Latest from the Dean of Perth

[Alex M]

I thought this article would be interesting to note and comment on. It's interesting both because of it's reasoning and also its frankness about the outcome of that reasoning (essentially a form of humanism).

John Shepard wrote:

At least three things stand out. The first is that this salvation is experienced corporately, not individually. The Old Testament writers speak in terms of a community in which the presence of God could be experienced within a fellowship bound together by devotion to God. For the writers of the New Testament, Jesus was never to be thought of as a personal saviour, as though He were our personal toothbrush.

We are not saved individually, as though by some private act of divine indulgence. It is within the community that we can find forgiveness for the past, and hope for a way of beginning again.

Second, there is no evidence to suggest that what is required for salvation is an intellectual assent, a signing-off, which would effect a once-for-all change in us, whereby salvation is instantaneous, and we are passive recipients of its benefits.

It would be wrong to imagine that salvation occurs in a single act of religious fervour. The most usually quoted example of such an apparently swift transformation is Paul’s conversion. Yet, according to the account in Acts (ix, 1-19), it was not suddenly on the Damascus road, but only after the laying-on of hands by Ananias in the context of the care of the house of Judas, and after the scales had fallen from his eyes, and his sight was restored, that Paul was baptised, and his strength returned.

Salvation cannot be confined to one cataclysmic event; it requires engagement with a process in the context of a community — the Church. The transformation of human life that salvation suggests takes time, and needs to embrace many aspects of Christian insight and understanding.

Third, salvation is not about who is in or who is out — who are sheep or who are goats.

Can we really imagine the God of all creation, the Lord of Heaven and Earth, being fussed by the status of everyone’s individual belief? Salvation is concerned with the transformation of life. All life. Barriers to the flourishing of all human beings are to be overcome, whatever stage people are at in the awareness of this life-giving dynamic. What matters is that we have all been freed to be all there is in us to be. Otherwise Christ has died in vain.

Are we saved? This is a poor question to ask. A better question is “Are we committed to the process of human flourishing?” If yes, then we are saved.

The Very Rev Dr John Shepherd is Dean of Perth, Australia

The full text can be found here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5332119.ece

His views are not new - in fact he gave a similar sermon about 5 years ago at the Melbourne Cathedral (including the "personal toothbrush" phrase btw).

One of the things that is interesting about studying the situation in the US, is the way that much of the rot started (or at least surfaced) when heretics in the church (eg Pike, Righter, Spong etc) were not disciplined.  In Australia, in some orthodox circles, there is a tendency to not to want to 'rock the boat' - but the danger in that approach is that false teaching goes unanswered and a culture of aquiescence is fostered.

So what is an appropriate response from MASG readers?

[Tim Patrick]

Alex M wrote:

So what is an appropriate response from MASG readers?

As masg's first brief is to engage with the Melbourne Diocese, we probably only look to what's going on in Perth (or anywhere else really) as part of keeping an eye on the horizons - making sure we know what kind of things can be said in the Anglican church so we're quick to pick up on them when they're said here.

Having said that, I thought there were lots of truths in what was quoted from the dean. God is interested in communities of people. God does want humanity to flourish. Of course, the problem with it all was the way that some of those truths were used as tools to minimalise other truths. Eg. God works in communities of people, therefore individual faith is not particularly important. I don't think the OT polarises things like that. Or, eg. God cares about human flourishing, therefore salvation is a poor thing to discuss. I don't think the NT polarises things like that. This is clumsy and it's becoming the standard approach of lots of the more-liberal stuff I see these days. 'Because God is love, truth is unimportant', etc, etc. It's actually getting quite boring now.

The real challenge of theology is to draw together a coherent picture of everything the Bible says and to work to place the emphases and anchors in the right places. That's tough work intellectually and tough as it challenges us personally with the stuff that sinful people like us would rather not have to face.

Anyway, enough time for me on Perth. I'm putting my mind back to the city by the bay.

Tim

[Will Briggs]

Alex M wrote:

So what is an appropriate response from MASG readers?

Eirenics not polemics :-)  

My (somewhat hastily constructed) consideration: http://god-s-will.blogspot.com/2008/12/while-shepherd-washed-his-socks.html

[Alex M]

Hi Tim,

Tim wrote:

Having said that, I thought there were lots of truths in what was quoted from the dean.

Yes, I thought that as well. It's almost as if the piece glides towards its conclusion by making a number of good points that appear innocuous. It's the method of the argument which is as interesting as anything else.

Tim wrote:

As masg's first brief is to engage with the Melbourne Diocese, we probably only look to what's going on in Perth (or anywhere else really).... Anyway, enough time for me on Perth. I'm putting my mind back to the city by the bay.

With respect, this sounds a little like: "There will be peace and security in my lifetime." (Is 39:8) By all means, feel free not to comment, but I am curious as to why a breach of TEC's canons invokes an invitation to letter writing (on another thread), but public heresy from the current head of Perth's Cathedral is deemed not relevant of discussion. Given that we've had some discussion of Perth Diocese with Phil's able assistance, and given that some of the thinking behind Gafcon is surely that orthodox anglicans cannot ignore the goings on in other dioceses, I am unsure of the retinence.

I think it is a mistake to consider Dr Shepard as a sort of lone aberrant in a far off land. His views do resonate with some Anglicans in Melbourne (how else was he invited to speak at the Cathedral?).

But again, if you think that the comments should be ignored (or simply dismissed as 'boring') then could you please set put why you think that? That would be more helpful.

Will Briggs wrote:

Eirenics not polemics :-)

Hmm... sounds like a political catchphrase doesn't it? ;)

Thanks for the link and your thoughts on this. Can I ask then: "What do you suggest then is a suitably eirenic response?"

[Tim Patrick]

Hey Alex,

Alex M wrote:

But again, if you think that the comments should be ignored (or simply dismissed as 'boring') then could you please set put why you think that? That would be more helpful.

Just a quick response for now...

I don't think the comments should be ignored (I do think the rhetoric is getting quite boring). The reason that I personally don't want to give them time and energy is because I'm trying to put my efforts into things here in Melbourne - I just can't take on everything everywhere. But I'm more than happy for others to engage this issue at more length if that's how they feel they can be most effective.

Point of clarification - were you saying that the Dean of Perth has been invited to preach in Melbourne's cathedral? If so, when?

Ta, Tim

[Tim Patrick]

Hey Alex,

Alex M wrote:

But again, if you think that the comments should be ignored (or simply dismissed as 'boring') then could you please set put why you think that? That would be more helpful.

Just a quick response for now...

I don't think the comments should be ignored (I do think the rhetoric is getting quite boring). The reason that I personally don't want to give them time and energy is because I'm trying to put my efforts into things here in Melbourne - I just can't take on everything everywhere. But I'm more than happy for others to engage this issue at more length if that's how they feel they can be most effective.

Point of clarification - were you saying that the Dean of Perth has been invited to preach in Melbourne's cathedral? If so, when?

Ta, Tim

[Alex M]

Thanks Tim,

But I'm more than happy for others to engage this issue at more length if that's how they feel they can be most effective.

I guess the question is what is an effective response?

Point of clarification - were you saying that the Dean of Perth has been invited to preach in Melbourne's cathedral? If so, when?

As I noted in the original post, about 5 years ago - at the Opening of the Legal Year service in about Jan/Feb 03 (from memory). Admittedly some time ago, but my point is that invites like this don't come out of thin air. I believe (but maybe my recollection is wrong) that the invite came from the then Dean of the Melbourne Cathedral, who has left in the past year. The talk was thought significant enough that the then Precentor (who has also moved on) made a written transcript available to media outlets. I raised the issue with the Chapter House and many of its members privately and, frankly, got a fairly mixed response (in some cases, no response - although in some notable cases, a very good response).

Again, my point is that you can't dismiss Dr Shepherd as a simply a Perth irrelevancy. His views have support (however tacit) in many places - which is part of the reason no doubt that he is able to keep his position.

[Jereth]

The first and most obvious thing to observe is that this Shepard bloke doesn't substantiate anything he says with texts of Scripture. He simply makes assertions.

He is in error when he sets up false dichotomies
- salvation is EITHER personal OR corporate
- salvation is EITHER a point in time OR a lifelong process

Let's see what the Bible actually says about salvation and relationship with God as a personal thing:


That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." Romans 10:9-11

37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:37-40

Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world." John 11:25-27

2The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice.... 14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. John 10:2-15

40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."  42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."  43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise. Luke 23:40-43

29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. Matthew 10:29-31


And here's what the Bible says about conversion:


37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"  38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." 40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. Acts 2

30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"  31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. Acts 16

Shephard wrote:

Third, salvation is not about who is in or who is out — who are sheep or who are goats.

Can we really imagine the God of all creation, the Lord of Heaven and Earth, being fussed by the status of everyone’s individual belief?

Yes, we can imagine this, because that's exactly how Jesus describes it in Matthew 25 -- the passage about sheep and goats.
And the following text makes it clear that God is fussed by the status of everyone's individual belief:
32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Matt 10:32-33

Shepard wrote:

Are we saved? This is a poor question to ask.

Pray tell, why is it a poor question? The Bible asks this question repeatedly.
I wonder how people with such poor knowledge of the Bible can become deans of cathedrals...

Jereth

[Alex M]

Hi Jereth,

I wonder how people with such poor knowledge of the Bible can become deans of cathedrals...

I suspect he has a good knowledge of the Bible, but a rather poor interpretative framework (ie he doesn't believe much of it). The only way that false teachers like him maintain their positions is because: enough people support him; church discipline is ineffective or not exercised (ie poor leadership); and, so far, challenges to his views do not appear to have had much effect.

Again - what I am interested in is what is an effective response.

PS I just noticed that Perth Cathedral is about to launch a blog where "where stimulating and interesting articles for discussion will appear... We expect to have the first article up in time for Christmas ..." - http://www.perthcathedral.org/index.php/Blog/ ... something makes me suspicious.

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

The Shepherd family are established figures in Perth Diocese with John as the Dean of the Cathedral and his wife the Prinicipal of St Hilda's Anglican Girls School.

They are very much a part of the Perth scene.

It may help contributors to know that there was a debate in The West Australian newspaper about "What does it mean to be Anglican?" some years back. Many of the ideas were along the lines of school attended ( Perth has some very fine independent Anglican schools, and the Diocese -through the Anglican Schools Commission - has seen that opening and operating low-fee Anglican Community Schools is a worthwhile service ).

There was also a significant immigration to Perth in the sixties from Britain. Many clergy have come from Britain and over the years there was a definite leaning towards anglo-catholic (ceremonial) forms of Anglican worship and clergy who did this well. Like also attracts like so if there is a large number of clergy of particular "flavour" in an area then more of that flavour are likely to be attracted. Consider North West Australia, Ballarat and Armidale for example. Each of these Diocese are known for a particular "brand" of churchmanship and attract priests that will work with Bishops who promote that style. Also Ordinands will be raised in that style or expected to conform.

The previous Archbishop of Perth, +Peter, is internationally renowned as a Liberal Anglican and promotes Liberal ideas and teaching. One of the things he did was insist that priests coming to Perth complete training at Murdoch, where a high quality academic training program was established [probably not of the same persuasion as Ridley College]. +Peter is retired but I believe he is still influential in Perth and internationally.

A frequent narrative in Perth is that evangelicals are very "judging" and "critical" and not very "loving". A bit of introspection: Does this forum provide evidence in support that belief?  

Another matter to consider is how does one ask a Priest, Dean or Bishop to "move on"? The current Archbishop of Perth (Roger) may or may not agree with the Dean's public statements. If the Archbishop has concerns, what powers does he have? Is Perth, with its history of Liberal theology, for over 20 years, likely to elect an Archbishop of the evangelical persuasion? [I can tell you that I have dealt with Roger quite a number of times and I believe him to be a godly Bishop. He has a relationship with Jesus Christ but has a different language to describe some of the same ideas].

I have heard many a criticism of Peter Jensen and GAFCON from priests (and secular media) in Perth Diocese, even from pulpits. The Church Missionary Society has one of its smallest branches in WA and yet the Diocese of the Northwest is renowned as one of the three most puritan Diocese in the worldwide Communion. These issues make the Provincial publication - "The Messenger" - interesting reading with columns from five Bishops in three Diocese. At one time we had known "charismatic", "evangelical" and "liberal" bishops, all making contributions, and The Dean, John Shepherd's column as well.

Jereth, I have learned that it is not worth getting worked up about these issues, it is better to love each person as one created and loved by God. It is worthwhile being available for dialogue (attack never achieves anything) and praying.

On the point of "Are we saved?" there is a line that talks about "saved" being a continuous process rather than being "born again" once.

It is all very interesting :P

[Will Briggs]

Phil Weickhardt (Phool) wrote:

A frequent narrative in Perth is that evangelicals are very "judging" and "critical" and not very "loving". A bit of introspection: Does this forum provide evidence in support that belief?  

Also,  in response to my statement "Eirenics not polemics"

Alex M wrote:

Can I ask then: "What do you suggest then is a suitably eirenic response?

I think Phool has given the basis of what I would answer.  It is possible to interact with people - even those of a different theological bent in a way that shows that you take them seriously even if you disagree with them.  

In my consideration of Shepherd on my blog I hope to have done this.  And it was more difficult than I thought - I updated it a number of times after posting it.  Because, as Tim says, there _is_ a lot of truth in what the Dean writes.  And it is constructed cleverly and I found myself at times going "he hasn't actually said what I've assumed he's said" and rephrasing my dialogue.

Being eirenical doesn't mean rolling over and forgoing the truth - but it does mean being mindful of the way in which that truth is presented and lived out.

If you like catchphrases, let me give you a few more :-)

1) We (evangelicals) need to not just be correct but also right.  In other words we need to not only make sure the substance of our theology is correct but that it is communicated in the right way.  This requires wisdom etc.  I like to think of the example of the prophet Nathan rebuking David - he could have made his point correctly ("you're a dirty rotten sinner - repent") but he made sure he made it _rightly_ - spinning a parable in a way that actually led to repentance etc.

2) Always treat leaders in the church as Christians.  This was a catchphrase of advice from a wise someone to the young evangelical hotheads of my day (not that long ago).  If in doubt, treat them like a Christian - assume that they are in agreement with the gospel truths.  Don't change your tack on how you pray with them, preach to them, interact with them etc.  If they are not in error, you will share gospel truths together. If they are in error, you will touch their conscience.
Too often we go in playing defensive ready to ring the heresy bell like church politics is a game of operation - BUZZ! HERETIC.  Be faithful yourself, be an advocate of the beauty of the gospel - and you will win many.  Be all things to all people so that by all means... perhaps?

3) Finally, some worldly wisdom from a recent situation in California.  I was reading an argument between a pro-gay (anti-prop-8) advocate of violent uprising and a pro-gay advocate of peaceful protest.  The point was made that in the (analogous to them) "race issue" of the 60's it was peaceful, eirenic, firm-holding-onto-the-truth that won the day.  Because when people saw non-violent protestors being beaten up by police the rightness and wrongness of each party was obvious to all.
A tenuous analogy perhaps, but the same holds true here.  The liberal side throws the label of "bigot, hater, cold-hearted-puritans" at us and sometimes, if we're honest, they are right!  Not because of what we believe, but how we present it, communicate it and live it.  And to the onlookers it just looks like a dogfight, not the persecution of the righteous!  

I've had a number of moments in my own diocese  when in conversation with someone of a more liberal bent I wade through the mires of misconception.  The false assumptions they make about what I believe and about the attitude I have towards people is astounding and saddening.  But then it's a beautiful thing when the light goes on about why I believe some things (election, total depravity and other "horrible" things) and the beauty and comfort that lies on those doctrines - they may not "sign up" but the defensive rhetoric is peeled away and the truth is more easily found.  And often they become the strongest of our defenders - encouraging us to, at least, be true to ourselves!  But you can't get there by quasimodoing the heresy bell cackling maniacally as it swings back and forth :-)

Truth in the right spirit, discipline with tears, gospel with passion, correction given and received with humility.  Go to it!

W.

[Jereth]

Phil Weickhardt (Phool) wrote:

Jereth, I have learned that it is not worth getting worked up about these issues, it is better to love each person as one created and loved by God. It is worthwhile being available for dialogue (attack never achieves anything) and praying.

Thank you for the encouragement Phil. Don't worry, I don't get "worked up" about this sort of thing, but I do think it is important to present a biblical argument against deadly error when it pops up. (Would you agree Phil that universalistic, anti-uniqueness-of-Christ teaching is deadly error?) I'm confident that the word of God has power to dismantle falsehood and we need not do more than show people when teachers are contradicting the word. I also try my best to pray regularly for heretics in the Anglican church.

You mentioned the ex-archbishop of WA. I remember many years ago reading Sydney and the Jensens getting fired up over his public denial of the resurrection. But AFAIK nothing really came of that -- maybe Sydney decided to back down, or thought that nothing would be achieved from confronting him... So maybe Alex M, if you're concerned about the existence of un-disciplined error in Perth, you need to ask Sydney to "please explain" why they didn't do something firmer back 10 years ago.

jereth

[Jason]

That's hilarious - salvation doesn't require intellectual assent! Is that why John Shepard writes what he does - it's not intellectual at all. ;)

Shepard's first statement is a myth I've heard so many times it's unbelievable. Salvation cannot be corporate without, at the same time, being individual - after all, a corporate body is made up of what? Individuals! It's not the "either/or" that Shepard makes it into. It's a "both/and" situation.

In the end, Shepard's comments make no sense whatsoever. What does it ACTUALLY mean in PRACTICE that salvation is concerned with the transformation of All Life?

Huh? And what does that do to God's justice? It's very unsatisfying.

[Andrew Stagg]

Are we saved? This is a poor question to ask. A better question is “Are we committed to the process of human flourishing?” If yes, then we are saved.

KOOL - I like how "salvation is experienced corporately, not individually", because if that's true it means that I may as well sit back, relax and enjoy the ride - since nothing I do (good or bad) has much of a direct impact on things one way or the other. It's a bit like communism really - we may as well enjoy ourselves, since everything averages out in the end!!!

More seriously Sydney was flagging this teaching as problematic in 2003 with a short article in Southern Cross entitled "Dean of Perth commits heresy in broad daylight" http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/sydneystories/730a/

On a more personal note as a young (and poorly educated) christian who moved to Perth in the early 1990s I really struggled to find a church that I could connect to. Week after week I tried out new anglican churches and week after week I went home very disheartened after hearing a gospel of social justice, waffle or just plain irrelevance. I knew nothing about liberalism or evangelicalism back then. I had no idea that some of our leaders in the church were teaching a different Gospel. I just knew that I needed to find a church to maintain my relationship with Christ and I struggled heavily. I often thought it was my fault. It was really only though the grace of Jesus that my faith held. I often wonder how can we expect other young vulnerable Christians to survive in this sort of environment today. There is always a cost when this type of teaching is allowed continue unchallenged - I worry sometimes that what it might be costing us is the faith of new christians.

[Jason]

The thing that concerns me most about Shepherd's material is that it sounds true, on a brief reading of it. But upon reflection you realise it's a pile of dung - or skubala (in Greek. Phil 3:8; thanks to a memorable sermon by the late Dr David Williams).

John Shepard wrote:

It would be wrong to imagine that salvation occurs in a single act of religious fervour. The most usually quoted example of such an apparently swift transformation is Paul’s conversion. Yet, according to the account in Acts (ix, 1-19), it was not suddenly on the Damascus road, but only after the laying-on of hands by Ananias in the context of the care of the house of Judas, and after the scales had fallen from his eyes, and his sight was restored, that Paul was baptised, and his strength returned.

Salvation cannot be confined to one cataclysmic event; it requires engagement with a process in the context of a community — the Church. The transformation of human life that salvation suggests takes time, and needs to embrace many aspects of Christian insight and understanding.

...

The Very Rev Dr John Shepherd is Dean of Perth, Australia

Yeah, well, not very accurate at all on Pauline theology - especially the Damascus Road experience of Paul. In fact, it's so wrong, it's laughable coming from an "educated" Dean. Paul himself sees the Damascus Road as his conversion experience - take Gal 1:11-17, for example. And Paul's Damascus Road experience is incredibly influential in his theology. The change in direction of Paul's life took place on the Road to Damascus - his "conversion/call" event, if you like - but the **implications** of that conversion/call came to greater fruition in the years subsequent to that experience.

The other problem is that the Dean puts forward a supposed proposition of "evangelical" faith which he then seeks to refute - ie., that for "evangelicals" (even though they're not named as targets, it's clearly that theological view of salvation that is in his sights) salvation takes place in a dramatic "conversion experience". However, it's a caricature. And shooting down a caricature is easy. Evangelicals have emphasised a moment of conversion, a "salvation" moment. But that emphasis has never been to the exclusion of those who come to faith gradually. And to use Paul's experience, re-explained in some defensive, convoluted, and erroneous way, to deny a caricature is absurd. Most evangelicals would never be so stupid as to suggest that Paul's experience is normative for every Christian.

The important questions that need to be asked at this point are: What's driving the anti-"cataclysmic" conversion experience? And, what's driving the "salvation-is-a-process" theology? Is it some sort of attempt to drag people back into the church - the church as the vehicle of salvation - to prove the need of the church?

[Alex M]

"An atheist clergyman could not continue to draw his stipend, so when they stop believing in God they call themselves 'modernists'. Yes Prime Minister"

Thanks for your comments, everyone.

Can I try to distil and summarise a bit of what people are saying:

1) It is common ground that the views expressed by Dr Shepherd are heterodox. I agree with Will and Tim that the reasoning used by Dr Shepherd is clever and thoughtful and makes *some* good points - although as Jereth points out it is what is missing that leads to the errant conclusion - and Jason details the logical 'loop-the-loops'. As Tim alludes this sort of argument is nothing new (even to the point of being rather boring!). And I would add that it is the kind of 'truth with a twist' style of argument familiar to readers of Genesis 3.

2) It is common ground that any response to Dr Shepherd ought to be thoughtful, presented in a loving way and aimed at seeking repentance. The views expressed are in reality a tragedy - and we ought to approach any response in that light. As Andrew points out, it's important not just for Dr Shepherd but also his listeners.

But I am hearing very few suggestions about what is an effective response.

Writing to Herft is the obvious one - but query whether that would be effective - noting a similar attempt to raise the issue documented here http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/13348/#234434

[Jereth]

Will Briggs wrote:

2) Always treat leaders in the church as Christians.  This was a catchphrase of advice from a wise someone to the young evangelical hotheads of my day (not that long ago).  If in doubt, treat them like a Christian - assume that they are in agreement with the gospel truths.  
Too often we go in playing defensive ready to ring the heresy bell like church politics is a game of operation - BUZZ! HERETIC.

G'day Will,

Thank you for the wise advice. If you would be so kind as to allow a young (if 28 is young) evangelical hothead to respectfully challenge the biblical basis of "always treat church leaders as Christians". I'm all for respectfulness and politeness of manner. But I wonder how the advice stacks up against passages such as:
MAtthew 7:15ff; 24:23-25
Romans 16:17ff
2 Corinthians 11:3-15
Galatians 1:6-10
Philippians 3
2 Thessalonians 2
1 Timothy 4:1-5; 6:3ff.
2 Peter 2
1 John 2:18ff; 4:1ff

It seems to me that there are so many biblical commands to be on guard to false teachers, and if suspicion is raised, to test what is being taught and reject anything (and anyone) that is untrue. A good paraphrase of NT teaching might be "false teachers are ubiquitous in the last days, and they may be exceedingly deceitful, so maintain a high index of suspicion every time you hear something new or different, and if the alarm bell rings, be swift and uncompromising in your response." On the other hand I can't think of a NT passage which teaches: "if in doubt, assume the person speaking is still in line with Christian truth, and give 'em a fair go, mate".

On a historical note, I have heard and read quite a number of forlorn Melbourne evangelicals say things like: "the reason why liberalism is so rampant now is because 3 generations of evangelical leaders were soft on nascent heresy, allowing it to take root and flourish into the rank heresy that prevails today".

On a personal note, I spent about 20 years in a church which taught a deceitful admixture of truth and error. If I learnt anything from getting out of that church it is that Christians need to be hypervigilant against false teaching -- as the NT seems (to me) to teach. There can be no soft or tolerant attitude towards obvious error.

Jason wrote:

The important questions that need to be asked at this point are: What's driving the anti-"cataclysmic" conversion experience? And, what's driving the "salvation-is-a-process" theology? Is it some sort of attempt to drag people back into the church - the church as the vehicle of salvation - to prove the need of the church?

Naturally I can't read Mr Shepard's mind, but the feel I get from reading his stuff is that he is taking the typical post-modernist, palatable, universalist line -- avoid anything in religion that is too certain or definite or that you can put your finger on. Stay vague, hazy and indistinct; keep a fuzzy permeable border around the edges. Muslims and Buddhists can be "saved" so long as they are participating in "the transformation of all life", overcoming "barriers to the flourishing of all human beings", striving to be "all there is in us to be". Don't force everyone to accept Jesus as personal saviour and Lord -- that would keep too many people "out". (Frankly: <yawn>)

Alex M wrote:

But I am hearing very few suggestions about what is an effective response.

If I may be so bold, perhaps the first question to ask is "what is a biblical response?" Is there anything in the NT that commands how we should respond in a situation such as this? MAybe those passages I've quoted above might be a starting point?

Jereth

[Jason]

Alex M wrote:

But I am hearing very few suggestions about what is an effective response.

Fair point.

Writing to the Archbp or his regional bishop might be a start, but I wonder how seriously they'll take it. That's up to them, I guess. Writing to the Dean himself would also be an opportunity - at least he'd be faced with reading it.

They're my suggestions. Any others?

J.

[Alex M]

If I may be so bold, perhaps the first question to ask is "what is a biblical response?"

You mean like 1 Kings 18:40?  ;)  (... and you call yourself a 'hothead'?)

Seriously, I agree with what you are saying but I think I am struggling with the 'application' bit as well as wondering if others are more creative than my gut instinct to simply write a letter.

[Phil Weickhardt (Phool)]

Jereth wrote:

 Don't worry, I don't get "worked up" about this sort of thing, jereth

Unfortunately Jereth I do get worked up, we have very fiery private discussions (me and a few friends), but they remain private. This forum is actually not private.

In terms of "What should we do as bible-faithful christians?"

In the words ascribed to Jesus (Matthew 18) he exhorted christians to confront privately, confront with witnesses, make the church aware of the problem and then if there was still no repentance: walk away (don't keep fighting). This is part of the problem of the institutional church [in that we can't "walk away" easily] and part of the reason we have so many "denominations" because christians have taken Jesus seriously and walked away rather than enter protracted disputes.

Paul (when talking to church leaders) advocated other approaches, including excommunication. But if me hermeneutics serves me right he was addressing a different audience.

I believe it is possible that Sydney Diocese (refering to another contributor on this thread) has confronted and now is walking away, possibly?

There is still a question as to responses of people in Melbourne. Personally, in Perth Diocese, I am on an interesting journey. I am also cognisant that this is a public forum.

I was selected as a Perth ordinand some 14 years ago, I met with +Peter and deferred [we happened to have some personal tragedy coincidentally or providentially]. I have since been in conversation with +Roger and revisiting the possibility of ordination. We now have issues in our local church which are difficult for many people. My status as an ordinand cannot be resolved at this present time. I have been on a tremendous journey in those 14 years, I have studied some theology and I have been involved in many areas of ministry.  

Love abundantly be as wise as serpents