Coffee With Has Moved Back To WordPress

Dear Reader,

I have decided to resume blogging with a much greater degree of regularity, but to do so back at WordPress.  I shan't bore you with reasons that are personal and aesthetic, but if you would like to follow Coffee With Louis in future, and I hope that I shall have something helpful and interesting to say, then you can do so by going here and by bookmarking Coffee With Louis at WordPress once you get there.

Soli Deo Gloria

'Celebrating the God given differences between men and woman'

In the discussion, mostly in Western churches, about the ministry of women and the issue of the ordination of women to the ministry of word and sacrament, or to the priesthood, the voice of women who believe that the bible disallows both of the latter is seldom heard.  Whilst reading Anglican Mainstream, I came across the following article offering brief and moving testimonies of women who believe that God has made men and women equal, but who also believe that the ministries of men and women are often complementary rather than similar.  


Here's how Anglican Mainstream's article begins:

"It is often asserted that the proper recognition of the place and role of women in our church depends on the elevation of women to the episcopate, in particular with no statutory place for those who cannot accept their ministry.  However, this view is not representative of the views of all women in ordained ministry in the Church of England, as the following testimonies bear witness. 

‘The greatest privilege and joy of my life ….’ 

It has been the greatest privilege and joy of my life to teach the Bible and minister to women and children within the biblically ordained role for women.  I was ordained as a deacon in the Church of England in1995, and for the last 15 years I have served as a permanent deacon in a parish; earlier I served as a lay member of staff at another church for 5 years. 

I absolutely love my role of teaching the Bible to woman and children.  I am completely content, and in no way am I unfulfilled.  I, and many other women serving in churches in similar roles, have no wish for equality to mean that we have to be in roles identical to those of men.  Rather, we believe that we are celebrating the God given differences between men and woman, and that as women we are serving the Lord as he intended." 

Rev Caroline West, St Mary’s Basingstoke

 Read the rest of the testimonies and the whole of the article on the Anglican Mainstream website here


Soli Deo Gloria  

Not in my name

I notice that the Church of Scotland's bid to reclaim costs from Hookson, the communications agency commissioned to revamp the burning bush logo, has failed.  

The online Scotsman says: 

A SHERIFF has thrown out a bid by the Church of Scotland to claw back money paid to a design company for work on its logo.

Read here

The online Herald says:

The Kirk took Edinburgh creative communications agency Hookson to court after the company revealed details of the project on a trade magazine’s website.

Read here

The Herald then goes on to say: 

Giving evidence at Edinburgh Sheriff Court, Church of Scotland communications manager Jennie Rutte said the work was to be low key as they did not want churchgoers to think a big change to identity was being made or a lot of money was being spent when there was a threat of redundancies.

The managing director of Hookson is further quoted as saying:

Managing director of Hookson, Bryan Hook, said: “If they have suffered reputational damage that is in their court. They were disingenuous and did not confirm a contract with my company and this fuelled suspicion.”

I am personally not happy at all that my own offerings and those of my congregation, as well as those of so many others, have been used to pursue not much more than £3200 through the courts.  I am not impressed at all by the way in which the church has opened itself up to the charge of being disingenuous.  Has that really been true?  If so, then who is responsible for that, and will there be an apology?  


I am also completely convinced that money spent on a change to the corporate logo of the Church of Scotland is money utterly wasted.  And is this indicative of many other, unknown, instances of waste, excess, indulgence and misspending when it comes to managing the offerings of God's people in the Kirk.  


There are far more pressing financial needs before us just now, because of the financial shortfalls in the Kirk, not least the loss of two hundred full time ministry posts.  This failed court case is exactly the sort of thing that feeds the feeling that the centre is out of touch with what is thought to be of vital importance in the parishes and congregations.

Hookson was pursued in the courts without my knowledge, agreement or concurrence, and I suspect that I echo the sentiment of many in the Kirk when I say that this was not done in my name or with my support, before or after the fact.

Sole Deo Gloria 

Whilst the Kirk sleeps

When I first became a minister of the Church of Scotland, the issue of the ordination of women had for a long time been settled, at least as far as the law of the Kirk was concerned.  Women were to face no barrier whatsoever regarding ordination to the eldership or to the ministry of word and sacrament.  This had been agreed for a number of years.

At my very first General Assembly, the issue of what is permitted and what cannot be prohibited in the life of the church was being debated, and quite hotly, as I recall.  The ordination of women was very much a permitted and encouraged matter, but the Assembly decided - I'm trying to remember the exact wording of it all, but can't quite remember - that it was also a matter which no one could lawfully prohibit.  Ministers and Kirk Sessions could not deliberately and lawfully choose men only for the eldership.

I dissented from that decision and lined up with many others to sign the dissent paperwork at the 'play pen'.  I dissented because it was my view that what is permitted in one generation was likely to become compulsory in the next, and a disciplinary matter in the following.  Many congregations and ministers were doing great work for the kingdom, including the faithful preaching of God's word, but could not agree to the ordination of women to the eldership in its two forms - ruling and teaching - because they could find no permission for it in scripture.  I did not at all like the thought of faithful, thoughtful ministers and Kirk Sessions becoming the subject of disciplinary proceedings, in time, over this issue.

There are still ministers and Kirk Sessions, as well as many other Kirk members, who affirm joyfully the equality of men and women in God's created order, who also want to say that the roles and ministries of men and women are often different, and that is the way God has ordained it to be.

Since then, and probably prior to that, many evangelicals have felt that the spaces they have occupied in the Kirk are getting narrower and narrower. Freedom of opinion and liberty of conscience is being eroded and removed.  There is a strong and growing sense amongst them that the Kirk is moving theologically and ethically in its liberal direction, at such pace, that their own place within it is increasingly tenuous.  They are being pushed and marginalised to a place to which grace and Christian love ought never to have pushed them.

No minority can be rejected or oppressed forever.  The warning signs in the Kirk are there for any careful observer.  The steam is positively pouring out of the kettle.  Kirk evangelicals already feel unchurched.  In the Kirk's rush to be 'inclusive' it is the evangelicals who are being excluded.  They feel that the church in which they came to faith and in which they were matured in Christian discipleship has been hijacked.  There is common agreement amongst them that a denomination founded on the scriptures of the old and new testaments, summing up its Christian understanding in the superb Westminster Confession of Faith, has now been the subject a spectacular ecclesiastical coup d'etat.

Evangelicals have already left the Kirk as a consequence.  Some of them have taken the step of surrendering their membership of the Church of Scotland whilst remaining members of their local, parish churches, and more are threatening to do the same.  Others have stopped giving financially to the central funds of the Kirk, though they continue to support their own congregations in all ways, including monetarily.

If evangelicals have not already left in one shape or form, then a good number have left within their hearts.  I know of a number of evangelical ministers in this category.  They are going through the motions of being Church of Scotland ministers, faithfully carrying out their local roles and responsibilities but inwardly having withdrawn in despair from the central structures of the Kirk and into a form of Presbyterian congregationalism.   Mentally and emotionally, many evangelical ministers and church members have already left the Kirk.  Plain and simple.

We are now engaged in a struggle not only for the Church of Scotland itself, but a struggle to maintain our own evangelical place within it.  We have learned what the phrase 'broad church' means.  It means a church in which almost anything is permitted and passed off as the will of God, sooner or later.  It has meant the construction of a shelf-load of false gods alongside the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  It means a temple of Dagon spirituality where the God of the Bible stands side by side with the images that have been idolatrously made of him.  Evangelicals cannot live much longer with this.  A change of some agreeable sort must soon come, or there will be few evangelicals left in the Kirk.  Congregations will be damaged or absent, and finances, already in a critical state, will suffer yet further.

Is this what anyone truly wants?  Is the marginalisation and eventual expulsion of so many of the Kirk's evangelicals a thing to be desired?  Is the Kirk really far better off without us?  Without evangelicals, is the Kirk a church worth belonging to?  Without evangelical and orthodox Christian belief, is the Kirk a church at all?

These are the serious questions to be faced and answered, and outside the evangelical camp, I don't think anyone has much of a clue that tensions are so great and passions so aroused.

Whilst the Kirk sleeps, its evangelicals seem to be preparing to leave.

Soli Deo Gloria

If we pray

In our church staff bible study this morning, I was forcefully struck by the impassioned and powerful prayer of Nehemiah on receiving the news that God's people were in great trouble and that the city of Jerusalem was defenceless and humiliated.  Nehemiah's immediate response to this bad news, brought to him by Hanani, is to weep and pray.  Here, in the very opening sentences of a book that will chronicle the work of rebuilding and reformation, serious and prolonged prayer is given the most important place, up front and centre stage.  That is not a coincidence.  It is for our present good.

Faced with difficulties and troubles, our first reaction is often to set to work on new approaches and tactics.  We re-double our efforts as we try to reverse the trends.  For Nehemiah, there was a time for careful thought and action, but not before he had been considerably prayerful.

But it is not just that he prayed as a very first course of action that makes its impact on my thinking.  It is the quality and seriousness of his prayer that impresses and challenges me so much. I think it should challenge all of us, too.  Nehemiah deliberately 'sat down', and so we see him stopping for the sole purpose of turning to the one who alone can change the unchangeable.  And he weeps.  His heart is not indignant or angry, as far as we can tell. Our own hearts probably would have been.  Instead, he grieves and mourns for the people of God and for the name of God, held up to derision through the disaster that has befallen Jerusalem.

When I think about problems that beset the church, I am sure that many of us have spent a great deal of time sharing our indignation and even our hurt with others.  We discuss possibilities and potential courses of action.  Nehemiah's example challenges us to pray with considerable fervency in the very first place, long before we do or try anything else.

Talking is easy.  Prayer is harder.  It involves putting aside the natural instinct to hide from God and to try working out our own salvation, and just to be still before Him.  It calls for a recognition that we have our own part to play in the way things are, and a consequent need to repent for sins of commission as well as omission.

In advance of the General Assembly of 2011, ahead of regular meetings of Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions; before we ever set out to try and change our circumstances so that they better reflect God's glory, I am sure Nehemiah teaches us that fervent prayer as well as fasting are the essential prerequisites for a movement of God's Spirit.

I would love to see evangelicals all over Scotland meeting in every corner of the land to pray in that utterly abandoned way which says "Lord, you are our only hope. Unless you intervene, we are completely undone."

Let the talking dry up and the praying well up.  Let prayer gatherings spring up and faith rise up in every place.

Nehemiah prayed and God made the king favourable to him.  It may be so for us, if we pray.

Soli Deo Gloria

Evangelicals are unwelcome

I'm sorry to say that I didn't enjoy the meeting of the Presbytery of Aberdeen on Tuesday night one little bit.  I felt that the meeting was not at all remarkable for graciousness.  A particular agenda item created a good deal of heat and, in my view, a good deal of unpleasantness.  Meetings of the Presbytery are open to the public.  I do know someone who planned to attend.  If she did so, I hope she was not too dismayed.  I will have to ask.

I must be frank.  I am not convinced in the slightest that there is a welcome for evangelical Christians in our Presbyteries, and by that I mean that our Kirk has no time or love for us.  I am not looking for sympathy.  If you are an evangelical parish worker, you will be spared rough treatment, as a general rule.  It cannot be guaranteed, but there is usually a collective sympathy for the young and the non-ordained.  If you are an evangelical minister who is intent on speaking and contributing, then stand by for a rough and tempestuous ride.  

In Tuesday night's meeting, one contributor complained that evangelicals are trying to impose their will on the Kirk, and this cannot be allowed.  Evangelicals know that he speaks for many in the Kirk, perhaps the majority.  And here is the nub of it all.  Evangelicals are granted space at the table as long as they choose to agree with more liberal opinion.  They must play the game.  They can swell the numbers and contribute to the finances, but they must keep their mouths shut when contentious matters arise.

Of late, evangelicals have felt that enough is enough, that the spiritual health of the Kirk is in grave danger and that our calling, as a National Church, to offer something to Scotland that is distinctive is being attacked and destroyed.  There is agreement that the glory of God and his holiness is being challenged and dismissed by many.  But notice this, as soon as evangelicals dare to disagree with the theological left, proud and intolerant, all hell breaks out.

Here is where things presently are: the bonds of unity in the Kirk are at breaking point.  Already, some churches are engaging in forms of civil disobedience.  Others may follow.  Those that have not yet withheld finances agree that a chasm has opened up within the denomination.  They believe that the root cause is a rejection of God and the way in which he has revealed himself in Christ and in the apostolic tradition of the scriptures, that those who reject the God of the bible have erected a false pick 'n mix god within the Kirk itself.  Evangelicals will not bow down to it.

Believe me, the Kirk is a pretty painful place for evangelical believers right now.  Many have simply abandoned Presbyteries and do not attend meetings.  They feel that no good thing can come out of them.  We feel decidedly unwelcome.  Our options seem few in number.  We try to remain focused on more positive things, but it is a hard furrow to plough.  We continue to pray.  God has yet to act, but he will.

Through it all, God is making us like his Son, and after suffering...glory!

Soli Deo Gloria

Should Katherine Jefferts Schori have spoken to the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church?

Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, the hitherto principal expression of Anglicanism in the USA, addressed the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church, meeting in Edinburgh recently.  I say 'hitherto' because there are now breakaway denominations of Anglicans in the USA that are seeing tremendous numerical growth and which may very well surpass the PB's flock in size and strength before very long.  I listened to the audio of her address to the Synod and thought that it was unremarkable and unsurprising, to be honest.  I thought that she might have been more open and forthright about the issues that are devastating her own denomination.  But no.  There was a lot of spin, I have to say.  Things were going alright and could be better, was the tenor.  No mention of schism and decline, not to mention litigation and vastly expensive court cases.  Perhaps the PB was asked to go canny.  Although she was up here in episcopally autonomous Scotland, Rowan is not that far away!  In any case, you can listen to her address to the General Synod here

The PB is a controversial character round the world, to say the least, and is held responsible by many Anglicans for adding considerably to the divisions within the worldwide communion, if not creating a good many of them.  On her episcopal watch, many Anglican priests and congregations believe themselves to have been left with no options but to leave the denomination, departing without being allowed to take their church buildings or assets with them. 

In her speech to the General Synod, the PB speaks about mission, describing it as the very reason for the church's existence.  If we are not engaged in mission, then the church might just as well close its doors.  She says that mission is the healing and restoring of all creation to 'the common weal' of God.  It is about justice and about dignity.  Its purpose is to bring all people together to live in peace.  

It seems a hollow message though, and I am struck by the absurdity of calling people to live together in peace when the denomination is tearing itself apart.  Yet we are supremely good at seeing the speck that is in the eye of another, whilst doing next to nothing about the log that is our own.  I do also wonder how it is possible to speak of justice and dignity whilst ministers and congregations are losing their church premises and livelihoods.

I am sorry that the PB spoke to a branch of the Christian Church here in Scotland, I have to say, and I am also sorry that the Bishops of the Church, to whom God's people look for leadership, gave the PB a warm welcome, and an honoured place, and received her with such joy.  My question is this.  Was the invitation to Jefferts Schori the most sensitive thing for the Scottish Bishops to offer at a time when thousands of fellow Anglicans in the USA are suffering great pain at the divisions of their denomination, and who believe that the PB is the very person who is leading the charge?  I doubt it very much.

Furthermore,  I do wonder about the wisdom of inviting the PB to speak to a denominational Synod for which the same issues that have plagued the health of the Episcopal Church in the USA are as divisive here as they are over the pond.  I know that not all clergy who attended the Synod felt themselves able to remain in the room when the PB got up to speak.

It also strikes me that if the Bishops felt that Jefferts Schori was just the person to have something from God to say to the church at this critical and fragile moment, then those of us in the Church of Scotland can only give thanks that God delivered us when the SCIFU talks about denominational union foundered a couple of years back, for I will not be alone in questioning the wisdom and spiritual judgement of those who would think it right and good to invite the PB to address the people of God in Scotland.

There are complex issues for most branches of the church in Scotland to work through at this point in time, and inviting a controversial character such as Jefferts Schori to speak into the life of the Episcopal Church cannot have done anything constructive for relationships within that part of the church, or between other parts of the wider church.  When the PB speaks of that 'radical hospitality' which the church should offer, we know what she means, and it is an agenda which divides rather than heals, though she speaks much of healing.  

The thing that I noticed most about her recorded speech?  The name of Jesus is not mentioned once.

That should sound the alarm bells ringing.

Soli Deo Gloria    

"Dear Councillors, do the sensible thing and choose option 1 please!"

OPTION TO BE CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL AS PART OF REVIEW

New graveyards may no longer be blessed

BY GILLIAN BELL

Published: 17/06/2010

Burial grounds in the north-east may no longer be blessed under plans to ensure that no religious group or belief is favoured over another.

The option is one which Aberdeenshire councillors will consider as part of a review of the local authority’s policy on the consecration of new graveyards, which has traditionally been carried out by local Church of Scotland ministers.

Aberdeenshire Council is responsible for 213 burial grounds, 35 of which are full. It has built six new burial grounds or extensions since 2000, and it is estimated 15 more will be needed in the next decade.

Read more: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1787226?UserKey=#ixzz0rCVfMI00

On the path to true unity!

The Helensburgh Advertiser is not my usual daily read but I notice there an article speaking about the coming visit of Cardinal Keith O'Brien to Luss Parish Church of Scotland:

'His Eminence Cardinal Keith O'Brien, President of the Bishops' Conference of Scotland and the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, will be the guest preacher at Luss Parish Church which is celebrating 1,500 years of Christian worship at the site.'

You can read the rest here but the thing that catches my eye most is the reported and slightly enigmatic comment of the Cardinal in anticipation of his visit.  He says:

"I am delighted to be able to join the congregation of Luss Parish Church and join with them in celebrating 1,500 years of Christian witness in that area. I look forward to praying with them and hope that in the years to come all our Christian denominations will draw ever closer together on the path to true unity."

Well, I would like to join the Cardinal in prayer but I am not sure what, exactly, he meant, when he spoke of 'the path to true unity'.  Of course, he may look forward to a unity of all Christians under a Roman Catholic roof, and probably he does.  I do not.  I look forward to Christians everywhere and in every place finding one another and finding visible and practical ways right here and right now in which to give expression to the unity that we already possess as a consequence of the reconciling work of the Lord Jesus Christ.  This is real ecumenical work, to my mind.  It is not about praying for a unity that we do not already have and for which we must strive, but about working to express and enjoy that unity which Christ has already brought about and for which he has once and for all paid a very high price.  


Giving expression to the unity that believers have is never an easy business.  Here in the Bridge of Don, church leaders have been meeting fortnightly for twenty years.  In that time the personnel have changed, as Church leaders have moved on.  We have learned how to be friends, how to love, forgive and esteem one another, how to have differences of opinion without falling out - at least, without falling out irretrievably!  We have also moved beyond mere coffee-drinking to real sharing, the sharing of worries and uncertainties, failures as well as successes.  We still drink coffee, though!  We are not on the path to true unity.  We are already in true unity.  To be fair, we have not arrived at 'perfect' unity, but it is a true unity, if an imperfect one, because it is founded upon a shared experience of Jesus who is, himself, the truth in all of its fullness.  


My reticence about events such as the annual Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is that the tone of its accompanying resource material always seems to suggest that we must get on to the way towards unity, and we must continue to pray for unity as though we do not presently experience it.  I think that is a simple denial of the work of the Lord Jesus.  When he cried 'it is finished', in the infinite depth of all that is summed up in those few words from the cross, Jesus must also have meant that the unity of believers, for whom he died, was accomplished too.  His prayer, that we be one as he and the Father are one is not a prayer that we would find and achieve unity eventually.  It is a prayer that Christians everywhere would love each other with eternal bonds of compassion, in spite of differences and distinctions.


In these days in which God seems to be shaking our western denominations through enormous financial crisis and bitter theological conflict, the ecumenical movement seems increasingly irrelevant, at least at the institutional level.  Union under one roof feels like ecclesiastical whistling in the teeth of a gale.  The reality is that ordinary believers who love the Lord are finding one another across the boundary lines of denominations and traditions, and are working out marvellous ways of witnessing and worshipping together.  


I give thanks to God for true unity already found to be present and real.  If the Cardinal, or anyone else for that matter, wishes to pray for the day when that unity will be perfect, then I will be happy to join in with a hearty "Amen".


Soli Deo Gloria