Giving Thanks for John Chapman

Anyone who claims to know something about Sydney Anglicans or the strength of the Evangelical church in Sydney in the last quarter of the 20th Century would have to know something about the life and work of John Chapman.

I heard "Chappo" speak many times - including under the big top at Katoomba, at other conferences, in local churches, doing Beach Mission Bible studies and at evangelistic events. John Chapman was one of my teachers at Moore college - teaching the 2nd year preaching subject. More than the lectures I remember his personal feedback sessions after listening to one of my sermons - a real learning experience! He was unique and irreplaceable, but he inspired a generation to be better evangelists, better preachers and better Christians.

It is worth taking the time to watch his memorial service held at St Andrews Cathedral on Saturday 24th November 2012.

The order of service can be found here.

An audio version of Phillip Jensen's sermon can be found here.

The biography by Michael Orpwood, Chappo, For the Sake of the Gospel was published in 1995 and can be ordered from Evangelism & New Churches.

The SydneyAnglicans article about the event can be found here.

Are Sydney Anglicans really Anglican?

There are many Anglicans around the world who would answer no to this question - and there are many outside the church who wonder why we are the way we are. In recent years we have had TV shows, articles and  books that have asked questions, made accusations and painted a picture of a dangerous and deluded sect. Many have suggested we should change our views to conform to the majority or quit Anglicanism altogether! How should we respond? The answer for Michael Jensen was to write Sydney Anglicans: An Apology. (Read the first chapter here.)

Michael Jensen is both a 'son of the Diocese' and a gifted theologian in his own right. He is able to understand  the complaints of the opponents and the views of those inside. He can therefore address the history and the theology of Sydney Anglicans with an insider's knowledge. This 'Apology' is written as a defense of many of the defining features of 'Sydney Anglicanism'.

In his first section on 'the Bible', Jensen addresses whether Sydney Anglicans are fundamentalists, why we read the Bible the way we do, our doctrine of revelation and the importance of preaching. His second section on 'the Church' addresses our doctrine of church, our identity as Anglicans, the church and the world, the ministry of women, lay administration of the Lord's supper and the role of the Anglican Church League.In each chapter he looks at some particular critiques, revises the history, considers the sociology and explains the theology. He also reflects on areas where Sydney Anglicans need to take care that they do not take on the worst aspects of what their critics see.

What I love about this book is the way that Michael ties in the history with the theology. The book is not a simplistic summary of the issues but lays a solid foundation in understanding what is at stake. In this way it serves to advance our theological understanding on many important issues. This is a book that will have a much longer-lasting value than any of the criticisms that prompted the author to write - and for this I think we can thank the critics that have prompted such a helpful 'apology'.

Broughton Knox on Denominations and Churches

I have recently been thinking about the relationship between churches and denomination and was interested to (re-) read some of the writing of Broughton Knox. Definitely worth a read is his article 'Church, Churches and Denominations of the Churches', originally published in The Reformed Theological Review, Vol 48, 1989, pp. 15-25. Reprinted in D. Broughton Knox: Selected Works. Volume II: Church and Ministry. Kirsten Birkett (ed.), Kingsford: Matthias Media, 2003. p85-98. (For a fuller assessment of the 'Knox-Robinson' doctrine of church see Mark Thompson's article: 'Knox-Robinson for Today'.)  I thought I would share this extract is from pp.95-98.

       These days, structures naturally arise to assist the fellowship within the congregation and to assist the fellowship between congregations. When these structures are more than one in any areas they are normally called denominations. But whether one or many, or whatever their name, these structures are not churches or part of the church. They are 'parachurch' organisations, for they exist alongside the churches to facilitate fellowship within and between churches, each one of which is a full and true visible expression of the one holy catholic heavenly church, the fellowship around Christ of all his saints (Heb 12:22-24), for Christ is present and his people are present. Nothing more is needed for a full expression of the gathering, or church, of Christ.

      This parachurch organisation must not exercise the duties of the congregation on behalf of the congregation, for this takes away the responsibilities of the congregation, and so weakens instead of strengthening its fellowship. In particular, a denomination must be careful not to exercise jurisdiction within the congregation, for it is outside the congregation and not in personal fellowship with those in dispute, so its jurisdiction may well lead to schism within the congregation, and obscure the visible unity of the church.

        Instead of elaborate denominational amalgamation, what is needed as a first step is denominational  simplification by handing back to the congregations those functions and responsibilities they had in the New Testament and the early centuries. Then it would not be difficult to unite into one these simplified denominational structures.

        Both Christians and congregations need fellowship to grow in Christ-likeness. The denomination expresses fellowship beyond the congregation. Members and ministers of congregations need to know and consciously remember that they are part of the larger heavenly church of Christ, and to experience that wider fellowship.This is the contribution that denominations make to the spiritual growth and joy of the Christian and the congregation.

Centralised control outside the congregation extinguishes the gospel within the congregation in due course. History confirms this truth abundantly. Even the smallest degree of control has this effect in the long run, for experience shows that the centre, when given a control of the congregation, over the decades increases it, aiming at uniformity and obedience. But the gospel rocks the boat of the denomination! The centre finds this uncomfortable and increases its power until it controls the boat, not by the word of God and prayer, but by organisational rules backed by secular sanctions, so that the word of God and the Spirit of God will hardly be found any more in the denomination, for it will not create nor hold the spiritually minded members.

        Denominations are called 'churches', and this nomenclature misleads many into thinking that they are part of the one holy catholic apostolic church. But the denomination is not a church, inasmuch as the denomination never gathers. Gathering is the only meaning of the word 'church' in the Old and New Testaments. The church building is also called a church. This is the most common use of the word. But no-one confuses the building with the church of Christ. The difference is clear in the English language. 'To go to church' means to go to the local gathering of the church. 'To go to the church' means to go to the church building. The church building is a physical structure to facilitate the fellowship of the church by keeping out the wind and the rain. The denomination is an organisational structure to facilitate the fellowship of the church with Christians in other churches. To call the denomination a church is strictly inaccurate, and in furtherance of clarity of thought ought to be dropped, and the word denomination always substituted.

   . . .   

      The denominational structure exists to facilitate this wider fellowship beyond the congregation as opportunities arise for it to be expressed. It links congregations with one another. It creates and provides facilities to the congregations in matters concerning fellowship, such as suggested liturgies, finance for buildings, superannuation for its ministers, and opportunity from time to time for fellowship in congregations drawn from a wider area than the locality, and so on. Congregations should be in fellowship with one another. They should not  act independently of other congregations. Independency is not a Christian concept. It is contrary to God's nature and to our nature as he has created it. Independency is a contradiction of Christian fellowship. Congregations should not act without respect to other congregations. Denominational structures assist the interdependence of congregation. These links are a natural creation of the fellowship of the Spirit of God. The denomination and its officers have a ministry which is common to all Christians, that is to help, advise, encourage and exhort the congregation and its members. It should not apply sanctions to the congregation or to any of its members, beyond the sanction of severing links of fellowship with that congregation. Coercion destroys fellowship, and a congregation should be free to sever its links with a denomination without penalty, for example, without loss of the property it uses. Coercion is contrary to the character of God and the rule of God, and to fellowship in Christ.

Of course, there is a lot of Biblical and theological background to what he is saying here. . . I hope to give some reflections on what Dr Knox says in a future post.

Would You Stand Up for (the Biblical View on) Slavery??

I was recently reading some comments about the issue of submission - specifically about wives submitting to their husbands - and noticed that several writers seemed to consider the issue of slavery to be a key to the interpretation of the passages, ie. the Bible seems to support slavery, but nowadays we know that slavery is wrong. So if the Bible is out of date about slavery it can be out of date about wives submitting too. (see, eg. Matt Hounslow's blog, and this article by Dorothy Lee on the Melbourne Anglicans website).

It got me thinking about the Biblical teaching on slavery - a subject I have looked at recently in 1 Peter and Ephesians. These thoughts came to mind:


The command for slaves to submit to their masters is found in both Ephesians (6:5ff) and 1 Peter (2:18ff). In the first century most slavery was parallel to imprisonment rather than the kind of chattel slavery we imagine from 18th century American History. Slaves may have been prisoners of war or bankrupts or other kinds of criminals. Many slaves were freed after their allotted time was complete. No doubt there was too much abuse of slaves, but this does not make the system an absolute wrong.

While Paul encourages Christian slaves to gain their freedom if they can (1 Cor 7:21) he also tells them to remain in the situation they were in when they were called. He sends runaway slave Onesimus back to Philemon (with the request that Philemon send the bill for his punishment to Paul and a hint that Philemon should let him go!)  Slavery as such is never outright condemned.

What is condemned in the Bible is 'slave-trading' or kidnapping. (See 1 Timothy 1:10). If we recognise that most 'slaves' were kidnapped and / or sold illegally then this will give us the Biblical argument against institutional slavery.

A very helpful read on first century slavery (and the biblical imagery of slavery) is Murray Harris’ book ‘Slave of Christ’.

This is not to say that I am a supporter of modern slavery - in fact I pray and seek to do what I can to end such slavery - especially sexual slavery. If we define slavery as the denial of freedom and other 'rights' then prisoners fit into that definition - yet I don't hear many people arguing that imprisonment of criminals is wrong per se.

The significance of what I am saying is that I believe we cannot say that the Bible condemns slavery outright. Nor can we say that we condemn everything included under the Biblical category of 'slavery'. If this is so then we can't use the argument outlined above as a 'clincher' in the arguments on submission.

Interested in your comments . . .