Quote of the Day

"I have encountered a form of church that does not offend me."

From here.

And isn't that ultimately the problem with Liberal Christianity?

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The new Bishop of Peterborough said what?

Yesterday’s news that the Venerable Donald Allister had been appointed the next Bishop of Peterborough initially came as a pleasant surprise in the midst of all the doom and gloom.

Donald is well-known in Conservative Evangelical circles — indeed he used to be chairman of the Council of Church Society.

I therefore found myself somewhat baffled by what Donald is quoted as saying in a press-release on the Diocese of Peterborough website:

“I’m happy to be described as an evangelical if that is understood as someone who prioritises evangelism and the Bible,” he explains. “But liberals and catholics can do evangelism and read the Bible as well!”

Whoah! When he says “liberals and catholics can do evangelism and read the Bible as well”, does he really mean (as implied by the word ‘but’) that the evangelical understanding of evangelism and Bible reading is essentially the same as the catholic and the liberal understanding of evangelism and Bible reading? If ever a statement called for an apostolic, “By no means!” (Rom 6:2), it is that one.

Surely evangelical and liberal Anglicans, in particular, have quite different views of the Bible as God’s word, and they have quite different attitudes to, and understandings of, the human condition and God’s response to it in Christ?

Donald seems to be saying there is nothing special about these evangelical ‘priorities’ — evangelicals ‘do evangelism and read the Bible’, and catholics ‘do evangelism and read the Bible’, and liberals ‘do evangelism and read the Bible’. But surely the point is that they do them differently? Otherwise, we might as well add, “and Jehovah’s witnesses ‘do evangelism and read the Bible’”.

It is all rather puzzling —and worrying.

John Richardson
6 November 2009

But now see here for what else the Bishop has said:

The Bishop of Peterborough Said What Else?

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.

Liberals and Evangelicals: with friends like these ...?

The Modern Churchpeople's Union has published a lengthy critique of recent pronouncements by both Archbishop Rowan Williams and Bishop Tom Wright on the present position of The Episcopal Church.

In the light of the latest developments —or non-developments in the evangelical wing of the Church of England —it raises two interesting challenges.

The first is whether the apparent alliance between Williams and Wright is as ‘opportunistic’ as Stephen Kuhrt, a prominent Open Evangelical, suggested was the alliance between Conservative Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics in the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.

According to Kuhrt:

[...] FCAUK’s temporary ‘alliance’ with Forward in Faith suggests a willingness to combine with those with whom they have deep theological disagreements, so long as they have a current objection to authority.

According to MCU,

Both Williams and Wright show themselves to be dogmatic authoritarians. [...]

The current alliance between these two theologies cannot be stable: they disagree with each other about too much.

Of course, both Kuhrt and MCU may be right. It may be that neither the FCA nor the Williams-Wright alliance can survive. However, it is notable that MCU has itself joined an alliance which includes at least three evangelical groups with whom they would doubtless take issue over matters like the atonement, judgement, Christ’s physical return (or maybe even his physical resurrection) and so on. It is all very confusing.

The other challenge, however, is the clear perception within MCU that Open Evangelicalism belongs in the same camp as themselves —which may be why they have no embarrassment about their own alliances. Thus their critique of Williams and Wright continues,

Neither position is characteristic of Anglicanism. Other Anglicans, calling themselves open evangelicals, or liberal catholics, or broad church, or radicals, or liberals, have not been part of this programme to condemn the Americans and introduce an Anglican Covenant.

Now I am sure there will be many Open Evangelicals who would rightly reject this suggestion of comparability as far as they are themselves concerned. However, the perception must be regarded as significant. The problem is that Open Evangelicalism is, by its own definition, a diverse and diffuse movement, and it is clear that it contains —and more importantly is willing to contain —both those for whom the traditionalist view of sexuality is correct and those for whom it is not.

And the very fact that Open Evangelicalism is not split by contradictory views on human sexuality suggests that the MCU is right. The old ‘orthodoxy’ is now optional. There is therefore no reason to split with TEC over this issue, even whilst one may (as a private individual) hold opinions that disagree with the prevalent view within TEC.

I write this not to pick a fight with Open Evangelicals —there are enough of those going on already —but because I find it increasingly difficult to see how we can talk about one ‘Evangelicalism’ with two (or three) ‘aspects’: Conservative, Open and Charismatic. It all depends whether a particular understanding of sexuality is viewed as necessarily Evangelical. Fifty years ago, it would undoubtedly have been so. Today it is undoubtedly not —at least, not by all who regard themselves as ‘Evangelical’.

Yet when orthodox sexuality becomes optional, it is perhaps significant to note who emerges as one’s new bedfellows. Dr Williams is now clearly regarded by his erstwhile friends as little more than a traitor, whilst Dr Wright is described as being Puritan and Calvinist (but in a bad way). Open evangelicalism, however, is embraced as being true to the ‘inclusivity’ of real Anglicanism —along with TEC and so on.

If I were an Open Evangelical, I would be more worried about this than I was about the possible depredations of FCA. It is a fine mess to have been gotten into. The question is, how to get out of it.

John Richardson
21 August 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.

'Open warfare' in the Church of England?

According to Ruth Gledhill’s blog,

The liberal fightback against Anglican conservatives and the Archbishop of Canterbury has begun. Open warfare is now declared.

The justification for this is the release of a statement, signed by a number of Anglican groupings, which is highly critical of Dr Rowan Williams’s recent Reflections on events in TEC. In typically English fashion, the criticisms are nuanced, but they go so far as to say he is being “inconsistent with [his] previous statements on committed and faithful same sex relationships”. This, in Anglican-speak, is indeed ‘fighting talk’.

Ruth is sometimes given to exuberance in her reporting, not least because she cares passionately about the issues where they concern the Church of England. I am therefore personally adopting a ‘wait and see’ approach as to whether this is, indeed, part of a greater plan or merely a letting-off-of-steam. I am also aware how often things which, from the inside, are known to be disorganized or barely-organized, may seem far more coordinated from the outside than is really the case.

Nevertheless, the appearance of the statement, and in particular, the list of signatories, raises some very important questions about the state of our already-fragile Church.

First, we may note that at least the ‘liberals’ managed to get their act together enough to issue a joint statement. The orthodox have managed no such thing, and my own efforts to encourage such a statement, despite behind-the-scenes contacts, have run into the sands of, frankly, mutual hostilities between evangelicals. That is not encouraging.

Secondly, though, and relevant to the first point, there are three evangelical groupings listed as signatories, Accepting Evangelicals, Courage and the Evangelical Fellowship of Lesbian and Gay Anglicans. This is symptomatic of the ‘drift’ in evangelicalism generally, which now means that in some quarters, the acceptance of same-sex relationships is regarded as a personal matter and a subject for dialogue rather than correction. (We might note, however, that not all dialogues end happily.)

Thirdly, two of the signatory groups are at the forefront of the pressure for the consecration of women bishops, namely the Group for the Rescinding of the Act of Synod (aka GRAS) and the WATCH (Women and the Church) National Committee. And this highlights the fact that, no matter how much some evangelicals (such as myself) might try to treat the ordination of women as a ‘second order’ issue, in our present context in the Church of England, women’s ordination and gay inclusion depend very much on the same arguments and are often supported by the same people.

Fourthly, ‘gay inclusion’ is as much a rallying point for revisionists as other matters are for traditionalists. Some of the criticism of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, (not least the unfortunate article by Revd Stephen Kuhrt in the Church of England Newspaper) is that it is a ‘flag of convenience’, drawing together people who really disagree about everything except homosexuality and women’s ordination. Yet here we apparently have evangelicals and outright liberals doing the same. There is not much, after all, on the Modern Churchpeople’s Union website to encourage an evangelical, if such they are, in Accepting Evangelicals. We must therefore wonder at the principles behind this coalition, as some have about other groupings.

Fifthly, related to the last point, one cannot help pointing out that there are several bishops involved in these organizations: Lincoln, Leicester and Newcastle are listed as being on the Council of the MCU, whilst Hulme, Ripon and Leeds, Lincoln (again) and Salisbury are listed as being patrons of Changing Attitude. If this is indeed a ‘declaration of war’ then for these dioceses it is bound to be of the unhappily ‘civil’ kind we have had in Chelmsford over the past few years. What, for example, will the newly-appointed evangelical Bishop of Sherborne make of his boss’s implicit support for doctrines, practices and campaigns he himself is committed to opposing?

What all this really calls for, however, is immediate and courageous clarity from Evangelicals, and all the orthodox. There are evangelical leaders, including evangelical bishops, who want to ‘resist’ the erosion of orthodox faith and practice, but who at the same time seem to be unwilling to bear the cold winds of rejection. Yet it is they, above all, who have the power to steady the ship and (to mix metaphors) settle the flock. They should call on us in Joshua’s words, “Choose you this day ...”

Revd John P Richardson
5 August 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.

If I were a Patron

What can be done to halt the Liberal drift of the Church of England identified at the post-GAFCON gathering at All Souls Langham place on the 1^st July?

The answer is not “Sign a petition in support of the GAFCON principles,” although I suggest you do exactly that in a moment by heading here (non English residents head here).

The problem with the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration, is that it declares what every minister working for the Church of England is required to declare on their appointment. The core of our faith, according to the Jerusalem Statement, is (with the exception of two words) exactly the same as that found in Canon A5 of the Church of England:

The doctrine of the Church [of England] is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal.

Moreover, every Anglican minister affirms at their appointment their commitment to this doctrine:

I, A B ... declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness ... (The Declaration of Assent)

Isn’t that fantastic? Every Anglican minister believes what is in the Bible, and the developments and clarifications of the biblical witness (such as the doctrine of the Trinity or of the one sacrifice for sin made by Christ on the cross) found in the Creeds and our foundational liturgy.

Well, it would be fantastic if it were true, but it isn’t! The fact is that very many of our ministers doubt great swathes of what is stated in the Prayer Book the Articles and the Creeds, not least because, like the head of the Church of Ireland, their view of Scripture is that sometimes it is right and sometimes, since it is the work of human authors, it is wrong.

And far from being loyal to the ‘inheritance of faith’, as they say they do in the Declaration of Assent, they submit, finally, to their own private judgement.

As the saying goes, not many churchgoers know that, though if they go here, here and here they can read the results of a 2002 survey which paint an alarming picture.

But to go back to our opening question, what can be done? One thing is to use the opportunities presented by being the patron of a parish, or one of the parish representatives, when a vacancy occurs.

A friend of mine involved in patronage work recently asked me what questions he should put during interviews. I said there should be at least one straightforward doctrinal question — a simple question that invites a straight answer. “But,” I said, “Don’t ask them if they believe in the resurrection. Everyone will say ‘yes’ to that. Ask them whether they believe in the Virgin birth.”

It is surely a fair question. I cannot find the quotation, but I seem to remember ABp John Sentamu chiding conservatives over their attitude to divisions in the Anglican Communion by observing that it wasn’t as if fundamental doctrines, such as the resurrection or the virgin birth, were being denied.

But they are. In fact, my friend has followed my advice, and sure enough candidate after candidate openly admits that the Virgin birth is something they do not accept.

Now it might be objected, isn’t the Virgin birth problematic and can we act as if everything hinged on this one thing? And of course it is problematic — so is someone rising from the dead. But the issue is more complex than simply ‘is this believed, or believable’.

The fact is that the Church of England constantly makes confessional statements: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty ...”, “I ... declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures.”

It is not so much that all doctrine stands or falls on this one issue as that where there is one problem there may well be others — see the recent fate of Ray Lewis.

The Liberal drift of the Church of England is not irresistible. If directors of ordinands, or bishops or, yes, patrons and parish representatives, asked a few basic questions at the right time, they might at least discover who was likely to be truly committed to the ‘inheritance of faith’ and who is not. And then they might act accordingly.

John Richardson

5 July 2008

No comments will be posted without a full name and location, see the policy.