if he says some things bluntly? - he's speaking his mind as he grapples with some big issues.
Fair play if you want to correct some of his thinking, but don't stick the boot into a Brother for criticizing an obviously flawed ordination service. If you know him (not many of you do), how about encouraging him to jump into the Ordination stream at Riddles? God knows we need more men like him pastoring our churches.

[Luke Isham]

Hey Matt,

I haven't made up my mind on John 20:21-23 but I'm just trying to follow your line of reasoning.  Your arguing that the "forgiving of sins" is passed to 'ministers' only because the "ambassadors" of 2 Cor 5 applies only to ministers?  From this then you argue (or suggest?) that ministers/presbyters/priests have a mediator role? You then qualify yourself:

This in no way mitigates that all these things come from God, but an ambassador who brings the message and exercises the oversight or interim judgement is, in fact, exercising a sort of - dare I say - mediatorial role. This mediation is not the same as the mediation of Christ, not in a way that can bypass Christ or add to Christ, is not sacrificial in any way, and is clearly different to the work of the Holy Spirit. But being the bearer of a message and the authoritative representative of God in the visible Christian community really is mediatorial at some level, as Paul and Timothy conceived it.

So I'm not sure at all what you mean by a "medaitor."

[Jereth]

Matt Williams wrote:

Jereth wrote:

I also don't think that I have the power to forgive and retain sins.  I would find it awkard to be told that I did.

Well, I'm glad about that, brother, because... you don't.

Jereth wrote:

I also know that there was a good chance that some of the people getting ordained didn't actually believe that Jesus is the only way to be saved.  I'm unsure how I could enter into a system that is so badly corrupted and essentially worships the devil by allowing such people to preach in the name of Jesus."

You know there is a good chance? Have any of them said so to you? I don't think slander of new priests based on some sort of imagined probability system is very appropriate in a public forum. They have all promised in their vows that they will "faithfully and humbly minister the doctrine, sacraments and discipline of Christ, as he has commanded and as this Church has received them" so I think we should assume they intend to do that. If they do not, there are discipline procedures.

Just to clarify: those quotes weren't me, they were from that blogger chap.

cheers
Jereth

[Jereth]

Jono Smith wrote:

Listen fellas, Chris is actually a really good guy, a faithful disciple, and a close Brother who loves the Lord and wants to honour Him in his life and ministry.
If you read his blog or talk to him in person you'll realise that he's honestly trying to think all of this ministry/ordination stuff through carefully - so what if he says some things bluntly? - he's speaking his mind as he grapples with some big issues.
Fair play if you want to correct some of his thinking, but don't stick the boot into a Brother for criticizing an obviously flawed ordination service. If you know him (not many of you do), how about encouraging him to jump into the Ordination stream at Riddles? God knows we need more men like him pastoring our churches.

Hi Jono,

Just want to assure you that I don't have a problem with your friend Chris. In fact, reading his blog entry I found most of his thoughts echo almost precisely with my own (well maybe not the "worships the devil" bit). I don't think I could in good conscience and integrity enter employment under the current Anglican diocese either (no offense of course to yourself and others who are planning to -- we all make our own decisions).

Maybe I'll see Chris in AFES ministry over the next few years? :-)

cheers!
Jereth

[Jono Smith]

Jereth wrote:

Maybe I'll see Chris in AFES ministry over the next few years? :-)

Chris to AFES? I really hope not mate. I love the ministry that you guys do - honestly, it's fantastic - but AFES (and others) gobble up a lot of the dissenters, innovators, mavericks, free-thinkers etc. that I believe we need in our churches.

Chris is a natural leader.
Good leaders will always critique the systems, policies, procedures of an organisation, even a very good organisation - it's part of what makes them a leader. What we seem to do is take those guys and give them an ultimatum: "either lose the dissenting attitude (normally just a gift for innovation) and get ordained, or go on critiquing as long as you pi$$-off to the para-church".

People joked with me many times on Saturday: "Just had your spine removed, eh?". That's a funny joke, but I'd hate to think that
1. It's actually what's expected of me.
2. Spine removal is unnecessary because we only ordain spineless people - the guys with a backbone were forced out of the system early on. They all work at AFES now...

[Matt Williams]

Okay - sorry Jereth, I did assume they were from you. Did you quote them because you like them, agree with them, or...?

My dear brother Jono - I do know Chris a bit and agree he is a terrific bloke and like him a great deal. You would know better than any of us how gifted he is for ministry. He does appear to be a natural leader, and a charismatic person. (Incidentally, I went over to his blog to let him know this discussion was happening as a courtesy.)

But I also think my criticisms have been a hundred times less blunt than the ones they are responding to (for instance, accusing our whole church of being embroiled in devil worship based on speculation about what some of the ordinands 'probably don't believe'). That is about the most severe accusation that could ever be levelled against a brother, or a whole church. Should I go all soft and pretend that charges of that nature don't really matter between friends in the hope that he will become an ordinand himself? What were you saying about backbone?

Blessings
Matt

[Andrew Bowles]

I think it's actually helpful to think of your 'spine' being removed at ordination - that is, your reliance on your natural intelligence, charisma, confidence etc. to achieve spiritual goals. If we want the right to critique the church, we need to build personal authority and influence based on the evidence of the faithful and fruitful service that we've done, and our love and commitment to the good of the church. Like everyone, I often get seduced by my youthful enthusiasm into blustering about how everything would be better if people would just listen to me. But that's just foolishness, I haven't earned the right to be heard yet because I haven't done anything. I think 'maverick' personalities should definitely be in the ministry, but they might need to undergo a period of humbling before they start critiquing the church. 'If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness' (2 Cor 11:30).

[Matt Williams]

Hey Luke,

No worries - it's not an easy concept and I do understand that it might sit uncomfortably.

You've mostly summed me up correctly. A mediator is a sort of go-between, and this is the aspect I think does apply to ministers. We should distinguish here between a mediator who actually creates peace between humanity and God (which is only Christ - 1 Tim 2:5) and a mediator/representative/amabassador who brings the encounter of that peace to individual people (which Christ commissioned the disciples to do).

There are aspects of how God treats people which ought to be reflected in the church community, and in the Anglican church priests are entrusted with the discernment of that. They discern when the community should excommunicate a notorious sinner as not truly repentant, and when the community should retain that person as a member of the church; when a person is welcome to the Lord's table and when they must be excluded for divisive behaviour.

In other words, to exercise church discipline is to mediate a discipline of God to the people - or indeed to retain sins. Jesus seems to be saying that God is backing up what the community is doing in that regard. Now this instinctively feels the wrong way around, but it is what Jesus says and we ought to sit under its weight for a while before we balance it with other theological concerns (such as our confidence that God will defend his flock against faithless shepherds).

Why does the Lord Jesus entrust such a weighty responsibility to fallible men, or throw his own authority behind their discernment? It's hard to fathom - but I guess little harder than the fact he entrusts us with the treasure of the gospel in the first place.

Perhaps he wanted to ensure church discipline was treated as properly serious and effective, rather than a chance to go off in a huff and start a new "First Really True Post-Millenial Foot-Washing Big-Bible Church of Corinth". In any case, if ministers are entrusted with that, and held accountable for that, I think it's probably a good thing we bring it to their attention in the ordination service, so we can all feel the burden of their responsibility.

Blessings
Matt

[Jordan]

At the ordination service, someone turned to me in shock after hearing the words 'whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins you retain, they are retained.'

A couple of brief points:

1. It is entirely understandable that such a phrase, used without explanation at our current ordination service, might be misunderstood.

2. Matt's right to point out that Jesus commissioned the apostles with these very words (Jn 20:21-23) - so if there is something wrong with human ministers forgiving sins per se, then surely Jesus would have put things differently.

3. Again, as Matt has pointed out, this ministry of binding and loosing is integral to gospel ministry, so it can't simply stop with the apostles. (Check out Carson's commentary for a good explanation. Matthew Henry also understood this commissioning to be a general charter for gospel ministry, although he also thought there was something unique given to the apostles here as well.)

4. Anglican theology understands this commissioning to be exercised in the preaching of the gospel, not in some magic power that you get from the bishop's hands. For proof that those who wrote the prayer book understood things in this way, you need to compare the ordination service to the other prayer book services where the priest actually puts things into practice. For example, from the communion service of 1662:

'...therefore, if there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned Minister of God's Word, and open his grief; that by the ministry of God's holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.'

Note carefully that absolution is said to be received 'through the ministry of God's holy Word', not through any other means, and certainly not through any superstitious power or inherent authority possessed by the priest.

And from the general absolution in the same service:

'Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him; Have mercy upon you; pardon and deliver you from all your sins; confirm and strengthen you in all goodness; and bring you to everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.'

Note that forgiveness is said to come through the divine promise, and only to those who heartily repent and believe. Note also that the priest never says 'I forgive you', but only pronounces God's forgiveness on the terms of the gospel - which is precisely the evangelical ministry.

If you look at the context in this service, you will also see how the priest only gives this absolution after he, and the whole congregation, have knelt down in corporate confession of sin. He leads the confession, and then pronounces the forgiveness of the gospel to all who repent and believe.

Brothers, this is all that is meant by those seemingly stark statements in the ordination service. Don't be put off by them. I said above that it's understandable that someone might baulk at these words in our current service. As Matt has pointed out too, part of the reason may be that John 20:21-23 no longer features anywhere in our theology. Perhaps we have emphasized the priesthood of all believers to the point where there is no longer any room for the commissioning of certain individuals to have a unique authority to preach the Word. Perhaps too, we have forgotten that the preaching of the Gospel is not mere talk, but a Spirit empowered event where binding and loosing takes place even as we speak.

In Christ,
Jordan  

[Jereth]

Jono Smith wrote:

Chris to AFES? I really hope not mate. I love the ministry that you guys do - honestly, it's fantastic - but AFES (and others) gobble up a lot of the dissenters, innovators, mavericks, free-thinkers etc. that I believe we need in our churches.

FYI I'm not currently in AFES, I'm only a past beneficiary and current financial-and-prayer supporter, but I am considering doing in in a year or 2 from now after I've completed my ridley Grad Dip.

I can see that AFES has a tendency to "gobble" up these sorts of people; however I don't think that is entirely because mavericks etc. are just giving the finger to the Church. It is the perception that (a) "the [anglican] Church wouldn't possibly want me because I am conservative/complementarian/5-point-calvinist/in-love-with-Mark-Driscoll-and-John-Piper/Sydney-sympathiser/pro-life/[insert other here]" and (b) "even if the [anglican] church did want me, and I could in good conscience submit myself to its leadership, I don't think I could possibly survive there long term spiritually or emotionally". I get the impression that your mate Chris is expressing these feelings, they are feelings I myself have had and many others too that I've spoken to over time.

Also, I think there are just good people who go into AFES because they recognise its strategic importance -- i.e. training up and equipping a young future generation of church leaders for this country -- and because their personality is more suited to that kind of front-line mission.

Matt wrote:

Okay - sorry Jereth, I did assume they were from you. Did you quote them because you like them, agree with them, or...?

I just thought they were particularly striking, and reveal a significant strand of thought in our churches. Much of what he said resonates with me although as I said I wouldn't put things so bluntly as "worshipping the devil".

I've heard a lot of people say stuff like Chris: that our Anglican leadership is corrupt, and half the ministers ordained are unbelievers, and so forth. Some of these people are still Anglicans, some have moved on to other churches. I don't think Chris is speaking alone. So why is there such a strong undercurrent of this sort of dissenting sentiment around, especially among the younger men and women? Is the church listening or ignoring these feelings?

Jereth

[Matt Williams]

Hey Jereth,

Thanks for clarifying, brother.

By the way, a brief look at history will show you that there is always an undercurrent of dissenting sentiment around in every new generation that comes through, both in the church and outside of it. It has ever been thus, and ever will be thus until the Lord Jesus returns. It should not be ignored, but nor should we really panic as though something unprecedented is happening...

Blessings
Matt

[Matt Williams]

Thanks Jordan, that's a very helpful way to put it.

Blessings
Matt