I watched some of Q&A last night. It was painful. Fred Nile was up against atheist astrophysicist Laurence Krause, Amanda Vanstone and Susan Ryan with only openly gay bishop Gene Robinson to help him. It was awful. Fred did his best and tried to keep Jesus on the agenda, but he was way out of his league.
It made me think. Of course I'm not an Anglican and I'm 3000km from Sydney, but it is really important that Sydney gets a good Archbishop who is not out of his league in that context.
Here's what I think we need.
1. A Christian who loves talking about Jesus.
2. A really clever Christian who loves talking about Jesus.
3. A really clever Christian who has a deep and broad understanding of Christian theology and ethics and who loves talking about Jesus.
4. A really clever Christian who is humble and gracious and who has a deep and broad understanding of Christian theology and ethics and who loves talking about Jesus.
5. A really clever Christian who doesn't present as a fundamentalist, who is humble and gracious and who has a deep and broad understanding of Christian theology and ethics and who loves talking about Jesus.
Please God?
John Dickson does pretty well on Q & A
ReplyDeleteAs does Peter Jensen.
ReplyDeleteSadly, neither of them are candidates!
ReplyDeleteI would really love to see those five points come to life in a wonderful new archbishop too. However, I need to ask myself why? Possibly it's because I want Christianity to look good on camera. Now if that's because I want more people to have the chance to hear about Jesus rather than just dismissing it out of hand because we look like a bunch of lunatics, then it's probably an okay motive. But mixed in there is my desire to have my side looking good. To not be scorned. To be seen as intelligent and wise. To not be ashamed. That's probably a pretty natural desire but it's not what the Bible lays out as a typical response to the gospel and it's servants. So it may be that God will provide a "spokesman" for evangelical Christianity that has those particular gifts which are useful on Q & A and which "kick butt" in the secular arena. Or, he may have a servant with a totally different set of gifts in mind. Perhaps someone who is lousy on Q & A but who's quiet ability to mentor and encourage the pastors in his care enables them to keep on serving when they would have given up. Or who's oversight of boring practicalities and efficiencies enables the church to spend more money on sharing the gospel. Or whatever.
ReplyDeleteIt should be "whose" not "who's" (twice!) and "its servants" not "it's servants". My apologies. I cannot think and spell at the same time and I am hasty with the publish button.
Delete