What hope for Evangelicalism?

For the last forty-eight hours, with a brief break for a Deanery Synod meeting, I’ve been at the High Leigh Conference Centre in Hertfordshire, first for the Reform annual conference and then for the residential meeting of the Church of England Evangelical Council.

As I said at the Synod last night, I have reached that stage where the words of Psalm 27:35 apply, “I was young and now I am old.” (This was especially borne in on me when looking at the twenty or thirty theological students who turned up for the Reform meeting today.) I am thus in the position to reflect on the past and the present, and right now what I am feeling is a great sorrow at the missed opportunity for our church and nation resulting from the loss of unity amongst evangelical Anglicans.

This afternoon, the CEEC organized a joint presentation by Stephen Kuhrt and Vaughan Roberts on the benefits or otherwise of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. As it happens, I found myself agreeing with much of what Stephen Kuhrt had to say —at least insofar as I felt they were cautionary words that I could readily echo.

However, in a not-always-good-tempered question time, it became increasingly clear to me —and I suspect to others —that evangelical unity is a façade, and a very poorly-preserved one at that. Of course, even thirty years ago things were not perfect, but they are at an undoubtedly low ebb, from which I wonder if they can recognizably recover.

What, then, are the problems?

First, there are serious personal hurts, caused by things which have been said and written. One person this afternoon, for example, pressed the point as to whether he was regarded as ‘unbiblical’. Now I doubt that the individual who put him in this position ever meant to imply that he was truly an ‘unbiblical’ person. Nevertheless, that was the term which had been used, publicly and forcefully, and it had clearly stung. I also know that he is by no means the only one to feel wounded in such a manner, and the response that we must expect ‘robust’ engagement in debate does not solve the problem!

Is it asking too much that Christians refrain from saying about someone what they would hesitate to say to them? Paul’s warning to the Galatians surely applies to us as a constituency: “If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.” In recent years, I suspect far more damage has been done to evangelicals by evangelicals that by all the Jack Spongs or Richard Dawkins’s in the world.

Secondly, there are fundamental doctrinal divisions. Topics specifically aired this afternoon included the ‘New Perspective’, penal substitution, judgement and hell, and the sufficiency of God’s grace. Doubtless others could be mentioned, but all of these touch on areas where thirty years ago there would have been almost universal evangelical agreement. One of the tragedies is that some of these issues have been worked over (and, one would have hoped, worked out) at the Reformation, but of course one of the features of ‘new’ evangelicalism is a readiness to critique the Reformation as fundamentally mistaken. Thus we are not only divided amongst ourselves but increasingly cut off from our past heritage.

Thirdly, there are simply too many issues being swept under the carpet, despite the fact that they are major causes of division. One of the most important is, it has to be said, the ordination and consecration of women. The difficulty here is not simply that totally different views are held on such a fundamental point, but that those who disagree are often held in little short of contempt. Thus, despite frequent protestations that this is a ‘second order’ issue, in terms of relationships it has become effectively ‘first order’.

Now I scarcely need to point out that thirty years ago the evangelical Anglican constituency was also largely united on this issue. We had a healthy evangelical disregard for institutional priesthood, but we regarded the apostolic teachings of St Paul and St Peter as ruling out women as overall leaders of congregations. And the problem we now experience is because the tension has not been resolved between those who still see an apostolic injunction at this point (and therefore do not trust the exegesis or, in some cases, the biblical commitment of those who disagree) and those who believe this is more than a matter of good exegesis, but is rather a matter of inherent ‘gospel’ values. This is not a disagreement, it is a gulf!

And then there is the ultimate question of the urgency of the gospel. Just what are we trying to do, and why are we trying to do it, and what should we do when, as often happens, man-made institutional structures get in the way of doing it? Evangelicals have always agreed it is a good thing when people become Christians. But there no longer seems to be the same agreement that it is a necessary and urgent thing that people should do so in order to be saved from an imminent and impending danger.

So as I sit here in the lounge at High Leigh, I think back to other evangelical gatherings, some here, some in other venues, to the old sense of unity and opportunity, and I wonder what went wrong, and what, if anything, can be done to put it right.

Revd John P Richardson
14 October 2009

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select the 'Anonymous' profile, then type in a couple of letters, select 'preview', then close the preview box and delete these letters.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

A possible joint statement from the CofE?

OK, could the various bodies and personalities in the Traditionalist wing of the Church of England sign up to something like this?

1. We affirm our unity in the tradition of the Church of England expressed in Article XX, that Scripture is “God’s Word written”, that it is “not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written”, that it may not “so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another”, that “the Church be a witness and keeper of holy Writ” and that the Church “ought not to decree any thing against the same”.

2. We regret that the developing attitudes, decisions and actions of The Episcopal Church make it impossible for us to accept that it shares the same commitment to this tradition. On the contrary, they have stretched the fabric of the Anglican Communion to breaking point.

3. We believe it is time for decisive and united action to signal to The Episcopal Church that it can no longer depend on continuing fellowship with those within the Communion who continue in this tradition.

4. We therefore recognize the Anglican Church in North America as an inheritor of the Anglican tradition in the geographical area it shares with The Episcopal Church.

5. We call for a speedy conclusion to the Covenant process, but we believe that The Episcopal Church is already outside the framework of the Covenant and desire that the final form of the Covenant take account of this.

6. We commit ourselves to working together to ensure that the Church of England in the British Isles does not follow in the footsteps of The Episcopal Church in the United States and elsewhere.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

What was on the table (and the chairs) at NEAC 5?

A lot has been said in the last few days about the proposal brought before the 2008 NEAC at All Soul's Langham Place on Saturday 15th November. I have followed this with interest, but have only just had sight of exactly was on delegates' seats.

The document itself is quite enlightening, and needs to be read in its entirety, since only in this light (and particularly the preamble) is it possible to evaluate properly the majority decision of the meeting that the motion itself not be voted on.

I was personally rather surprised to see how carefully the preamble explicitly makes the point that this would have formed part of a consultation process. This also makes it quite clear that the decision of the meeting not to vote could not at the time it was taken be regarded by anyone there as binding on the CEEC.

As a member of the CEEC myself, I will certainly be arguing that very careful attention must be paid to what happened on the 15th, but it is already clear that the CEEC will be thinking hard about what should happen next, and particularly what should be done to support beleagured fellow Anglicans throughout the Communion.

John Richardson

(PS, I have scanned this document and tried to reflect the original formatting, but obviously this is difficult moving from an A4 page to a blog.)

****************************************************

National Evangelical Anglican Consultation debate

At its next meeting, the Church of England Evangelical Council will vote upon the Global Anglican Future Conference Statement and Jerusalem Declaration. The Council will take into account a wide range of perspectives and insights from its membership.

This Consultation is invited to offer its own insights, comments and advice to the Council. Members of the Council and its Executive are present at this Consultation and a report will be made to the Council, including a summary of points made from the floor. The Consultation is also invited to express an opinion through a formal vote. This vote will inevitably reflect the views only of those able to be present on the day, but will be of considerable assistance to the Council.

Motion
The motion, to be proposed by the Chairman of the Church of England Evangelical Council, is as follows:

“That this National Evangelical Anglican Consultation,

acknowledging that the Church of England professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and bears witness to this truth in her historic formularies (the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles and the Ordinal) and as set out in Canon A5, Article 6 and the Declaration of Assent

and mindful, as members of the Anglican Communion, of our obligations to faithful Anglicans across the globe,

(a) express our support for the Jerusalem Declaration

and

(b) recognising that Evangelical Anglicans will pursue a variety of strategies, support our brothers and sisters in their strategic decisions including those set out in the GAFCON Statement

made in Jerusalem on 29* June 2008 at the Global Anglican Future Conference gathering attended by 1148 people, including 291 Bishops of the Anglican Communion”

Procedure

For the avoidance of doubt, please note the following:

• No amendments will be permitted
• The motion will be voted on in parts (i.e. (a) and (b) above will be voted on separately)
• The Chairman of the session, the Revd Canon Michael Walters, has full control over the handling of the session to ensure a clear vote and timely finish and no challenges to his rulings are permitted
• The vote will take place no later than 3.55pm.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

NEACs past, present and future

My post about Open Evangelical attitudes to the 2008 mini-NEAC has prompted some interesting responses, but also sent me back to look at the history books.

There is an interesting 'brief history' of NEACs, CEEC and Evangelical division from an Open Evangelical perspective by Andrew Goddard, a frequent contributor to the Fulcrum website, available here on the website of the 2003 NEAC 4. Interestingly, this must have been written just about the time the decision was being taken to launch Fulcrum at that NEAC!

NEAC 4 is often seen by Open Evangelicals as itself suffering from Conservative bias (see here). What is often forgotten, though it is reflected in Andrew Goddard's piece, is that Holy Trinity Brompton staff (specifically, as far as I am aware, Nicky Gumbel and Sandy Millar) were involved in both the planning and the platform, but withdrew at the last minute. Sometimes attempts to create breadth are made, but are frustrated for various reasons.

However, Andrew Goddard's article also makes reference to the previous NEAC, at Caister in 1988, which he describes as "a wasted opportunity" in that "the apparent unity previously marking Anglican evangelicals was, as their numbers grew and the world changed, being overtaken by their plurality."

Others saw it as itself expressive of a negative shift in Evangelicalism, symbolized by the change of title from Congress (1967, 1977) to 'Celebration'. They, too, perceived a bias in platform and programme, but at that time away from traditional Evangelical doctrines and values into something else. The emphasis in the 2003 NEAC 4 was a conscious reaction to this, as well as a reflection of the influence of Conservatives on bodies like the CEEC.

Andrew Goddard attributes this to the possiblity that "so many of the other evangelicals who had previously been active in CEEC were now too busy running the Church of England" in new-found senior posts. (Five years on, one might be forgiven for wondering where they, and their influence are now.) Certainly this is a recognition of the kind of 'disengagement' of Open Evangelicals of which I wrote previously.

Assessments of the 1977 NEAC vary, but as Andrew Goddard points out, it is interesting to look at the history of past NEAC participants to where they are today. I cannot help observing that one of those who wrote a paper for NEAC 2 was our very own John Gladwin!

However, I note also, with a wry smile that not only was John Gladwin a key platform speaker at NEAC 3, but that alongside him as a workshop leader was a certain Canon Chris Sugden (both of whom get some stick in this negative review here (pdf file).) At what point, and for what reason, I wonder, did those two cross in different directions?

I was actually present at NEAC '77 and thoroughly enjoyed it. However, I do remember an address by Alec Motyer which seemed quite at odds with the upbeat mood of the Congress as a whole. Years later, I obtained a tape of the talk, curious to wonder why he had seemed so out of step. What I discovered was that many of his concerns about the trajectory being taken by Evangelicals were later ones which I came to share.

And that takes us back to the first NEAC, at Keele University in 1967. That was a very different occasion at a very different time, when Evangelicals were called to consider whether they had a place at all within the Church of England. As is well known, the answer, robustly supported by John Stott, was that they did. Looking at the Statement itself, however (currently buried somewhere in my books), I have been struck by its theological 'thinness' - a problem which has bedevilled Evangelicals ever since.

Anglican Evangelicals, of whatever persuasion, are pragmatists first and theologians second. Understandably we put a 'relationship with Jesus' at the top of our priorities in ministry. But often that relationship and its subsequent development, are treated, quite unbiblically, as if they were independent of our doctrines and dogmas. Thus, at worst, Conservative Evangelicals act as if the 'truths' we need to know could be jotted down on the back of a napkin, whilst Open Evangelicals act as if truth itself were a suspect concept, especially when we are speaking about the claimed 'truths' of Conservative Evangelicalism.

Preparing a talk for tonight on the history of Evangelicalism, I am struck by how often the same cycle repeats itself: Evangelicals preach the gospel, plain and simple, people get converted, Evangelicalism rises in influence in the Church and country, Evangelicals fail to consolidate their gains and divide amongst themselves, some other group rises to prominence, feeding off the invigorated Church created by Evangelicals, Evangelicals are marginalized and go back to preaching the gospel, plain and simple, people get converted.

They do say that those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. I wonder why?

John Richardson
13 August 2008

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.