Stafford Carson : Presbyterian Pastor

Today I had the honour of re-opening the old Principal’s House at Union Theological College as a Training Resource Centre.

Irish Presbyterians have always had a reputation for being builders. We like to build churches and halls and manses. Unfortunately that reputation has been a bit dented in recent years, not least because of the demise of the Presbyterian Mutual Society. Money and resources have been restricted and those who have served as Moderators of the General Assembly in recent years have had many fewer new buildings to open than previous incumbents.

You can imagine, then, my personal disappointment when a dreadful fire engulfed the almost-completed project in November 2009 and scuppered all the plans for the official opening of the TRC during my moderatorial year. It was one of the events that I had quickly written into my diary for January 2010, and I was very sad when that event didn’t materialize. So I was hugely delighted and honoured to be invited, in the current moderator’s absence, to be involved in this opening ceremony.

One of the interesting questions which has arisen following the PMS debacle is “What should the Presbyterian Church in Ireland be involved in? What are the legitimate concerns and interests of the General Assembly?” And of all the activities and projects that the General Assembly needs to maintain and nurture, none is more important than the training of its ministers and the discipling of its members.

Many of us who have been in ministry for a while have taken our cues from what Paul says in Ephesians 4. We believe that our job is to “prepare God’s people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up”. We believe that God has given pastors and teachers to the church for this very purpose.

I hope that as a denomination ministerial training and Christian discipleship will receive an increasingly high profile in our activities. Our church, and the wider Christian community in Ireland, needs ministers with the intellectual ability, the practical skills and the personal qualities to lead God’s people into effective Christian service and ministry. Unfortunately, the old 80-20 principle applies. 80% of the work in our congregations is done by 20% of our members. Many of our members need to move from being passive listeners to being active servants.

In order for that to happen, we need ministers who are effective preachers, sensitive pastors, and strategic leaders. That is a high standard, and a comprehensive calling, and that is why a rigorous and challenging programme of theological education and ministerial training needs to be maintained and enhanced.

In a comprehensive study completed a few years ago, a Duke Divinity School research team concluded that healthy and effective churches were the result of the ministry of healthy and effective ministers. It is one of those conclusions that many ordinary church members may have accurately predicted without the need for much research. But maybe it needs to be acknowledged and acted upon in a more intentional way. Whatever else our General Assembly does, it needs to encourage and enhance the training of its ministers. Without effective ministers, our congregations will remain ineffective and powerless.

In addition, ministers and elders need to be given the resources to see their congregations trained and motivated for Christian service. And these goals are promoted by the facilities provided  in the Training Resource Centre.  It is our prayer that all who work and study there may benefit from the new facilities and may be enabled to fulfill their God-given job description of preparing God’s people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up.

JSC General

Our local radio phone-in programmes often take calls from Christian people who claim that their views have a basis in the teaching of the Bible. When given the opportunity, they sometimes say that certain behaviours are sinful and have been prohibited by the Scriptures.

The common response from the radio presenter is, “So then, Mr Christian, if you believe the Bible forbids certain practices, why do you eat bacon or seafood? Or why do you wear clothes that have been made from more than one type of material? Aren’t those things forbidden by the Bible as well?” It seems like the presenter has played a logical check-mate and exposed the inconsistency of the Christian who claims biblical authority for his views.

Even if the Christian caller to the radio programme had the ability to answer the presenter’s questions, the sound-bite of the talk show does not allow for the development of a reasoned argument. Serious, complex issues like the nature of the Bible are often trivialised. The result is that most listeners are left thinking that Bible-believing Christians have no answers to these questions.

What many people fail to understand is that the Bible is not a flat book. It has contours. There is movement and development within the Bible. Not all of the Bible applies uniformly to the Christian or to our society today. But that does not mean that we jettison or ignore parts of the Bible, especially the difficult parts of the Old Testament. Rather, we read of all of the Bible as Christian Scripture understanding that biblical revelation is progressive, organic and redemptive.

The Bible is a single story with a single Hero. Even though it spans many thousands of years and involves many personalities and participants, the individual stories are all threads woven into the pattern of a single tapestry. For me, coming to an understanding of this holistic way of reading the Bible was like finding hidden treasure.

One of the main reasons why many devout church attenders may be stumped by the clever interviewer’s questions is that they have never been taught how to read and understand the Bible for themselves. It is a constant challenge for those of us who preach regularly to explain how a particular passage or story fits into the overall flow of redemptive history and what it means in our lives today.

Well-known Bible stories are often misinterpreted, even by preachers. The story of David and Goliath is not primarily a story about how we can slay the giants in our lives. Nor is the main application of Jesus calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee simply that He is with us in all the storms of our lives. These stories must be placed within the context of the single, great story of redemption. They have a purpose way beyond the details of our individual lives.

This is one of the main lessons that we have been trying to teach in a course organised by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for suitably-qualified and interested members of the church. It is known as the Accredited Preachers Scheme, and following a pilot scheme earlier this year, a new course of study will commence in the next few weeks. Hopefully this course will provide the denomination with a new human resource in the form of gifted people who can preach from the Bible in an accurate, clear and cogent way.  Participants will be encouraged to think carefully about the nature of the Bible, and especially about the unity of the Old Testament and the New in the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

For those who are interested in pursuing these issues, there is a very helpful bibliography by Dane Ortlund which can be read here. Many pastors and lay preachers will benefit from the insights offered by these books, and will be able to help their listeners understand that there is an intelligent answer to the questions people ask about the Bible.

JSC General

The “Jesus had two dads” placard at this year’s Belfast Gay Pride parade has provoked a strong reaction from some conservative Christians. Some people from the gay community claim that it was simply an attempt to use wit and irony to make a point. Many will say that its immature mischievousness, bad taste and theological inaccuracy has done little to promote an intelligent debate on the issue of the adoption of children by same-sex couples, and has only resulted in many orthodox Christians looking the other way. Gay Christians might be ashamed and embarrassed by the placard, just as some orthodox Christians might not be totally enthusiastic about the fundamentalist protest.

So it raises the question: Is it possible for there to be an intelligent conversation between gay and straight people on the issue of human sexuality and the adoption of children by same-sex couples, other than by displaying mutually-offensive placards and shouting abuse at each other?

The gay lobby faces a difficult (and many would say, impossible) task when it comes to persuading orthodox Christians about the validity of their lifestyle. The Bible clearly sets out God’s will for us in the area of our sexuality, namely, that intimate sexual relations are only legitimate and meaningful within the context of the covenant of heterosexual, monogamous marriage. All other sexual relationships are sinful and wrong. And it goes further in that it specifically prohibits homosexual relationships and describes them as a sign of godlessness within a society. No wonder many Bible-believing Christians stand open-mouthed when they hear of Christian denominations taking steps so that openly gay people are allowed to hold leadership roles in the church.

Those who advocate the ordination of women in the church have had a difficult task in making the Bible’s clear statement “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” to mean the exact opposite of what it says, “I do permit a woman to teach and have authority over a man”. “A” must, by means of some clever exegetical footwork, come to mean “non-A”.

The gay lobby has faced an even more challenging assignment. They must demonstrate that behaviours and patterns of family life which the Bible calls immoral and sinful are actually God-honouring. Black must be called white. Clear biblical statements must not only be excised, but re-written to say the opposite.

Some have found the task of providing a biblical foundation for a homosexual lifestyle so impossible that they have resorted to the argument which we heard at this year’s Church of Scotland General Assembly, “We know better than the Bible”. For such people, the legitimacy for homosexuality, and for gay Christian leadership in the church, must be built on a foundation other than the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. For orthodox, confessional Christians, that is an impossible position for us to take. But maybe we need to explain with greater clarity why we believe that planting our feet on any foundation other than the Bible is a dangerous and perilous place to stand. Our gay neighbours need to listen and feel the weight of our argument.

What is clear is, that whatever our orientation, we all struggle in the area of our sexuality. Sexual sin is not just a problem for those who experience same-sex attractions. In this matter, ‘there is no one righteous, not even one” and “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:10, 23). It is level ground at the foot of the cross of Christ.  It is there that all sinners, whether gay or straight, need to see that they are guilty before God and unable to save themselves, and that there is only One who can be their Saviour. The conversation and discussion between gay people and orthodox Christians needs to begin with that recognition of our common sinfulness and our shared need of a Saviour.

Ironically, maybe it’s here that the offensive placard has a role to play. If the theological background of the placard’s claim that “Jesus had two dads” can be accurately unpacked and become the starting point for our conversation, then we might make some progress in our discussion. After all, God’s Son was born into a human family precisely because we sinners needed a Saviour and Redeemer. It is only through Him that we spiritual orphans can be adopted into God’s family and know Him as our Heavenly Father. Then we can begin to talk together about how we can live so that we please and honour our loving and gracious Father.

JSC General

The eminent theologian, Ken Bailey, has reflected here on the recent decision of the Presbyterian Church in the USA (PCUSA) to adjust its ordination vows to allow practising homosexuals to hold leadership positions in the church.

He helps us to see how the relationship between the Western churches and other Christians in the world is affected negatively by decisions taken by PCUSA and, we might add, the trajectory currently being followed by the Church of Scotland. By trying to reflect the spirit of the age rather than basing their decisions on God’s will revealed in Scripture, these denominations cut themselves off from other Christians and seriously inhibit the cause of world mission. I’ve included the full text of Professor Bailey’s remarks.

Once a small mouse was playing around the feet of a family of elephants.  The mouse suddenly decided to run down the hill away from the elephants.  The elephants did not follow the mouse.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) in 2011 is just over one half of one percent of the population of America and America is approximately 5% of the population of the world.  We are a very small blip on the radar screen of world Christianity.  Sixty percent of the world’s Christians are now in the Global South which is comprised of South America, Africa, and Asia.  Paul wrote to the churches of his day and affirmed, “You (plural) are the body of Christ.”  He also said, “You (plural) are the holy temple.” In our day the interconnectedness of each part of the larger body of Christ is more profoundly a reality than at any time since the earliest beginnings of the Church in the middle of the first century.  What can be said about Presbyterian world mission and 10-A?

From 1955 to 1995 it was my privilege to serve as a missionary academic, teaching New Testament in Egypt, Lebanon, Jerusalem, and Cyprus.  For the last sixteen years I have continued in full-time ministry teaching New Testament in this country, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.  I lecture primarily for Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, the Armenian Protestants, and the Armenian Orthodox.  For the last 13 years I have been honored to serve (as a Presbyterian) as the Canon theologian of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.  The air I breathe is that of the larger body of Christ which is the world Church.  It is out of this background that I offer these brief remarks. Read more…

JSC General

This week I’ve been reading the latest offering from Tim Chester and Steve Timmis called Everyday Church. It’s an interesting and stimulating read which is a follow-up to Total Church and deals with the practical realities about churches being gospel-centred communities.  They start with the vital question of how we reach the 40 million people in the UK who are not open to attending church as it is. That is certainly a question which the wider Christian church should be asking. There are a number of helpful and thought-provoking comments. Here’s one:

One of the common assumptions when people fail to turn up to church is that we need to improve the experience of church gatherings, the “product”. We need better music, more relevant sermons, multimedia presentations, engaging dramas. Or we need to relocate to pubs, cafes, art centres. We need cool venues with cool people and cool music. The problem with this approach is the assumption that people will come to church if the product is better. But remember that 70% of the UK population have no intention of attending a church service, and these figures are even higher among young people….Sunday morning in church is the one place where evangelism cannot take place in our generation because the lost are not there - not until we go out to connect with them where they are, where they feel comfortable, on their territory. We need to do church and mission in the context of everyday life. We must think of church as a community of people who share life, ordinary life. Read more…

JSC General, Uncategorized