Thomas McKenzie is the founding pastor of Church of the Redeemer in Nashville, Tennessee.  His book, The Anglican Way: a Guidebook  framed the following interview.  More information about McKenzie can be found at www.thomasmckenzie.com.

The interview was conducted by David George Moore.  Dave blogs at www.twocities.org.

Moore: What were the motivating factors which led you to write this book?

McKenzie: I wrote this book because it didn’t exist, and I needed it to. Most of the people I encounter in my church work know very little about following Jesus as an Anglican. I’ve spent thousands of hours addressing their questions about Anglicanism. It seemed that there had to be a single, easy source that I could refer people to. Unfortunately, there wasn’t. So, I wrote one for them.

I also wrote this book to help influence our movement. I want to make sure that this fast-growing and dynamic group of churches stays centered—that we keep “the main thing the main thing.” That’s why my book keeps bringing people back to the Gospel. Being more Anglican shouldn’t be our goal. Our goal should be to make disciples of Jesus Christ.

Moore: Henry VIII is a well-known, but not well-liked figure.  How do you address folks who cringe over such a shady character “starting a new denomination?”

McKenzie: Henry VIII is completely cringe-worthy; and, I have a two-fold answer to that question. First, I disagree with the idea that Henry VIII started our denomination. For about 1500 years, the Anglican Church was simply the Church in England (the word “Anglican”is an adjective meaning “of  England”). That Church was founded by untold thousands of saints over many centuries.

Henry VIII wasn’t the first ruler to assert that the Pope was not the head of the English church. Both Charlemagne and the Magna Carta claimed that. Henry wasn’t able to complete the break, as his daughter and successor Mary quite possibly would have brought England back under papal authority, had she lived long enough. I would say that the true founders of the modern Anglican Church were Thomas Cranmer (theologically) and Queen Elizabeth I (institutionally). None of that is to say that Henry VIII wasn’t important, he was. But he didn’t start the English Church.

My second answer is that all denominations are founded by sinners. Henry VIII was not a good person, and many of his actions were truly despicable. However, God used him as part of our story. God sometimes uses evil people to accomplish his purposes. The Lord used Satan to ensure the crucifixion of Jesus (when the devil entered into Judas Iscariot), and that sacrifice saved the world. It shouldn’t be any great surprise that God would use a sinful man like Henry to assist his Church.

Moore: The word episcopal comes into the American lexicon after the American Revolution.  You are an American, but you call yourself an Anglican. How come?

McKenzie: That is a long and unhappy story, which I’ll keep short. The Anglican Communion is the largest Protestant communion of churches in the world. It is comprised of independent provinces with no central authority. There is a “first among equals,”the Archbishop of Canterbury, but he has no control outside of his own province.

The Episcopal Church in the United States (TEC) is a province of the Anglican Communion. Over the past several decades, TEC made a series of pastoral and theological decisions which have alienated them from many other provinces of the Anglican Communion. In 2009, archbishops who represent the vast majority of Anglicans on earth decided that a new province needed to be formed in North America.  That is why the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) came into existence.

The ACNA is recognized by some Anglican provinces, but is not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Regardless of its current status, the ACNA is far more faithful to historic Anglican Christianity than is the Episcopal Church. While there are many faithful Episcopalians, in 2004 I came to the conclusion that I could not be both an Anglican Christian and an Episcopalian. So I joined a mission from Rwanda, which ultimately became part of the ACNA. I am happy to be a follower of Jesus within historic Anglicanism.

Moore: In your book you make clear that baptism does not save.  Each person must confess Christ.  What do Anglicans believe about those who got baptized but never confessed Christ?  Conversely, what do Anglicans believe about those who never got baptized, but clearly confess Christ?

McKenzie: Since there are about 80 million people on earth who use the word “Anglican” for themselves, in one sense it’s impossible to definitively say what Anglicans believe about anything. But, if you mean what does the Church traditionally say on the subject, I can try to answer that. The baptism of an infant is an action of profound faith. We make promises for our children, but we cannot force our kids to accept the Lordship of Christ when they are older. If someone were to be baptized in the Church, but then later were to deny Christ, I would assume that this will not go well for them on the Day of Judgment. I would say the same for infants as well as adults who are baptized.

Baptism is the normal way in which people enter the Kingdom of Heaven. However, there will certainly be people in the Resurrection of the Blessed who were not baptized in their lifetimes. St. Luke’s thief on the cross comes to mind.

I think there may be an assumption behind your question. The assumption is that there is a pinpoint moment at which time someone is saved. Some would say, “When I said the sinners prayer”and others would say, “when I was baptized.”Unfortunately, we all know of instances in which someone had one of those pinpoint moments but then later denied Christ. But, still we debate which moment is the “real one.”

I would suggest that Anglicans typically hold to a view of salvation which is both more mysterious and more biblical. We sometime say, “I was saved, I am being saved, and I hope to be saved.” Salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit doesn’t always do things according to our expectations and timelines. God is not a machine, but a Unity of Persons. And, ultimately, my salvation relies less on either a faith statement or my baptism and more on the faithfulness of Jesus to me.

Moore Clarification: I do believe salvation is both a point in time and a process.  We are transferred out of Satan’s kingdom into God’s in a moment (Col. 1:13,14), but our growth in understanding that salvation is the rest of this life and the next.  I also believe that many are not aware of when their initial salvation or justification occurred.  Timothy would be a good example of this.  Lack of awareness in knowing the exact when does not mean there isn’t an exact when.

Moore: I noticed on the web site for your church that you guys have elders.  Do they play the same role that elders do in say a Presbyterian church?

McKenzie: No, not really. Our congregation is a bit of an aberration in this way. When we founded our church, we had some freedom in how we organized ourselves. After careful study, we decided to govern our local church by a group of 10 people, 9 lay leaders and the pastor. We decided to use the biblical words, rather than the traditional Anglican terminology. We still make important decisions as a group. However, the word “elder”should normally apply to priests in the Anglican Church, not to lay people.

Moore: I know several people who are part of Anglican churches who have disagreements with the Thirty-Nine Articles.  For example, some don’t believe in the parameters set forth in the statement about baptism (article XXVII) whereas others clearly don’t hold to the statements on predestination and election (article XVII).  How binding are the Thirty-Nine Articles for being Anglican?

McKenzie: One of the great things about the Anglican Church is the freedom we have. We resonate with Rupertus Meldenius’ axiom “In essentials, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, love.”

Any person is welcome to join us in worship. If someone wants to officially join our church, we typically ask that they affirm the Nicene Creed (which most congregations say every Sunday as part of worship). In many Anglican provinces and dioceses, candidates for ordination are required to affirm the 39 Articles of Religion.

It is no surprise to me at all that you know folks who attend an Anglican congregation who do not subscribe to all of those teachings. They are free to disagree and still be part of our church. If they wanted to be ordained, then I’m sure there would be a conversation with their pastor or bishop.

Ultimately, what someone thinks of the Articles won’t change the practice of the Church. We baptize children and adults, and we believe in salvation by grace alone. Someone’s agreement or disagreement won’t cause us to severe fellowship with them.

Moore: What would you say are the one or two biggest misunderstandings about the Anglican faith?

McKenzie: Most people in the U.S. neither know nor care about Anglicanism. So most people don’t have any misunderstanding, they simply have no understanding. Among those who do have some contact with the Anglican Church, there are a few things.

Most people who have visited one Anglican congregation think that all of our congregations are like that one. This is far from the truth. The Anglican Church boasts a great variety of congregations, from very Catholic ones to very Charismatic, from high church to low church, from tiny to enormous, from single-generation to multi-generation. So, if you happened to visit a small, anglo-catholic church filled with elderly people meeting in a beautiful sanctuary, you don’t have a full picture of our Church. Same if you once worshiped with 300 young Anglicans in a warehouse hung with video screens and boasting an awesome rock band.

Some people have heard about us in relationship to our views on homosexuality. The ACNA does not perform same-sex unions, neither do we ordain homosexual people who will not refrain from homosexual practice. For almost every Anglican person I know, this practice comes from theological convictions based on the Bible, not from personal animosity or fear. In other words, most of us are not homophobic. Rather, we do everything in our power to love and support all people while living within an orthodox moral framework. Some believe that homophobia is the only reason to stay consistent with the Bible and the orthodox practice of the Church. This is untrue, though I doubt I will convince anyone by saying that.

On the other side of the cultural divide, there are Christians who don’t think we are fully acceptable.  We are too catholic for some, too liturgical, too traditional or too stogy. Some are concerned that we aren’t Bible-based or Gospel-proclaiming. I would say that there are some Anglican churches which would do well to listen to those criticisms. However, most congregations I’ve visited are committed to godly worship, immersed in Scripture, dedicated to the poor, adapt (where appropriate) to culture, and actively proclaim the Good News of Jesus.

Thanks for this opportunity to talk about The Anglican Way. If you’re readers have more questions, they can always contact me through www.thomasmckenzie.com.

Source, and it’s a great article, with this summary clipped: [Image]

The payout rules are complicated but enticing. Even if your college basketball team doesn’t win a game, you win $1.67 million. A round-of-16 appearance rakes in almost $5 million. A Final Four run? $8.3 million.

What sounds like the country’s most lucrative office pool is actually how the NCAA splits up much of the $700-plus million dollars its men’s basketball tournament makes each year. The competitors in this pool are collegiate sports conferences, and this month a large chunk of money — nearly $220 million, according to NCAA projections — is up for grabs.

The “basketball fund,” as it’s simply labeled, is the largest pool of money the NCAA doles out to schools and the only one allocated according to competitive sports success. A closer look at where the money goes illuminates the stratified economic landscape of college sports, where the rich schools get richer and the players remain amateurs.

The NCAA “urges” — but does not require — conferences to share this money equally among their member schools. Of the 32 conferences that participate in the tournament, 15 agreed to answer basic questions about how they use the basketball fund. Those conference officials said that, while specifics vary from conference to conference, they expect their peers use the money similarly.

In general, officials said, larger conferences split the money evenly among their schools, who use it to help cover athletic department budgets. Smaller conferences, meanwhile, depend on the basketball fund to cover their expenses, and some award any extra money to schools based on their own complicated formulas. For a smaller conference, one surprisingly successful tournament can produce budget-inflating windfalls for years.

Conference officials defend the system as a fair way to share money that supports college athletics. To critics of the NCAA and amateurism in college sports, however, the only number that matters about the basketball fund is the amount paid to the players: $0.

[Wait a minute, a free education, room and board is not nothing.]

Iain Provan in Seriously Dangerous Religion: What the Old Testament Really Says and Why It Matter has taken us through a survey of the Old Testament to explore the Old Story told in the Bible. He then connected it with the new dimensions revealed through Jesus Christ. Now it is time to address the key question – not what does the Bible teach?, but rather is it true?

We are now in a position to return to where we began. … The Old Story… is in fact routinely regarded nowadays, on all sides, not just as ineffective but also as problematic and even dangerous. Implicit or explicit in that judgment is the further judgment that the Story is untrue. It does not correspond to the way things were, or are. That is why it is problematic and even dangerous, as we look toward the future. It is not a reliable guide to reality, and those who think that it is will inevitably do damage as they engage with reality.  (p. 348)

The question of truth must be seriously considered.  Everyone lives in a story of some sort, and lives their life and makes choices according to that story.

Human beings are always “storied,” regardless of whether they reflect upon this fact, just as they are always “political,” regardless of whether they vote. “The world is ruled by little else” than powerful ideas, “both when they are right and when they are wrong.” We can do no other than find ourselves in a story. The only question is, Are we going to make any effort to ensure that we are governed by right ideas rather than wrong ones? Or are we simply going to remain “slaves”to inherited ideas, without engaging in any critical reflection on them? (p. 349)

The Old Story told in scripture should be questioned and tested. Is it reasonable? Does it contribute to a coherent understanding of the world around us? Does it mesh with the facts we know and what we are learning? Are our inherited ideas actually faithful to the Old Story?

The last question is important. Many atheist writers will argue against the Story, but as I listen or read it becomes clear that the way the Story is framed is part of the problem. The Story shouldn’t be rejected in total because one way it has been told is clearly wrong.  We need to dig deeper.

Provan believes that this Story properly understood meshes well with the facts, and does so far better than any of the competing stories. In the remainder of the post today we will look at the first three areas he examines for coherence: on the nature of the world, the nature of God, and the nature of humankind.

The nature of the world. Provan begins his consideration of the truth of the Old Story told in the Bible with the nature of the world.

1. The world is not eternal – it had a beginning and will have an end. Both scripture and modern science tell a similar story here. Time flows relentlessly in one direction. “The universe does not run on eternally, in endless cycles of existence, … It began, it is developing, and it will end. We inhabit a story.” (p. 354)

2. The universe is ordered, one of the “marked emphases in the Old Story.” The universe is finely tuned to allow us to flourish. This fact coheres nicely with the Old Story. Provan finds it implausible that this fine-tuned order arose simply from chance.

All of this is to say that the existence and nature of the cosmos in which we live imply, to me, a personal creator God of the kind that biblical faith proclaims. The cosmic story in which we are bound up implies a Storyteller—someone who is weaving the story together into a coherent tale. (p. 355)

The design apparent in the universe, in life on earth, in the creation of human persons, implies a designer.

The appearance of design shouldn’t raise hackles, but it does because of the baggage that has been attached to the concept of design and designer.

It is often deployed by people who want to set up in opposition God’s design of certain aspects of the world, on the one hand, and natural processes, on the other. In this way of approaching the world, this or that aspect of the created order is said to be explicable only in terms of God’s design, and not in terms of natural (especially evolutionary) processes. I need to be clear, then, that I do not mean by my own use of the word “design” to imply any such opposition and that, in fact, I do not believe that biblical faith requires or commends any such opposition. I am convinced, with many scientists, that “the science of Darwinism is fully compatiblewith conventional religious beliefs” and with biblical thinking itself. (p. 356)

Provan points to several passages in the Psalms to demonstrate that the action of God through “natural” process is a thoroughly biblical view. Psalm 8, 104 and 139 are all brought into the discussion. We can affirm with the psalmist that “you knit me together in my mother’s womb” without discounting the natural process of embryonic development. God is providentially involved in the world through so-called natural processes of development. Biblical faith and the nature of creation according to the Old Story isn’t opposed to modern science, and the natural processes studied and explained by modern science are not opposed to biblical faith.

Critical reflection on the Old Story leads us to understand that some of the scientific conclusions that have been drawn from it are wrong. But these do not undermine the Story itself.

3. There is a sense of the sacred that permeates human experience. Provan finds it hard to believe that this sense of the world as sacred space is merely an illusion, perhaps a byproduct of evolutionary pressures.

Some may find this easy to believe; I must say that I do not. Human beings are fundamentally religious beings, it seems to me, and we always have been. We are drawn to worship, as a moth is drawn to the flame. Why is that? An important aspect of this worship is thankfulness—a sense of gratitude for the world, and for our lives in it and for those we love. Why do we feel thankful? Do such intuitions correspond to nothing outside our heads and hearts? For myself, the existence of a Storyteller makes good sense of these intuitions in a way that nothing else does.  (p. 358)

The widespread need to worship, and the focus of this worship on personal gods of one sort or another arises from the reality of a Storyteller – however distorted the knowledge of this Storyteller has become at times.

4. We live in a good world. The Old Story tells us that the world was created to be enjoyed and gives us insight into the meaning of the world and how we should live. Science studies process, but it cannot teach us of meaning. The purpose and plan we experience speaks to “the deep plausibility of the Old Story.”

Moving from science to theology and the nature of God, Provan also suggests that biblical view of one personal God also lends coherence and plausibility to the Old Story. The alternatives are not as plausible. The absence of any kind of god leaves a void, with the world simply a progress of natural processes. Multiple deities with human traits and faults … stealing, deceiving, hungering, lusting  … provide an implausible structure with too many unanswered questions. An impersonal deity setting the world in motion is unsatisfactory – it lacks both relationship and community. The incarnation and resurrection are the ultimate expressions of a personal God.

And on to human beings. The view of humankind in the Old Story also lends to its plausibility. Humans are different from the other animals. These differences are profound.

A chimpanzee is not a human being. It does not possess a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, or problem solving. It does not possess a desire for self-expression, and the appreciation for beauty that produces cultural innovations like art and music. It does not have an ability to understand and to influence the world around it through the development of tools, leading to such distinctively human innovations as building fires, cooking food, and making and wearing clothes. These are just observable facts. (p. 365)

The Old Story is realistically humanistic, acknowledging the good and the bad. It provides a way to live that values people old and young, male and female, rich and poor, slave and free.

I find that the biblical vision of human existence explains convincingly who I am and what I am to do. The world has indeed become a better place to the extent that this vision has already taken hold of it—a much greater extent than many people, without a profound sense of the past, have been able (or willing) to see. It has become a better place precisely to the extent that the intrinsic value and human rights of all human beings have been recognized—be they men, women, or children—and to whatever tribe, ethnicity, or religion they may belong. The world would be a better place still, I contend, if this biblical vision in its entirety—humanistic and democratic, and centered on the one, personal, and good God—were to be widely embraced. (p. 367)

Biblical humanism is grounded in the God who is for us. Secular humanism, Provan claims, lacks foundation and is not up to the task.

We will look at more areas where the Old Story must be examined for coherence in the next post, but this is enough for today.

What do you think of the strength (or weakness) of Provan’s argument?

Is the nature of the world consistent the truthfulness of the Old Story? Why or why not?

Is the nature of God as personal and relational an argument for the truthfulness of the Old Story?

Does the humanism of the Bible cohere with known facts?

If you wish to contact me, you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

From Ian Paul’s website:

A few weeks ago, Linda Woodhead suggested in the Church Times that discipleship was a ‘theologically peripheral concept’, and the following week Angela Tilby dismissed the ‘d-word’ as ‘sectarian vocabulary that…shows the influence of American-derived Evangelicalism on the Church’s current leadership.’ The short discussions in each place actually raise not one but three, inter-related, questions:

1. Is ‘discipleship’ Anglican?

2. Is ‘discipleship’ biblical?

3. Is the Church of England biblical?…

On the first question, Tilby is certainly right to note that the ‘d-word’ is being used quite a lot at the moment. In his excellent Lambeth Lecture on evangelism, Justin Welby put the making of disciples central to the purpose of the church:

I want to start by saying just two simple sentences about the church. First, the church exists to worship God in Jesus Christ. Second, the Church exists to make new disciples of Jesus Christ. Everything else is decoration. Some of it may be very necessary, useful, or wonderful decoration – but it’s decoration.

[Solid discussion but I will now skip to end]

But why should anyone resist discipleship as an important part of the Church of England’s self-understanding? In a recent discussion on the Facebook page of Changing Attitude, someone complained about how the C of E is becoming ‘more evangelical’ and is unclear why this is. If true, I think there is one fairly simple answer: evangelicals have taken the idea of making disciples more seriously than other traditions in the Church. As Justin Welby comments, the idea of making disciples is not a reaction to falling attendances or a simply a means to refill the pews. Rather,

Witness and evangelism are expressions of the overflow of the love and joy of the grace of God into our lives, and the life of His whole Church and His whole world.

But empty pews won’t be filled without it. So if discipleship is biblical, and making disciples isn’t very Anglican, it is perhaps just at this moment that the Church of England needs to become a little more biblical again.

 

By Stephen Cuss

Fred Craddock died over the weekend.  He was 86 years old.

His influence belied his small stature, extending to tens of thousands of pulpits around the world.  I cannot overstate how much he influenced my approach to scripture, story telling and preaching.

I first encountered Dr Craddock when I was a teenager in Western Australia.  Our preacher’s son, David Timms had returned from his theological education in USA.  He preached at our church and I’d never heard any sermon like it.  Winsome, gentle, inviting, provocative.  I was hooked.  David’s sermon was “Craddockesque” and he closed with a powerful story authored by Fred Craddock.  That was the kind of preacher I wanted to be.

With David’s influence, I enrolled at Johnson University,  Fred Craddock’s Alma Mater.  Dr Craddock came through town to give a lecture on the synoptic gospels.  Our professor, David Reece, took us to spend a day listening to the maestro.  6 hours of content, no notes.  Ninety minutes each on Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.  Craddock was as fascinated by “why does Luke want us to notice this?” and “How does John arrange his stories” as “what is Jesus saying here?”  I was fascinated by Craddock’s fascination.  That was the kind of Bible student I wanted to be.

To pay homage to my hero, here are a few lessons I learned from Dr Craddock:

1) Let the text work on you before ever opening a commentary.  If you begin by asking “scholar questions” you will end up with a “scholar sermon.”  First ask human questions before ever turning to the scholars.  Craddock, a world class New Testament scholar himself often said, “scholars can ruin a lot of good sermons.”  To be clear, he was pro scholarship and warned of the danger of a preacher going too far down his own path.  But his challenge was to FIRST ask the same sorts of questions of the text that the person in the pew would ask and to let that shape the message.  He was a PhD New Testament Scholar but he always came across as the fellow traveller on the journey of life.  He harnessed scholarship to serve the every day people.

2) Preach in such a way to put the listener in a dynamic relationship with the text.  Dr Craddock was an early lone voice to shift preaching from proving a point to crafting an experience that gives room for the listener to draw his or her own conclusions.

3) 15 hours of prep, 30 minutes of resolution BAD.  To summarize Craddock: “why spend all that sermon preparation wrestling with the text, trying to figure out what it means, the implications, the challenges etc, only to resolve it for people in a 30 minute sermon?  Instead, structure your sermon to provide a framework for your people to wrestle 15 hours this next week.”  I wonder if this is why Craddock was so famous for crash landing his sermons.  In “What Shall I Do With The Gift” Craddock preaches for 26 minutes and doesn’t make his main point until the last 26 seconds of the message.  25 minutes in and Craddock is still cruising at 30,000 feet, when suddenly, within 30 seconds he’s done, sitting back down on the front row in silence while the rest of us are thinking, “wait, its not finished yet.” I have listened to that message over a dozen times and each time I ponder it for hours.

4) Effective preaching is as much about the audience than the text.  This isn’t pandering, it is connecting.  Craddock shaped preaching away from how it is spoken to how it is heard.  A subtle difference?  Craddock says it is all the difference and that is why people from all walks of life love Craddock’s sermons.  They fit as comfortably in Yale’s Chapel as they did in Appalachia Georgia.

5) A well told story never needs to be explained.   Craddock always advocated for the intelligence of the listeners, but too many preachers are heavy handed when connecting the dots.  When you attend a play, the director doesn’t come out at intermission and say, “Aren’t we all like the lead character, Daryl?”  Let the story do its own work and trust the intelligence of the listener to connect.  They will connect much deeper when you don’t try to hold their hand.

6) Not just “what does the text say” but “what does this author want us to notice?”  Before Craddock, I’d never thought much about the difference between Matthew and Luke’s version of the Beatitudes, but since Craddock, I always ask this vital question and it always brings the text more alive.

7) Find your voice and preach your way.  Craddock was famously short with a high pitched voice.  He came to influence in an era of 6′ tall baritone and bass preachers who’s very posture commanded authority.  Craddock said, “It would be ridiculous of me to try to barge in the front door of the heart.  With my size and voice, I have to climb in through the back window.”  He was a master at understanding the natural human resistance to a message.  We’d come in to listen to a sermon with the front door of our heart dead bolted shut.  Craddock would be rummaging around in our hearts before we ever realized we’d forgotten to lock the back window. He used what God had given him to a stunning advantage.

8) Finally, only preach what matters.  Late in life after a generation of teaching Homiletics and New Testament, Craddock retired and found himself planting a church in Georgia.  His pledge to them was, “I will only ever preach on things that matter.”  Too many sermons are too small for the gospel. They don’t match the burdens, wonder, excitement and fears of the listeners. They simply don’t matter.  Preach what matters to people and you’ll get a front row seat to spiritual hunger and growth in your people.

Thank you Dr Craddock for your profound influence on my life and the lives of tens of thousands of others.  I sit in my chair, about to continue sermon preparation for this week.  Your commentary on Luke is open and ready.

You have no equal in the pulpit, but I’m forever grateful for your influence.