Diocese's largest number ordained

[Andrew Stagg]

Jereth wrote:

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?

Matt Williams wrote:

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...

Both answers sound correct. Matt's right to say that there are always dissenters and at times we are warned there will be trouble makers. And Jereth is correct when he says that a lot of people look at the anglican church and feel strong biblical concern. In my time I've seen people move on for both reasons. I guess the question is why these people are dissatisfied - if it's because these folks are (like all of us) fallen and inclined to be disgruntled then we approach the issue one way. If however some of these people are concerned because they don't feel that the church is being the faithful witness that it really should be then we shouldn't just write these people off. The reality is that it's a mixture of both types.

Like Jereth, I too know a lot of people who have moved on from the anglican church because they don't feel that it is being a faithful biblical witness. And I know guys who have stayed that are really struggling with it's relevance. These aren't guys on the fringe, they are faithful solid biblical christians.

I guess I have a lot of sympathy with these guys. When our diocese produces a report that appears to support abortion on demand, when our synod declines to vote on a sancity of life motion, these things concern me too.

====================================================

Chris's comment

 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.

perhaps needs to be treated with a bit more kindness than it got earlier. It came from his personal blog - he never posted it here, so I feel pretty bad that it's been pulled to bits. However based solely on what I read in the Melbourne Anglican each month statistically speaking there's fairly good chance that his statement is correct.

Chris - if you're reading this - I liked your blog.

[Jono Smith]

Jereth wrote:

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]"

Brother, I'm every one of those things and I'm aboard the leaky ship (pulling my hair out!) but loving the gospel opportunites!!!

Jereth wrote:

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.

Mate, that's exactly the problem... Why the hell aren't we "training up and equipping a young future generation of church leaders for this country -- and [doing] that kind of front-line mission" in our local churches???
Can't you see that's why we need you guys working in the church?
TRAINING - EQUIPPING - FRONT-LINE MISSION! It's what EVERY church should be doing EVERY day!

My heart breaks every time I hear a gifted, intelligent, passionate, godly young man tell me that he can't work in a local church because he's interested in 'front-line mission'. Come to my conservative, traditional, well-to-do church in the leafy, polite, spiritually-dead suburbs and I'll give you so many "front-line" opportunities that you'll be crying for the rapture before you've finished your first year...

Seriously mate, we need to change the perception among young blokes who are passionate for gospel renewal: You can do it at AFES etc. and that's great. Praise the Lord. But you can (and should) also do it in the local church.
As my good mate Mitsubishi said: "Please Consider".

[Andrew Stagg]

Jereth wrote
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]"

Jono wrote
Brother, I'm every one of those things and I'm aboard the leaky ship (pulling my hair out!) but loving the gospel opportunites!!!

Me too except that I'm not sure if I can be a calvinist anymore because I heard that true calvinists always like really really long sermons...

[Jono Smith]

Me too except that I'm not sure if I can be a calvinist anymore because I heard that true calvinists always like really really long sermons...

No no no... true calvinists like really really long sermons from really really good preachers.
I certainly don't fit the "really really good preacher" bill - but if you want to put yourself to the test, download my 50 minute sermon from last Sunday night on Matthew 6:5-15 here. Its part of my "What Would Jesus Pray?" series.

There's nothing wrong with a shameless plug, eh?

[Andrew Stagg]

50 Minutes - crikey!! Did anyone die??

I'll try to give it a listen mate, - that is after I finish downloading and listening to some JI Packer stuff on the Trinity that's snailing it's way through my dial up right now...

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

There have been lots of points raised on this thread:

Authority to forgive (already dealt with)

Robes: can you believe that there was significant dispute about the robes that clergy should wear in the 1600's (around the time 1662 was written). There was the Geneva Robe (a black robe, often worn with a hat, favoured by Puritans and Calvinists, because Calvin wore one in Geneva). There was the alb, cassock, surplice and chasuble. There was a lot of dispute and even boycotting of robes - within the Anglican church. Has anything changed? I never saw a chasuble until I moved to the Perth Diocese. I was accustomed to the black preaching scarf (frequently used in the Diocese of North West Australia), I was surprised see the range of "liturgical colours" that I was unfamiliar with. Most robes are a historical throwback of some kind - even the "Pentecostal suit". (Check out Riverview Church http://www.riverviewchurch.com.au/ for contermporary dress!)

AFES and other ministry places: John Sugars, Peter Adam, Gordo, Peter Leslie, Andrew Reid, Philip Jensen, Peter Jensen, Rhys Bezzant and many, many others have seen and do see the strategic importance of ministry on University Campuses. Please guys: It is not either/or with ministry. The harvest is plentiful and the workers are few! Peter Adam had a habit of telling uni students to stay away from "student churches" and get into multigenerational suburban churches so they could benefit from the wisdom of the older saints.  

The leaky boat: Yes we are in a leaky boat but I was confronted by a Baptist friend who thanked God for the Roman Catholic church because they preserved scripture. The Anglican Communion has a myriad of problems, most congregations are a mission field, many Australians look to the Anglican Church for funerals at least (if not weddings or baptisms) - what an opportunity for care and evangelism. Believe me: "If you find a perfect church, leave it alone, because as soon as you join it will be corrupted."

[Jono Smith]

Wise words Phil.

I agree that "it is not either/or with ministry" - that's why I said "...we need to change the perception among young blokes who are passionate for gospel renewal: You can do it at AFES etc. and that's great. Praise the Lord. But you can (and should) also do it in the local church."

Plus, you can win just about any debate with me if your preface your argument with "Peter Adam says..."

I appreciate your thoughts mate.

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Peter Adam says "I am only human, a clay jar that the Lord uses" [couldn't resist, although I think it's a paraphrase].

Greatly benefitted from his ministry, he gave me a christian wife!

[Chris Bowditch]

Ok, so I thought I should come on here and attempt to defend myself, and also thank you for dialogging with my thoughts!  Sorry I haven't come on here earlier, but today is the first day I've had a chance to.

Firstly, these were my random off the top of my head thoughts, which I put out there in the hope of generating discussion in order to refine my views, get corrected, get beaten round the head a bit, and affirm some of my thinking.  That's the beauty of this site I guess, in that it allows people to talk and discuss ideas and to think them through.

In all that has been said I can see that the statement about 'worshiping the devil', whilst designed to be deliberately provocative went a little bit too far.  I have a habbit of making statements like this to get discussion going... I like to work through my thoughts that way.  I'm sorry if I offended anyone, that was never my intention nor my inclination!  

Those of you who know me might know that I've spent my entire life in the Anglican Church (my dad is ordained) and know that the statement was meant to be hyperbole, rather than a direct statement of my beliefs.  Despite my many frustrations with some things in the Anglican Church, it has given a lot to me and being an important part of my coming to faith and upbringing.  I believe God uses the Anglican church for good things!

I can also see that for some people wearing robes is important.  It isn't for me and i still maintain hesitations about them, but if that were the only way to reach a group of people God had called me to, I guess I'd swallow my pride and don the lovely robes.

I've thought about it, prayed about it and decided it would be better to change the ending to my original blog post.  So you can check it out here

At the end of the day I want to see more people come to know Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.  I get easily frustrated, and that can sometimes manifest itself in overly critical or harsh statements, that when pushed I would retract immediately what I've just said.  If you've had a conversation with me at Ridley you quite possibly have heard that happen.

Praise God because he is refining this terrible sinner!  And thanks to those of you who pointed out that what I had said was childish and silly!

God bless!

[Jereth]

G'day Chris,

Welcome here and thanks for your comments. I think it was quite obvious to most of us that what you said on your blog was hyperbole and intended to provoke. It gave me a good laugh, let me tell you. Good on you for expressing your thoughts frankly and for being willing to rock the boat a little with some constructive criticism. Hey we live in a democracy and there is such a thing as freedom of speech! No one should be crucified for what they write on an internet blog -- we're not living in Communist China. There have been much more heinous things said by certain Anglican opinionists in newspapers such as The Age.

I've heard from a friend who attends your church that you are doing a great ministry there -- well done, brother, keep up the good work you're doing for Jesus and his glorious kingdom.

God bless you,
Jereth

[Andrew Stagg]

Howdy Chris,

welcome to the bear pit!!!! Hope you enjoyed the ordination service that you blogged about - it certainly got everyone thinking, and some of the questions that you were wrestling with about ordination are questions that other guys are wrestling with too. I hope you didn't really get "beaten round the head" too much. I liked your questions - they were valid questions - and they were kinda funny too which is good. One of the side effects of being passionate is that sometimes people misinterpret what we have to say. Paul was passionate - and he certainly got knocked around a bit.

Feel free to stick around for some more questions, and also (hopefully) for some encouragement too!!

ANDREW

[Alex M]

Hi Chris,

The problem with a lot of things in Melbourne Diocese is that they give you such a strong sense that something is deeply wrong (in a kind of stomach contorting kind of way), but putting your finger on the exact problem is paradoxically both quite difficult and also blindingly obvious when you pinpoint it.

I remember attending the opening of the legal year service at the Cathedral on a number of occasions. The service starts with a procession by members of the legal profession. Rather than all filing in together - or horror of horrors - allowing the solicitors to enter before barristers, the QC's, and the judges, the procession is carefully arranged to ensure that those higher up the pecking order enter first and sit up closer to the front in the 'special' seats.

Now, no doubt an apologist could come up with some sort of justification for this (ie "this is culturally appropriate", "it's to do with honouring those in positions of respect", "it's actually subtle irony subverting privilege by ensuring that the Church (er... I mean Christ) is Lord over even human institutions and structures") etc, but the reality is these sorts of arguments are bunkum when compared to Jesus who spent time preaching to tax collectors and prostitutes.

Chris, I would encourage you to think through a bit more about what exactly about the ordination service made you feel the way you did. Yes, maybe on reflection you might believe you over-reacted; but it also may be that others are under-reacting particularly to the "worshipping the devil" phrase which conjurs up images which probably don't look like the ordination service.

But let's step back here. If what you are saying is that parts of the Anglican "system" are idolatrous (ie elevating allegiance to the institutional church over allegiance to Christ (ie keep quiet and ignore false teaching); or in another place you allude to worshipping the bible itself as opposed to the Lord who wrote it etc) then isn't your conclusion made (given that idolatry is just a nice theological word for worshipping false gods)? Why are people so affronted by that? (And why is the belief in the reality of Satan one of those doctrines that orthodox Anglicans feel ok discounting?)

Matt's response was as follows:

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?

Ok fair point - it's unfair to make an unsubtantiated accusation about this bunch of ordinands. But Melbourne Diocese doesn't have a good track record here going back over many many years. Probably the most outrageous recent example was the licensing of Ruwan Palapathwala, who has argued publicly against the uniqueness of Christ (and doesn't appear to have recanted having regard to the contents of his website http://www.ruwan.com ). There are other examples in the same vein that I am sure, Matt, you are aware of; I am aware of examples going back to the time of Archbishop Dann in the late 70's. I think the point Matt is making is a good one, but not to the extent it tries to close down debate on this point. It is right to want to ensure the integrity of the ordination process and questioning (albeit not accusing) is a proper part of that.

Btw I don't find this argument persuasive:

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.

The logical jumps seem to be:

- Jesus did it for the disciples, so it's ok for someone else (say the leader of a para-church organisation called the Diocese of Melbourne) to do it for others;

- because the NT describes certain things that happened (eg lots of miracles, overseers, deacons, going out two by two etc) that the NT is prescriptive about those things (ie if your church doesn't have lots of miracles it can't be authentic); in the same way, just because the disciples had this privilege, it doesn't follow that "we" must also (esp where by "we" is really meant a subset of church leadership called "clergy");

- the "we" in 2 Cor 5, which is part of Paul's broader comparison of his apostolic ministry compared with the false "Super Apostles"  described in 2 Cor 11, means not merely the apostles but also "ordained ministers" (and presumably only ordained ministers?); and

- the commission in John 20:20-23 is not just for the disciples but also for "ordained ministers" (and presumably only ordained ministers?).

Personally, I think there are too many holes in that argument for it to be appropriate for the Archbishop to be making that pronouncement as regards the current ordinands.

Kind regards
Alex

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

I am reminded of a chorus that goes "Count your blessings, name them one by one..."

We live in an imperfect world and I am sure that satan, the deciever, loves nothing more than causing strife amongst believers.

The Anglican Church is bigger than ADOM and all Anglicans use the Ordinal. This is one of the things that GAFCON met for. Yes, the ordinal is based on the service from 1662, it also has HEAVY doses of scripture, as does the rest of the Prayer Book. Abp Peter Jensen uses the same Ordinal and quotes the same thing about forgiving sin, so does Abp Roger (Perth) and +Philip (Brisbane) etc, etc. We are all able to forgive if a person wrongs us as individuals, there is great comfort in having people that are seen by the general population as able to be Vicars (vicariously representing God) and comfort people who believe they cannot be forgiven. Chaplains do this, christian counsellors do this, brothers and sisters in Christ reassure each other of God's forgiveness (see also 1 John and the Morning Prayer service!) "If anyone sins we have an advocate with the Father..."

Cathedral services: Australia does not have an establishment, there is a separation of church and state. Every now and then, though, something happens to remind us that the Constitutional Head of State (the monarch of England) is also the Head of the Anglican denomination. This may account for the Cathedral service for the legal year and other various ceremonies.    

I have been thinking recently about the core messages of christianity: love one another, sacrifice, Christ's atoning death etc, etc, etc, etc. I am also reminded that the entire world is corrupt and decaying. Whenever and wherever we see the corruption it can be confronting, equally, it could be ignored. Church History is full of examples of both!

Christianity is a radical relationship with God which only Jesus of Nazareth perfected, the rest of us strive for perfection and seek to "Act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with our God" (Micah 6:8)

Thanks to all contributors and thanks be to God for the nation we live in which gives us peace and prosperity. As for me I thank God for ADOM because it gave me so much, despite its imperfections.

By the way, there is NO WAY an "orthodox" Anglican would deny the existence of satan. An orthodox Anglican, is, by definition, concerned with "straight teaching". If it is in the Bible they teach it.    

As for me I am a christian, trying to part of the Anglican Communion

[Jereth]

Alex Milner wrote:

But let's step back here. If what you are saying is that parts of the Anglican "system" are idolatrous (ie elevating allegiance to the institutional church over allegiance to Christ (ie keep quiet and ignore false teaching); or in another place you allude to worshipping the bible itself as opposed to the Lord who wrote it etc) then isn't your conclusion made (given that idolatry is just a nice theological word for worshipping false gods)? Why are people so affronted by that?

Good point Alex. I think that strong language has its place -- we neglect a prophetic voice at our peril. There was once a man who used some very strong words against the established church of his day; he even called them a "brood of vipers". His prophetic call was largely ignored, and indeed he was put to death because of his criticism but in the end he was proved right and the religious establishment saw demise. Let's not remake that mistake eh?

 (And why is the belief in the reality of Satan one of those doctrines that orthodox Anglicans feel ok discounting?)

Huh? What? Since when?

Jereth

[Alex M]

Phil wrote:

By the way, there is NO WAY an "orthodox" Anglican would deny the existence of satan. An orthodox Anglican, is, by definition, concerned with "straight teaching". If it is in the Bible they teach it.

Someone purporting to be 'Jereth' wrote:

Huh? What? Since when?

The sense I have is that (as a generalisation) talk about Satan or the Devil is not commonly heard amongst (otherwise) orthodox anglicans - in the same way that talk about Hell has also diminished. I suspect this is an over-reaction to people who used to talk so much about Satan that it was almost verging on (moral) dualism (or perhaps a reaction to a characture of those people). It's not that either the existence of Satan or Hell is denied - rather it's just slipped off the radar. Maybe that impression is wrong.

Phil wrote:

The Anglican Church is bigger than ADOM and all Anglicans use the Ordinal. This is one of the things that GAFCON met for. Yes, the ordinal is based on the service from 1662, it also has HEAVY doses of scripture, as does the rest of the Prayer Book. Abp Peter Jensen uses the same Ordinal and quotes the same thing about forgiving sin, so does Abp Roger (Perth) and +Philip (Brisbane) etc, etc.

Hi Phil - not sure of the point here. On the one hand, what does the Ordinal add to Matt's argument if a solid case cannot be made from Scripture? You seem to be arguing that forgiving sins is something we all do so it's ok if it's included on the ordination service. Ie you say:

We are all able to forgive if a person wrongs us as individuals, there is great comfort in having people that are seen by the general population as able to be Vicars (vicariously representing God) and comfort people who believe they cannot be forgiven. Chaplains do this, christian counsellors do this, brothers and sisters in Christ reassure each other of God's forgiveness (see also 1 John and the Morning Prayer service!) "If anyone sins we have an advocate with the Father..."

If that's the case (leaving aside the point about the use of the word "Vicar" which is problematic, I believe) and it has general application, then why is it appropriate to make a point of saying it in the ordination service? Doesn't it imply the reverse?

I reckon what is being talked about in John 20 and 2 Cor 5 is something a lot more special than simply one Christian forgiving another. It has to do the special role and (Spirit-given) authority of the apostles (Act 1:7) and it's a mistake to make a jump between the privileges of the apostles to those of todays' ordinands.

Kind regards
Alex

[Jordan]

Alex Milner wrote:

I reckon what is being talked about in John 20 and 2 Cor 5 is something a lot more special than simply one Christian forgiving another. It has to do the special role and (Spirit-given) authority of the apostles (Act 1:7) and it's a mistake to make a jump between the privileges of the apostles to those of todays' ordinands.

Hi Alex,

I agree that it's a mistake to make a jump between the privileges of the apostles to those of today's ordinands, but there are continuities as well as discontinuities.

I think the main problem with this issue is that people are very uncomfortable with language that seems to attribute to man what we know is properly the work of God alone. This is the first and main objection that I have heard against that particular phrase in the ordinal. People say, 'Only God can forgive or retain sins, you can't say that about a presbyter.'

But if only God can forgive or retain sins, neither can you say it about an apostle. It doesn't matter how unique we conceive the apostolic commission to be, it simply won't carry that weight.

So, when we read John 20, in its own context, we are forced to understand Jesus' words to the apostles within a broader theological framework - that as God's representatives on earth the apostles declared and ratified God's work of forgiving or retaining sins, primarily through the preaching of the gospel, and secondly through the exercise of church discipline; but they did not actually forgive or retain sins in the way that only God can.

When we argue that there is something unique about the authority given to the apostles in this regard, we need to specify exactly what that 'something' is, before we conclude that John 20:21-23 does or does not apply to ministers of the gospel today. It may be, that while there was a unique aspect to the manner in which the apostles forgave or retained, it nonetheless remains appropriate to commission ministers today with the same words, because there is a continuous principle expressed that is both biblical and too important to let go of.

So my question to you, and to others on this thread who sincerely believe the ordinal to be inappropriate at this point, is: what exactly is that 'something' that the apostles alone possessed that ministers do not possess today? Can you pinpoint it?

In Christ,
Jordan

 
 

[Jordan]

Looking back over some previous posts, there's something I think should be emphasized. John 20:21-23, in its context, is not primarily concerned with church discipline.

Alex made a good point in his last post; why commission presbyters with words about christian forgiveness and discipline? Exactly. But why commission apostles with them? Why would Jesus, upon appearing to his disciples for the first time since his resurrection, give them the Holy Spirit with the words, 'As the Father has sent me, I am sending you', and promptly send them out to discipline the church!?

Surely the context suggests that evangelism is more in focus!

It is easier to understand the appropriateness of saying such words to ordinands if they are understood as a commission to preach the gospel - which is the principal 'binding and loosing' event.

Jordan

[Jereth]

Hey Jordan,

In the midst of a hectic few weeks (hmmm, when is work ever not hectic?!) I've been trying to follow this discussion about "forgiving and retaining sins".

can I insert a couple of comments/questions:
- It seems that Matt W and yourself are going in different directions. Matt (if I've read him right) thinks the John 20:23 text is primarily about church discipline; you think it is primarily about gospel proclamation.
- Running through your posts seems to be the presumption that Jn 20:21-23 is equivalent to the "binding and loosing" text from the Synoptic gospels which occurs just after Peter's confession of the Christ (Matt 16) and again in Matt 18:18. Can you please justify this?
- To me, it would seem that "binding and loosing" fits well with church discipline and the context of Matt 18, whereas John 20:23 is something totally separate and, I agree with you, is about the great commission
- Let's say priests/presbyters really did have personal authority to forgive sins, as John 20:23 could be read as saying; why then do other passages in the NT about the office of elders and bishops (eg. the pastoral epistles) say nothing about this supposed authority? This suggests to me we *should* seek a different interpretation.

cheers
Jereth

[Jordan]

Jereth wrote:

- It seems that Matt W and yourself are going in different directions. Matt (if I've read him right) thinks the John 20:23 text is primarily about church discipline; you think it is primarily about gospel proclamation.

Hi Jereth,

I can't speak for Matt exactly, but I do believe that the authority Jesus confers on the apostles in these verses is principally for the purpose of gospel proclamation, as the context seems to indicate. If someone wanted to argue that church discipline is also tied up here by implication, I wouldn't deny it, but I think the principal idea is authority for evangelism.

From Calvin: 'Here, unquestionably, our Lord has embraced, in a few words, the sum of the Gospel; for we must not separate this power of forgiving sins from the office of teaching, with which it is closely connected in this passage......While Christ enjoins the Apostles to forgive sins, he does not convey to them what is peculiar to himself. It belongs to him to forgive sins. This honor, so far as it belongs peculiarly to himself, he does not surrender to the Apostles, but enjoins them, in his name, to proclaim the forgiveness of sins, that through their agency he may reconcile men to God. In short, properly speaking, it is he alone who forgives sins through his apostles and ministers.'  

Jereth wrote:

- Running through your posts seems to be the presumption that Jn 20:21-23 is equivalent to the "binding and loosing" text from the Synoptic gospels which occurs just after Peter's confession of the Christ (Matt 16) and again in Matt 18:18. Can you please justify this?

I believe the authority and ministry spoken of is the same in Jn 20 and Matt 16. So I think 'forgiving/retaining' and 'binding/loosing' are very similar terms, and the principal way in which these things happen is through the preaching of the gospel. Matthew 18 is more focussed on church discipline, and in that passage, the authority is said to be conferred on the church, or on two or three gathered together in Christ's name.

Jereth wrote:

- To me, it would seem that "binding and loosing" fits well with church discipline and the context of Matt 18, whereas John 20:23 is something totally separate and, I agree with you, is about the great commission

I think it's important to remember that evangelism and church discipline are not achieved through two different commissions or authorities. It is the one gospel message and the one great commission which are the basis of both. If someone needs to be put out of the church, it is only because they are living in a way that is contrary to the evangel, and are therefore opening themselves up to its threatenings. Church discipline is the people of God actively testifying to the truthfulness of the gospel message - so in that sense discipline is evangelism, of the 'tough love' variety. The binding and loosing of souls happens on the mission field and it happens when a church rebukes or restores an individual. The ratification of God's gospel promises or threatenings through the mouths of his ministers are common to both experiences.  

Jereth wrote:

- Let's say priests/presbyters really did have personal authority to forgive sins, as John 20:23 could be read as saying; why then do other passages in the NT about the office of elders and bishops (eg. the pastoral epistles) say nothing about this supposed authority? This suggests to me we *should* seek a different interpretation.

Can you explain this a bit further? Are you saying that the words of John 20:23 should be strictly limited to the apostles because when elders and deacons are under discussion in the Pastorals we don't find echoes of these words?

Or are you saying that reading John 20:23 as the great commission is not the most literal option, but is theologically necessary because of what we know of gospel ministry from the epistles?

Or something else?

In Christ,
Jordan

[Guy]

There seems to be a number of varying threads that have developed from Gordan's original opening stanza.
One side track that I find intriguing is the developing discussion on satan and hell as topics from the pulpit. I remember being informed by an associate at a large evangelical church in the Melbourne Diocese, that the gift of spiritual warfare was not one excercised in their church - because there was no calling for it. To me that insinuates spiritual latency to put it mildly.
From this, I have formed an opinion that in some evangelical quaters, only the positive proclamation of salvation through Christ is of relevance, and the teachings of Paul.

Yes, satan is very real and so is hell. When was the last time you preached or heard preaching on hell?

Guy