Essentials

Details

Written by: Peter MacPherson

Repackaging Christianity: Alpha and the Building of a Global Brand.

Andrew Atherstone
Hodder & Stoughton, 2023
Reviewed by Peter Macpherson

This is an easily readable account of Alpha’s origins and development over the past thirty years. The title might suggest it is a polemic but in essence it is a history. Andrew Atherstone, after all, is a serious ecclesiastical historian. He is Professor of Modern Anglicanism, Tutor in History and Doctrine at Oxford University and Latimer Research Fellow at Wycliffe Hall. He lists his major research interests as “Anglicanism and Evangelicalism between the 18th and 21st centuries.” Although this is not a long book it concludes with 53 pages of endnotes, detailing Atherstone’s reliance on archives, diaries, interviews and parish magazines.

Alpha began in the late 1970s as an in-house discipleship course at an Anglican church in London called Holy Trinity Brompton (HTB). It was described as “a course on Christian foundations … designed to help those who want to go on in the Christian life” and had six sessions. The curate, Charles Marnham, ran the course in his flat above the church hall and food was provided because those attending were often coming straight from work.

Read more: Book Review: Repackaging Christianity: Alpha and the Building of a Global Brand

Details

Written by: Tim Collison

Robert S. Smith
Lexham Academic February 2025
Reviewed by Tim Collison

Debates about ontology should be nothing new to Anglicans. Fifteen (depending on how you count them) of the Articles of Religion deal with the nature of what a person or an element is. The Articles’ concerns about how we see God, humanity, and what the sacraments are (or are not) demonstrate that trying to understand the nature of what things are is central to our understood identity.

We should then be equipped one, would think, to be able to participate in discussions about transgender issues. I suspect the reality is that most of us struggle with this. Either because we are concerned what people will think about what we might say, or we are unsure what we ourselves might think about it. It may even seem like it is not an issue we need to wrestle with. I doubt that there are many people in our congregations who are transitioning. Yet most of us will either need to provide pastoral care to enquirers about faith who are transitioning or answer the questions our congregations might have about this issue.

Read more: Book review: The Body God Gives: A Biblical Response to Transgender Theory

Details

Written by: Richard Trist

Paul Arnott
Direct from author: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., $35 plus postage.
Reviewed by Richard Trist

As you look at your bookshelves at home, or in your kindle or iPad libraries, do you see any Christian books written by Australian authors, or published by Australian publishers? Anything by John Dickson, Leon Morris, John Chapman or Robert Banks? Anything published by Matthias Press, Acorn Press, Albatross Books, National Church Life Survey? Anything purchased from an Australian bookshop such as Koorong, Word, Open Books, or the sadly missed Ridley College Bookshop?

Paul Arnott’s latest book, An Audacious Adventure: Independent Australian Christian Publishing, narrates the story of Australian Christian publishing over the past 50 years. It honours those in the past who stepped out in faith (often on a shoestring budget!) to promote Australian authors. It also points forward to the next generation of writers and bloggers and podcasters who will help shape the Australian church into the future.

Arnott begins the book with the story of On Being magazine, published in Melbourne by Baptist pastor Kevin Smith in the 1970s. This non-denominational evangelical publication was very influential in its time, with an estimated readership of over 35,000 people. I remember as a young, isolated schoolteacher living in country NSW, eagerly awaiting its delivery each month. It was a heady mix of news items, articles and stories, and sought to bridge the gap between biblical conservativism and social radical activism. Arnott suggests that although at times accused of being anti-church, it had the welfare of the church at its heart and, unlike social media today, was a forum where contentious issues could be safely discussed. Financial constraints caused its closure in the early 2000’s.

The next chapter, “Five determined Anglicans”, is the story of Acorn Press, and a famous meeting in 1979 where John Wilson, Kevin Engel, Alan Nichols, David Williams, and Janet Wyatt, each laid down a $100 note, to commence the new enterprise. They saw the need for Australian Christian writers to be published locally rather having to seek an overseas publisher. From that modest beginning Acorn Press went on to produce bestselling books such as Bishop Ray Smith’s People Caring for People, Charles Sherlock’s Pastoral Handbook for Anglicans, and the popular songbook Praise for All Seasons.

The stories of Albatross Books, ANZEA Publishing and Scripture Union are covered in the next chapter. Arnott deftly explores the perils and pitfalls of independent publishing, and how decisions to partner with bigger overseas publishers (in the case of Albatross with Lion Publishing from the UK) had some devastating consequences. I found his interviews with many of the Albatross authors inspiring, especially their processes of turning ideas for a book into reality. An encouragement for all of us who aspire to write.

Probably my favourite chapter was the one describing the genesis of Matthias Media, which continues to be such an important resource for evangelicals today. I was astonished to read that its well-known evangelistic tract Two Ways to Live has sold 4.1 million copies worldwide and has been translated into Chinese, Spanish, Japanese and French. Arnott suggests that the key to the success of Matthias Media has been Its prioritisation of conservative theology and its resistance to commercialisation. It has been strategic in avoiding an over-reliance on generating sales only through Christian bookshops, instead building direct links to customers through conferences and focussed marketing. It is an amazing story!

Much more is covered in An Audacious Adventure including a discussion on the importance of Australian Christian newspapers and journals including New Life, Zadok Perspectives, and Eternity. and the decline of quality Christian print literature in a shifting media landscape. He also describes the downside to the rapid loss of Christian bookshops across the country with only one dominant player remaining, Koorong Books.

Paul Arnott is to be congratulated for undertaking this task of recording the rise and fall of Christian publishing in Australia, and for exploring what this might mean for the future. The book is a worthwhile read and will appeal to anyone with an interest in writing, publishing, and engaging Australians with the gospel.

Richard Trist is Chaplain to the Anglican Institute Ridley College.

Details

Written by: Paul Dale

“I will build my church” says the Lord Jesus, and in His extraordinary kindness that’s exactly what He has been doing through The Bridge Church in Sydney.

It was in August 2004 that a group of 10 people gathered to pray and envision what a new church might look like. We never imagined that 21 years later we’d be a church with 4 different campuses (Kirribilli, Neutral Bay, Macquarie Park and Rozelle), with 13 gatherings every Sunday and around 2000 people worshipping our Lord Jesus Christ.

There were 3 foundational truths that shaped the foundation of The Bridge Church, and these continue to be our ‘distinctives’. They are:

Read more: The Story Of The Bridge Church

Details

Written by: Bill Dumbrell

The order of Genesis 1 justifies the assertion of Isa 45:18 that the purpose of creating the world was so that it might be inhabited. Only in v. 26 does God begin to speak in the first person. Clearly the purpose of creation had been reached. In so doing he uses the word ‘us’ or ‘our’ three times and ‘let us make’, ‘as our image’, ‘in our likeness’. Like the other stages, the creation takes place in communication with other members of the Trinity (cf. 1:2, John 1:1-3). Human beings do not have the image of God since God has no image but are as the image of God. Thus, the text does not say anything about God’s likeness to the human being but only something about the human being who is in a relation of likeness to God. However, this analogy does not offer to us any concrete information about God.

In v.26 the quite distinctive ‘let us make man in our image' (Gen. 1:26), suggests the uniqueness of humankind as a species. The plural address ‘let us’ has been variously interpreted within the OT complex as a piece of fossilised myth - an address to the heavenly council, a royal plural, or an indication (cf. the Spirit in 1:2) of plurality in the Godhead. Christian expositors have tended to see it as an address to the Trinity. Such address does not fit the general Old Testament evidence but does the canon as a whole. In any case the singular unity of the divine being is reasserted by the singular of Gen 1:27.

The addition of the phrase ‘in our likeness’ in Gen 1: 26 seems designed to exclude any notion of an exact copy contained in ‘image’ while seeking to convey the idea of some resemblance either in nature or more likely, in function. The connotation of the term ‘image’ is thus weakened by the addition of ‘likeness’ probably in the interests of avoiding the potentially idolatrous idea of an unqualified ‘in our image’.

The Hebrew term tselem ‘image’, always in the Old Testament, as well as beyond it, conveys the note of visibility. Basically the Akkadian cognate tsalmu refers to a statue in the round and to a representation rather than to a model or a copy. However, even though the emphasis in the term ‘image’ is on externality, we need to remember that humanity in the Old Testament is always a psychic unity. Thus the word refers to the whole of humankind viewed in terms of a representative function in the world.

Man as a species, humanity, is on view. While ‘image’, therefore cannot be narrowly understood as rationality, intuitiveness, personal awareness etc., but if the term refers to the whole human being it must include such things. We should preserve the translation ‘in our image’ but note the implications of the ‘in’. If the ‘let us make man’ of v. 26 is a heavenly self-address by the Trinitarian God then the ‘our image’ which, in some sense humankind is to reflect and in which he is made, is in heaven and possessed by the Godhead alone. As made ‘in’ the image, mankind will thus be simply an image of the heavenly image, a representative of what is divine. Since Col 1:15-20 speaks of the eternal sonship of Christ as being the pre-existent image of God, some hint is thereby given as to the real character of the image on view here. Given the nature of man as described in the Old Testament, ‘image’ in 1:26 refers to the whole person, but with the major emphasis falling upon relational function. In both Egypt and Mesopotamia in the ancient world the notion of mankind as the image of the deity was well known. In Egypt, the Pharaoh of the day was regarded as the image of the creator god Re, and as the incarnation of Re. In Mesopotamia the term image was commonly used to refer to the statue of a god or king, but when used in priestly or royal designations, the human representative on view was presented as the possessor of the power and authority of the god.

The exact phrase ‘in the image of God’, occurs only again in the OT at Gen. 9:6 in an important account which indicates God will continue with his intention of Genesis 1 and 2 so that post-flood humanity will commence again in the new beginning of the relationship with God but with a different future possible than that of Gen 6:1-17 before them. The similar phrase at Gen. 5:3 indicates that being in the image of God is a representative function of a paternal relationship transmitted by procreation.

Original sin will thus be the continuance (by spiritual connection) of the transmitted ability for humanity to refuse, as Adam had done, obedience to the divine will made clear in successive covenants, all drawing upon the basic premises of Genesis 1-2.

As made ‘in’ the image, humankind individually (5:1-3; 9:5-6) will be simply an image of the heavenly image, a representative of what is divine. Additionally, Gen. 1:26c is to be translated as a purpose clause ‘in order that they may have dominion’. Gen. 1:27a,b recapitulates Gen. 1:26 but Gen. 1:27c with the return to the plural and the addition of biological terms for male and female anticipates and signifies the ‘male and female he created them’. On this view, gender distinctions would form no part of the image. The sexual distinctions referred to in 1:27c are not a component of what is meant by creation in the image, while unlike the animal species humanity is not instructed to reproduce after ‘its kind’. Verse 27b may be more than simply a repetition of verse 27a and may anticipate the blessing conferred in verse 28. ‘Image’ thus appears to confer kingly distinction on humanity as a whole with humanity in a special relationship to God then being differentiated by the gender terms. Mesopotamian analogies to which we could appeal indicate that the king as an image of the deity was conceived of as a servant of the gods, and the phrase referred to his royal function as having a mandate from the gods to rule and thus as one possessing divine power. In Psalm 8:5 with clear reference to Genesis 1, humankind is depicted in kingship terms (cf. Pss 29:1 4; 90:16; 104:1; 111:3; 145:5; Job 40:10). The allusion in Psalm 8:6 to all things being put under the feet of created man is to an ancient Near Eastern symbol of submission to authority (cf. Josh 10:24; 1 Kings 5:3; Ps 110:1). Finally, ‘have dominion’ in Gen 1:28 has reference elsewhere in the Old Testament to the exercise of kingly functions (cf. 1 Kings 4:24; Ps. 72:8; 110:2; Isa.14:6; Ezek. 34:4). The notion of image as referring to royal authority is attested in both Mesopotamia and Egypt.

The creation of man in Genesis 1 thus climaxes in his presentation as vice-regent set over creation. The account stresses the essential dignity of the image, and authority, which is not lost as a result of the fall (9:6). As an expression of their difference man is created to be rulers in their domain and, in view of their role in the garden in chapter 2, to be priests, kings and priests. The human rule over creation, will include that over all living creatures, fish, birds and land animals, with no reference however to wild animals, is thus clear from the later meditation of Psalm 8 as well as from the language of Genesis 1:26-28 (‘have dominion’ and ‘subdue’). If the Fall robbed human beings of this function, we would expect the biblical doctrine of redemption partially to restore it. The presentation of Jesus in the New Testament both as the image of God and as true man points to what individuals in Christ will become.

With ‘image’ human beings have something in their nature like God and then the question arises as to what is this something, a physical correspondence or a spiritual likeness? Some suggest that the likeness is functional, that human beings rule. However, it seems to be incorrect to separate essence from function for what becomes is humanity as a whole, a relational being. The human being both is and becomes the image. But passages such as Gen 5:3 and Exod 25:40 show that image is the work of God of creation. Man is so made that he resembles the divine image. Thus image refers not to visible likeness but to the mental and spiritual qualities man shares with his creator. It is hard to pin down what these are; reason, personality, free will, self-consciousness or intelligence? There are too few references to image in OT to make final judgements.

However it seems image is not a double or a derivative and is different in kind from the original. Humankind created as the image is understood to have a mandate from God to rule and hence possesses divine power but is not itself divine. Humanity is yet the creature and yet has rule over other creatures. Verse 27b by its description of male and female man finds a location among the creatures, which prepares for the blessing of v. 28. This statement, though it is one which is assumed for all other creatures, must be inserted because of the image theology which has preceded and thus, though exalted over creation, it needs to be understood that humankind are still creatures. While also unlike God but like the other creatures humankind is characterised by sexual differentiation.

Dr. Wiliam Dumbrell (excerpt from an unpublished manuscript in the Editor’s possession)

Bill Dumbrell (1926-2016) was on the faculty of Moore College from 1963-1984, including serving as Vice-Principal for 10 years. He also taught at Regent College Vancouver and Trinity College Singapore.

Details

Written by: Michael F. Bird

I’ve long argued that theological anthropology is the # 1 issue that Christians must wrestle with today. Whether we are talking about sexuality, gender identity, transgenderism, transhumanism, artificial intelligence, disability, or even the soul, it is all comes down to “what is a human being?” What follows below is my Beta-Test of some ideas on theological anthropology.

Now, this is spectacularly hard and I might be spectacularly wrong, because some of these issues are very complex, they defy simplistic analyses or resolution, and they involve a combination of biology, psychology, and sociology. Or else, many theologians within the Christian tradition might legitimately dispute the validity or cogency of the various assertions I make below. But these are the issues that we simply must address today in the second quarter of the twenty-first century.

I’m using a format of we confess, we affirm, we deny, and we commit. I hope it reads well - but remember, it is only a first draft!

THE IMAGE OF GOD

We confess that all human beings are created in the image of God, bearing inherent dignity, worth, and value that cannot be diminished or destroyed (Genesis 1:27-28).

We affirm that by God's grace, this image is present in every person from conception to death.

Read more: In God's Image – A Confession About Human Nature