Fulcrum: their challenge to Canterbury and the challenge they must face

Those of us who have watched (and experienced) the opposition of the open evangelical group Fulcrum to many of the conservative attempts to address the problems within the Anglican Communion over the past several years must greet with charity and relief the announcement from the Fulcrum leadership published yesterday in the Church of England Newspaper.

We may feel it has taken them a long time to wake up to what some of us regarded as the obvious. However, their statement not only finally recognizes the intractable problems within TEC but forcefully challenges the Archbishop of Canterbury in a manner entirely similar to conservative pronouncements from which they have distanced themselves in the past.

In response to the consent of the bishops and Standing Committees of TEC to the election of Mary Glasspool as bishop suffragan in the diocese of Los Angeles, the statement is clear that any claims of an adherence to the ‘letter’ of past agreements is now impossible:

We are now indisputably in a radically new situation. TEC as a body has determinedly, perhaps irrevocably, chosen autonomy over “communion with autonomy and accountability”.

There are three other important recognitions. The first is that

... this is not simply a matter of disagreement about biblical interpretation and sexual ethics although these are central and important. It is now very clearly also a fundamental matter of truth-telling and trust.

Their understanding, in other words, is that TEC’s version of truth-telling is not the same as that understood in the rest of the communion, and that therefore TEC as a body cannot be trusted. This is a major and significant conclusion.

Secondly, they recognize a problem within TEC with “their understanding of how the Spirit leads them.” This has been evident for a long time to those with ‘ears to hear’. But acknowledging the problem must demand from Fulcrum a clear identification as to where authority does lie. We have here a ‘clash of spiritualities’, and yet the open evangelical movement as a whole is undoubtedly vulnerable to just the approach that TEC has adopted. How the Spirit leads the Church is, and always has been, a critical question for Christians, and it is one on which Fulcrum could now usefully speak with clarity to its own constituency.

The third recognition is that members of TEC must now act against the overall polity of TEC and be supported in this by Anglicanism worldwide:

The only hope now is for TEC dioceses to reject TEC’s path by committing to the covenant and for such commitment to be recognised by the Communion.

But this raises the question of recognizing ACNA — something which Fulcrum and it’s associates have seemingly been hitherto reluctant to do. (Canon Simon Butler, who has posted articles and comments on the Fulcrum website, vigorously opposed the original motion in General Synod to support ACNA, although he voted for the final motion.) Will Fulcrum, then, follow the logic of its own conclusion and now respond more positively to those who have already stepped away from TEC? If, as the statement asserts, the Communion “must now proceed in its common life without TEC”, will it be encouraged to do so with ACNA?

Most importantly, however, the statement calls for action from the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is not assumed that TEC will take itself into the wilderness. Instead,

The nature of the Communion’s structures at present is such that effecting this distancing will require clear and decisive action by the Archbishop of Canterbury. At the very least he needs to make clear that bishops participating in the May consecration in Los Angeles will thereby exclude themselves from being invited by him to participate in the Instruments or to represent the Communion in any form.

And the statement is absolutely clear about the implications of any failure to act:

 Unless he does this all that the Instruments have repeatedly said in relation to TEC’s conduct will be undermined. The sickness of TEC’s inability to say what it means and mean what it says to the rest of the Communion will then have infected the Instruments and will surely destroy the Communion.

Understandably, the statement is at pains to recognize Rowan Williams’s past efforts. Yet it is remarkably frank in the call it now makes upon him:

Many ... both within the Church of England and the wider Communion (particularly in the Global South which meets next month) have been patient and sought to work with him by supporting the Windsor and covenant processes. They need now to make clear that unless he gives a clear lead then all that he and others have worked for since the Windsor Report and all that is promised by the covenant is at risk because of the new situation in which TEC has placed us.

When news of consents to the election of Mary Glasspool first broke, Fulcrum issued the briefest of responses which ended with the words, “Actions have consequences.”

That same phrase is used in their new statement, one of the consequences they identify being that “TEC as a body has revealed it is incapable of signing the Anglican covenant.” We must be truly grateful that the strong smell of coffee has finally wafted its way to the nostrils of the Fulcrum Leadership Team. We must now ask whether — and indeed how — they will reposition themselves in relation to the leadership of GAFCON, FCA, etc, who have for years been saying the same things, for entirely similar reasons, if not always in a manner of which Fulcrum would approve.

We must also observe that inaction has consequences. If what the Fulcrum Leadership Team has demanded now fails to materialize, will they take things further, and if so, how?

John P Richardson
26 March 2010

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.

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' - an insight into the planning

There is now an important piece online by Giles Goddard, the chair of Inclusive Church, describing the background to the statement which prompted Ruth Gledhill’s piece on ‘Open Warfare in the Church of England.

This answers one of my questions, about how ‘organized’ this programme is, and the answer seems to be, by Anglican standards ‘very’. As anyone who works with clergy will know, it is not easy to get people together at less than a week’s notice. According to this article, however, an already-planned meeting was rapidly expanded to include “anyone or any group concerned about the reflections and wishing to respond”.

Precisely who was in on the first meeting, or who was new at the second is not stated, but the ‘progressive’ element listed earlier on includes “Changing Attitude, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, Inclusive Church, Women and the Church, the Modern Churchpeople’s Union, Affirming Catholicism”. Notably it does not include the ‘evangelical’ groups who signed the statement.

Meanwhile, evangelical disarray continues (at least, outside the FCA ‘wing’).

Revd John Richardson
10 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.

After B033, can English Evangelicals unite?

The Bishop of Willesden is not the only one, but given his remarks on the Fulcrum discussion forum, he is wearing his ‘Told You So’ tee-shirt in response to the decision by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church to rescind Resolution B033, which had established a moratorium on ordaining or consecrating people in active same-sex relationships.

“There’s no particular point in saying ‘we told you so’,” said Bishop Pete, whilst understandably doing just that, “but it does make the Windsor process look pretty unfit for purpose, as many of us suspected.”

Almost simultaneously, Bishop Tom Wright has written an article in The Times in which he acknowledges that the Bishops and deputies of TEC in favour of this move, “were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would ‘tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level’.”

And the leadership of Fulcrum itself has published a Press Statement in which they call for a formal expression of the distance TEC has now put between itself and the rest of the Anglican Communion, including the invocation of the Overseas Clergy Measure, whereby TEC clergy might be refused permission to function in this country.

The declamations by Bishop Wright and Fulcrum are truly to be welcomed for their clarity. And yet one cannot help, along with Bishop Broadbent, wondering why it took so long for the penny to drop.

Bishop Wright describes this as yet another phase in a ‘slow moving train crash’ which began, according to him, as long ago as 1996 “when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals.” He adds, “Many in TEC have long embraced a theology in which chastity, as universally understood by the wider Christian tradition, has been optional.”

Yet for someone who has been aware of ‘schismatic’ tendencies across the Atlantic for thirteen years, Bishop Wright has been slow to sound the alarm, and even slower to embrace those who have themselves been expressing such alarm for some considerable time.

As one of my personal correspondents put it, “I have not seen so much flak flying west from the CofE before.” Yet over against this we must still set Bishop Wright’s, and Fulcrum’s, attitude to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, GAFCON and Anglican Mainstream. Thus at the end of his piece, Bishop Wright tartly observes,

Contrary to some who have recently adopted the phrase, there is already a “fellowship of confessing Anglicans”. It is called the Anglican Communion.

Yet everything he has written prior to that demonstrates this is not so. The Anglican Communion is not (certainly not as FCA understands it) a fellowship with a unifying confession. Rather, it has contained people (in Wright’s words, initiators of schism) who are willing to write their own ‘confession’ and to override the concerns of those committed to the original, and explicitly affirmed, confessional stance. As he continues, “The Episcopal Church is now distancing itself from that fellowship.” Yet, as he fails to acknowledge, it is still within it. True, he concludes,

Ways must be found for all in America who want to be loyal to it, and to scripture, tradition and Jesus, to have that loyalty recognised and affirmed at the highest level.

But it is not clear whether this a hint at the recognition of the Anglican Communion in North America, precisely at a point where clarity is needed. Similarly, Fulcrum, whilst adamant on the need to do something, is far from explicit in suggesting what should be done. Their press statement calls for,

A formal expression of distance, with consequent limiting of involvement in Communion counsels ...

And possibly,

... actions under the Overseas Clergy Measure and a decision that the Church of England not be represented at future TEC consecrations.

In the context of the Anglican Communion, however, where polite understatement has long been the order of the day, this amounts to little more than ‘harrumphing’ —the expression of annoyance without substance, and something which The Episcopal Church has been neatly sidestepping for years. As I wrote in my own ‘told you so’ moment back in March,

[The revisionists in North America] have called the bluff of the Communion as a whole, and they have simply by-passed the reconciling posture of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Knowing that, in the end, they can do what they like and get away with it they are, unsurprisingly, pressing ahead. (Suddenly it's over for the Anglican Communion)

It is a sad fact that throughout a period when Traditionalist Anglicans should have been united, they have been bitterly at loggerheads, sometimes over policies, but often, one suspects, over personalities. In this, we have seen the besetting sin of Evangelical fissiparity writ large. Thus Bishop Graham Kings has been able to put his hand to the Fulcrum statement calling for action whilst at the same time lambasting Canon Chris Sugden personally and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans generally for the actions they have taken. Opposition is allowable, it seems, so long as we ‘do it my way’:

I believe the way forward for the Church of England, and the Anglican Communion, is through the glacial gravity of the Anglican Covenant rather than through the setting up of opportunist, autonomous fellowships.

The mention of setting up ‘opportunist, autonomous’ fellowships, however, will be greeted with wry amusement (at best) by those who remember how Fulcrum itself was launched on an unsuspecting fourth National Evangelical Anglican Congress in 2003. (For Bishop Kings's own account of this, see here.)

However, at some stage bygones must be bygones. Now is the time to heed the words of another Evangelical Anglican Bishop, J C Ryle, written in a different age, but to similar problems of disunity:

If we would hold fast the truth, we must be ready to unite with all who hold the truth, and love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. We must he ready to lay aside all minor questions as things of subordinate importance. Establishment or no establishment, liturgy or no liturgy,—surplice or no surplice,—bishops or presbyters,—all these points of difference ... ought to be regarded as subordinate questions. [...] The Philistines are upon us. Can we make common cause against them, or can we not? ... Surely it is not right to say that we expect to spend eternity with men in heaven, and yet cannot work for a few years with them in this world.

Perhaps it is time for Bishops Kings and Wright to get on the phone, rather than the keyboard, and instead of lobbing more brickbats to speak to the organizers of FCA and ask, “Where do we go together from here?” He will be a truly great man who can do this.

Revd John P Richardson
15 July 2009

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

FCA unity and Anglican 'communion'

Just a thought, but one of the objections being levelled against the FCA is that it is an ‘unholy alliance’ of Catholics and Evangelicals, sharing a widespread opposition to ordained women and homosexual practice, but divided on almost everything else that matters, such as ecclesiology, theology of priesthood and ministry, doctrine and use of scripture, sacrifice of the mass, praying to the saints and for the dead, lay presidency at the eucharist, episcopal authority, Mary, etc (I quote from elsewhere).

Now maybe I’m missing something here, but isn’t this almost exactly what the opponents of the FCA think the Anglican Communion ought to be —a church which unites people who can disagree completely about absolutely all the above, but who are united in their commitment to the purposes of the Church?

So what is the difference? Isn’t unity in disagreement just what they want from the Anglican Communion? Why does FCA attract the ire of Anglican ‘inclusivists’ for forming an alliance which embraces exactly the kind of breadth they think Anglicanism should include?

My guess is because they can see that FCA types are different from themselves, in that in the different ‘wings’ present at the FCA launch, these things have been seen as issues of what Francis Schaeffer used to call ‘true truth’ —issues on which there is a right or a wrong —whereas for themselves they are a matter, ultimately, of ‘opinion’, where I am entitled to mine and you are entitled to yours.

What annoys them is what they (rightly) see as a possible inconsistency —people who ought to disagree acting as if they agree. And as I have said already, there are deep and serious issues here.

But what they fail to see is their own ‘beam’, that this is just the kind of Church they want: one where we can all ‘disagree in unity’ —with maybe a bit more prominence for women priests and a bit more acceptance of homosexuality, but without even (in some cases) insisting on these. That, after all, would be the Open Evangelical position, would it not?

Perhaps the real difference then is the understanding of truth —that, and the view of what are the purposes of the Church. The real problem is surely that the unity of the FCA is seen as a threat to the unity of those who dislike the FCA. Both want unity, but it is the kind of unity, and the issues of unity, which are creating the hostility.

Revd John P Richardson
11 July 2009

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

"Let's call the Spirit she for a change": Bishop of Sherborne (elect)

Er, we'll get back to you on this, bishop.

Personally, if he did this in a service while I was there, I'd walk out.

John Richardson
16 June 2009

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

Why Open Evangelicalism damages gospel unity

Not my suggestion, but coming from the pen of Cranmer's Curate in a hard-hitting e-mail to me. I suggested he post it on his website if he wanted to invite public discussion. You can find the letter here, and if you want to comment, post there.

You can read what I've said before on Open and Conservative Evangelicalism by checking the labels below.

Harmony with Belial? Can Conservative Evangelicals and Traditional Anglo-Catholics really work together?

An Address to the Annual Meeting of the Lincoln branch of Forward in Faith, 1 November 2008

Introduction
In 2 Corinthians 6:14-16, the Apostle Paul asked some searching questions of believers who wanted to take their new-found freedom in Christ too far:

For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? ¹⁵ What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?

Right now, a lot of people are asking the same question about any possible cooperation between Conservative Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics over the issues of women bishops and, to a lesser but still significant extent, same-sex relationships and their effect on the global Anglican Communion.

GAFCON and Anglican unity
This question has been highlighted by the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem this year, the issuing of the GAFCON statement and Jerusalem Declaration and the ongoing establishment of a worldwide Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.

On the one hand, GAFCON unarguably brought together Anglicans from across the world who considered themselves to be united with one another — a unity subsequently expressed in a form of words drawn up from scratch by the conference participants during their few days together.

On the other hand, there were observably divergent styles of churchmanship present at GAFCON, ranging from ultra-high African to ultra-low Sydney.

Thus one commentator to an Evangelical forum called this a “toe-curling compromise”, and predicted confidently that“GAFCON will implode” as Anglo-Catholics are squeezed out by the Conservative Evangelicals.

Sydney and lay presidency
And as if in fulfilment of this prediction, news came last week that the Sydney Diocesan Synod had affirmed its support for lay and diaconal administration — what we would call celebration — of the Lord’s Supper.

Significantly, the same motion requested the Diocesan Secretary to send a copy of The Lord’s Supper in Human Hands, a collection of essays by some of Sydney’s leading theologians, to all bishops who attended GAFCON.

On the Thinking Anglicans Liberal website, spleen has been vented in generous doses over this announcement. Yet on the Stand Firm website, which represents American orthodoxy, many of the responses have been the same — some even calling for Sydney to be disciplined alongside errant north Americans.

Thus in both the Liberal and orthodox camps, voices are asking the same question, “What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?”

Bringing it back home
Was the unity experienced at GAFCON a genuine koinonia, or the spiritual equivalent of a holiday romance — a Shirley Valentine moment for unhappy bishops?

This raises serious questions about the talk of co-belligerency with Anglo-Catholics which was being tentatively voiced at this year’s Reform Conference in London. Would moves to unite our forces in this country over the issue of women bishops be anything more than a cynical ‘flag of convenience’?

It is my conviction that genuine unity may, just, be possible, but that it will require genuine openness and genuine change if Conservative Evangelicals and Traditionalist Anglo-Catholics are to work together. In the rest of this talk, I want to explore what that might mean.

Personal background
Can a Conservative Evangelical, then, feel any sympathy for or make any conciliatory gestures towards Anglo-Catholicism? At this point, a bit of personal background is relevant.

My own upbringing was orthodox Anglo-Catholic. And although my home church of St Luke’s Charlton has since shifted in a decidedly Liberal direction, I was brought up by people who, when they said the Creeds, believed what they were saying, without reserve or compromise.

My conversion to Christianity took place at the beginning of my final year at University, through the influence of the Christian Union, but I never felt the need to reject my early upbringing, which taught me much of what I needed to know.

Subsequently, my Christian path led through the Charismatic movement in the seventies and eighties and finally settled as Conservative Evangelical in the mid eighties.

And the seal was put on all this when I was able to spend a year at Moore Theological College in 1993, studying for a post-graduate diploma in theology. This not only gave me a much deeper (and, incidentally, broader) theological education but gave me first hand experience of Sydney Anglicanism.

Challenges to (my) Protestantism
And there I might have stayed, proudly and happily Protestant, but for two developments. The first was getting involved on the editorial board of New Directions in the mid 1990s, following my return from Australia.

There I found true spiritual friends, in the persons of Sarah and Robbie Low, Francis Gardom Arthur Middleton, Geoffrey Kirk, Andy Hawes, and others since then — not merely convenient co-belligerents, but people of shared conviction, even though their Anglo-Catholicism was often at odds with my own Evangelicalism.

The other, more recent, development is the growing gap between Conservative Evangelicals and those now calling themselves ‘Open Evangelicals’.

The cynic in me wants to say that Open Evangelicalism is defined by being open to anything except Conservative Evangelicalism.

In my experience, Open Evangelicals are willing to entertain, and often to side with, doctrinal and practical positions quite opposed to what was once the agreed Evangelical heritage: penal substitution, the sanctity of marriage, the wrongness of divorce, the headship of the husband, women in leadership, and even same-sex relationships.

In many cases, Open Evangelicals have also been quite hostile to GAFCON, and could certainly not be said to have wished this coalition well.

Hyper-Protestantism
To this Conservative, then, the new Open Evangelicalism looks and feels like old Liberalism. But reading Alister McGrath’s historical survey, Protestantism: Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, I have now become convinced something more is involved.

Conservative Evangelicals are, indeed, Protestants. Open Evangelicals, however, are not, as they characterize themselves, more towards the centre of the Christian tradition. On the contrary, Open Evangelicals are, in fact, hyper-Protestants — the true heirs of the Radical Reformation.

Why do I say this? Because for the Open Evangelical the final arbiter in spiritual matters is private judgement. And as McGrath points out, it is this which is the truly ‘dangerous idea’ of Protestantism.

It is private judgement, ultimately, which leads to the constant divisions which have beset the offshoots of the churches which separated from Rome in the 16^th century.

By contrast, Conservative Evangelicals are self-consciously recipients of a tradition. The ‘Fathers’ of that tradition may be Luther and Calvin, or more recently Stott and Packer, but even these are standing within an older tradition, which includes not just the Reformation formularies but the historic Creeds.

It is this, I think, which explains why Conservative and Open Evangelicals experience so much mutual antipathy, whereas the Conservative may be much more at ease in the company of traditionalist Catholics.

Though the conclusions reached by the latter may be very different, the rules by which they are derived are very similar. By contrast, the Open Evangelical is felt not only to have arrived at different conclusions but to have a fundamentally different approach.

A new tradition?
To recognize this, however, is to acknowledge a general weakness within the Protestant tradition. As McGrath observes, Protestantism claims to acknowledge the authority of the Bible, but who is to decide what the Bible means?

Are not all biblical interpretations, in the end, opinions, and are not formularies simply those opinions that have the sanction of the denomination or the state?

And is not the Open Evangelical doing what the Conservative fails to do, namely bring every assumption to the bar of Scripture — even our cherished traditions?

The Challenge to Anglo-Catholicism
It may seem that Anglo-Catholics are in a much better position. But before they begin to feel too smug, they must also face up to some searching questions, the most obvious of which is, “Was the Reformation, simply a mistake?”

More specifically, how does the Anglican Catholic live within a Protestant church? And in case anyone should dispute the last suggestion, let me quote John Henry Newman before he became Cardinal Newman:

... it is notorious that the Articles were drawn up by Protestants and intended for the establishment of Protestantism; accordingly that is an evasion of their meaning to give them any other than a Protestant drift, possible as it may be to do so grammatically, or in each separate part.

Anglo-Catholicism must recognize that it is not Roman Catholicism if it is to find common ground with Evangelical Anglicanism. And it must also acknowledge its own historically cavalier attitude to authority within the Anglican church.

John Shelton Reed, in his Glorious Battle, quotes an English Church Union speaker of the nineteenth century who asked rhetorically, “When will the clergy obey their Bishops?”, answering, “My lords, when the Bishops obey the Church.” (145)

But as Reed points out,

... for an English churchman, determining when episcopal opinions were unepiscopal required something that looked very much like private judgement. (146)

And he quotes one contemporary thus:

The nineteenth century has seen personal infallibility claimed by others besides the Bishop of Rome, and by much younger men. (ibid)

Anglo-Catholicism has existed within the Church of England by sitting very light indeed to its structures insofar as they are expressed through approved liturgies, canon laws and episcopal injunctions.

The point of saying this, however, is not to reproach Anglo-Catholicism but to confront us all with the need for honesty about past and present weaknesses which must be addressed if there is to be any chance of drawing closer in the future.

Protestantism and Gospel Freedom
With the weaknesses of both parties exposed, how might we respond? And first, what might we do about our historic hostility?

Here the Anglican Protestant, might find an unexpected challenge, and the Anglo-Catholic an unexpected ally, in the writings of Martin Luther.

Facing opposition from both the papacy and the radical reformers, this was Luther’s position on the elevation of the host during the Mass:

The pope destroys freedom in commanding outright that the sacrament is to be elevated, and would have it a statute and a law. He who refrains from keeping his law sins. The factious spirit destroys freedom in forbidding outright that the sacrament be elevated, and would have it a prohibition, a statute, and a law. He who does not act in accordance with this law sins. Here Christ is driven away by both parties. One pushes him out of the front [door], the other drives him out the rear [door]. (LW 40:128)

The issue for Martin Luther was not whether the sacrament should or should not be elevated, but on what basis we should act in regard to this practice. Was it on the basis of gospel or of law?

Protestant Anglicanism is clear that the host should not be elevated, and that there are gospel reasons for this. But, says Luther, as soon as you make it a law in the Church that the sacrament must not be elevated, you yourself depart from the gospel. Why? Because law as such is strictly antithetical to the gospel.

It might be worth reflecting on this with regard to the Evangelical response to Ritualism in the nineteenth century. Evangelicals clearly had the law on their side — Anglo-Catholics went to prison as a result. But were these legal victories triumphs for the Evangelical movement? History clearly suggests they were not.

Let me read Michael Saward’s reflections on those battles and that period:

To the rest of the church, Evangelicals were legalistic, narrow-minded, hard-faced bigots who were prepared to put their brother clergy into prison for trivial liturgical and sartorial reasons. Enormous damage was done and the final vestiges of its impact are still with us in the 1980s. ((James C Whisenant, 473-4)

Could, then, Conservative Evangelicals be persuaded to accept the outward rituals of Anglo-Catholicism within the bounds of gospel liberty. And should they? These are, I think, questions worth asking.

Protestantism, Hermeneutics and Authority
And what about private judgement? Personally, I wonder whether the doctrines of both private judgement and the perspicuity of Scripture are Protestant Shibboleths which it is time to question.

To begin with the perspicuity of Scripture, the idea that the Bible may be understood equally by everyone is not only demonstrably untrue but unscriptural. “How can I understand,” the Ethiopian eunuch said to Philip, “Unless someone explains it to me?” And why else has Christ given to the Church teachers? Indeed, why do we have that most important of all Evangelical offices, the preacher?

But if we abandon the notion of the simple perspicuity of Scripture, we must also abandon the idea of a general entitlement to private judgement. How can ‘Everyman’ be the judge of that which everyone may not have understood?

In any case, Scripture teaches us there is a tradition to be handed on by the faithful and, just as importantly, received by the disciple — the mathētēs, or learner, of Christ.

After a while, someone may indeed be in a position to judge whether the tradition has been rightly passed on to them. But private judgement is often a subtle idol which is enthroned where humility should be.

Not Councils
But if we are to doubt private judgement and the perspicuity of Scripture, what, as a Protestant, can I put in its place?

I will not say “the Church,” or even “the Councils of the Church”. The Anglican Articles tell me that Councils, even General Councils, have erred. And in case that doesn’t persuade you, let me quote Newman on the Arian controversy, this time in his Cardinal’s hat:

The body of Bishops failed in their confession of the faith. They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing ... of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony, for nearly sixty years. There were untrustworthy Councils, unfaithful Bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopeless, extending itself into nearly every corner of the Catholic Church. The comparatively few who remained faithful were discredited and driven into exile; the rest were either deceivers or were deceived. (On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine)

But I would suggest that it is precisely this period which points us to where an answer might lie.

Systematic Theology
The suggestion I want to make is that systematic theology provides the proper antidote to private judgement, both for the individual and for the Church.

What was it that resolved the Arian controversy? Some might say it was the authority of the Councils, others the authority of the Emperor. In the end, though, I would argue it was resolved by the persuasive power of the theology itself.

As McGrath points out, the radical reformers were prepared to question everything up to and including the doctrine of the Trinity. And we will all have experienced the difficulty many new Christians face with an idea that is scarcely read straight off the pages of Scripture.

Why, then, do the Trinitarian Creeds retain their central place within the Church? The answer is surely because, after centuries of debate, discussion and even division, this doctrine retains its explanatory power in the face of other, competing, approaches to the wide and varied witness of revelation.

A workable model
The Arian controversy shows that the Church can resolve profound questions in ways that command almost universal assent. And it can do so without appealing to a higher authority than Scripture.

What I am suggesting is that the solution to mere private judgement lies in bringing interpretation to the bar of systematic theology and that the perspicuity of Scripture will only truly be experienced when we apply the insights of systematic theology to our reading.

Unfortunately, and especially amongst modern Evangelicals, systematic theology has gained a reputation for rigidity which makes people suspicious of the whole enterprise. Buying into systematic theology is often seen as buying into a system which cannot be questioned.

I think it was Colin Gunton, however, who observed that there is a difference between a theology which aims at a system and a theology which aims at some kind of orderliness and coherence.

Systematic theology does not have produce a rigid system. On the contrary, we can learn from a comparison with the scientific method. The scientist does not require a complete explanation of everything to accept a theory as well-established. Rather, the aim is to produce an increasingly better fit between the evidence the theory.

The revolution for systematic theology would be in admitting the partial nature of what we know. The revolution for Protestantism would be in admitting that what we can claim to know has to be integrated into a much wider field of knowledge than what I, personally, happen to know at the present.

Applying the model
But there is a further aspect to this suggestion, which applies to the question of relationships between Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics.

If we accept the analogy between systematic theology and the scientific method, we should also note the importance of peer review. One cannot be published in a serious scientific journal without practitioners with established credentials judging the work worthy of publication.

Would that the same were more generally true of theological writing. There are indeed peer reviewed journals, but within the world of Protestant theology generally, and certainly within the Anglican world, there is nothing like the Roman Catholic imprimatur which certifies that there is nothing here of error.

Once again, the objection has tended to be that this gives too much power to the Church — and indeed it might. But why should there not be some recognised way of at least saying that a document does, or does not, lie within the established tradition, and giving it something like a ‘health warning’?

And why shouldn’t such warnings be accepted with grace by the author, if there is a shared concern for the truth and for the health of the Church?

The present Bishop of Durham, for example has put forward ideas which, by his own admission, involve a radical challenge to the inherited understanding of justification going back not merely to the Reformation but to St Augustine. If true, the ‘gospel’ preached by Evangelicals is not quite the ‘gospel’ at all, even though Wright staunchly defends his own Evangelical credentials.

Given the importance he attributes to what he is saying, however, Wright’s thesis should be submitted to peer review, not in a combative and jealous spirit, as often happens, but willingly and with an openness to correction.

And the bigger the ideas, the wider and of longer duration should surely be the review process. Thus on the issue of women’s ordination, the Evangelical world is deeply divided, not only amongst Anglicans, but more generally, where Complementarians and Egalitarians publish and counter-publish with an enthusiasm that would have done Arians and Athanasians proud.

Yet with 2,000 years of history — apart from some demonstrably fringe groups — and the opinions of both Luther and Calvin against them, should not the Egalitarians, who favour women’s ordination, be seeking the widest and the most careful scrutiny of their proposals, before turning them into actions?

The Challenge consensus
For the Protestant, this would represent a real challenge to centuries of practice. It might even threaten some of our cherished projects, such as Sydney’s enthusiasm for lay celebration.

Yet there are challenges also to Catholics, and not just Catholic Anglicans. The biggest challenge is that every theological position and tradition is, in fact, open to challenge — even the accepted formularies about the Trinity.

Then there is the challenge that every tradition must be demonstrably justifiable within a coherent theological framework. We cannot simply say that a thing is right because it is received. What Newman wrote about the laity should undoubtedly be true of all:

I want a laity, not arrogant, not rash in speech, not disputatious, but men who know their religion, who enter into it, who know just where they stand, who know what they hold, and what they do not, who know their creed so well, that they can give an account of it, who know so much of history that they can defend it. I want an intelligent, well-instructed laity ... You ought to be able to bring out what you feel and what you mean, as well as to feel and mean it.’ ( J H Newman, The Present Position of Catholics in England, 1851 pp. 390-1)

Moreover, the Anglo-Catholic must face the fact that many things precious to the tradition are, in fact, at odds with the formal position of the denomination. The onus is, therefore, on the innovator to justify their position.

Above all the Anglo-Catholic must, if progress is to be made, demonstrate the coherence of his own position within Anglicanism. The systematic theology of Anglo-Catholicism at this point must include his present ecclessiology, rather than skirt round it as an inconvenient truth or a temporary aberration awaiting a better day.

Conclusion
Experience shows that the ‘farmer’ of Anglo-Catholicism and the ‘cowman’ of Conservative Evangelicalism can, indeed, be friends, and it is not unreasonable to seek to know why this is so.

I have suggested here that it comes from a shared approach to faith. I have also suggested that some of the tensions between the two groups may be addressed by accepting the existence of real weaknesses within their own position.

I am not saying that all the remaining problems can then be resolved. I am not sure they can be resolved at all. It may be that, after due consideration, we may conclude we hold irreconcilable positions.

But if that were so, I would have to hold that no Anglo-Catholic can be a Christian, or that if he is, it is despite, rather than because of, his Anglo-Catholicism. Frankly, I doubt whether that is true — or certainly that it is true at absolutely every point.

Yet as I have said, this does not suddenly make me an Open Evangelical. I am not adopting the view that every tradition may offer something which I can cherry-pick as seems fit.

If real rapprochement is to occur, then so must real change. If we remain as we are, then eventual division is inevitable. But if we seek a mere common denominator, then, paradoxically, we abandon the most important thing we have in common, which is our attitude to truth.

Perhaps, then, our hope lies in examining how we test the truth and how we respond to difference. That is not the Anglican way, but it may be a better way.

Revd John Richardson
1 November 2008

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

Why Open Evangelicals are hyper-Protestants and REFORM is moving to the centre

This is a comment I have posted in a thread on the Stand Firm website, where they are discussing an earlier article on this blog. I am hoping to develop some of the ideas here in an address I am giving to a Forward in Faith gathering in Lincoln Diocese in a few days time:  

If I may add a couple of comments myself, as author of the piece, divisions within Evangelicalism are, of course, only a reflection of divisions within Protestantism generally. I have just been reading Alister McGrath’s Protestantism - Christianity’s Dangerous Idea, which is a powerful reminder of this, and it was, I think, Jim Packer who referred to the “fissiparous nature” of Evangelicalism.

As long ago as the first NEAC, at Keele University in 1967, Evangelical Anglicans were discussing their commitment to the Church of England and their ‘division’ from the wider Evangelical community.

Later (in my own time as a Christian), the divisions in the 1970s and early 80s were between ‘old guard’ and ‘new radicals’ who wanted to experiment with liturgy and explore the application of Christianity to the arts, politics and social involvement.

Unfortunately, two things happened. First, the new radicals turned out to lack Evangelical roots and drifted from a recognizably Evangelical theology. To see this in microcosm, look at the theological development of the Greenbelt Arts Festival. Secondly, the ordination of women in 1993 created a ‘fact on the ground’ which embodied theological divisions not only about biblical interpretation but ministry, gender, marriage, church, society, sexuality and, ultimately, the Holy Trinity.

What is happening now amongst Open Evangelicals is a tendency to react almost automatically against Conservative Evangelicalism, and to cheer for anyone, such as Bishop Tom Wright, who attacks it.

Two key areas are the ordination of women (and thus anything which smacks of ‘headship’ theology or subordination within the Trinity), and penal substitution, where the key argument is over the ‘penal’ aspect and the wrath of God - hell and judgement being also matters for reconsideration in the development of theology.

The latter is somewhat ironic, given Bp Wright’s clear personal endorsement of penal substitutionary theology. But his own assault on the work of Oak Hill theologians, Pierced for our Transgressions, and his endorsement of the popular theologian and pastor Steve Chalke, despite the latter’s total rejection of penal substitution (something which Wright simply misunderstands) has opened the door for a more radical stance amongst Wright’s own followers.

Ironically, therefore, I would argue that Open Evangelicals are, in fact, hyper-Protestants when compared with Reform. The approach of Reform is that there are doctrines we ought to receive - such as those expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles - as authoritative and, thus, binding interpretations of Scripture, if we are to remain within the tradition of the Church.

The most ‘open’ Open Evangelical is willing not only to question everything (as were the Radical Reformers in the sixteenth century) but, in the end, to be an extreme advocate of ‘private judgement’. For an Open Evangelical, the Faith is ultimately what “I” can believe, and thus the Opens, who claim the Evangelical Centre (pace Fulcrum) turn out not to belong [not] at the centre of the Reformation, but on its radical wing!

As evidence of this, we now see Reform beginning to consider co-belligerency with Traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, who of course lie much nearer to Rome - something which the extreme Open Evangelical would, I suspect, find very hard.

John Richardson

22 October 2008

Update: There are also responses to this in a thread on the Fulcrum website.

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.

Open Evangelicalism, NEAC 2008 and the future of the Church of England

The Church of England Evangelical Council website is now advertising 'NEAC 2008' - a consultation in continuity with the previous 'National Evangelical Anglican Consultations'. Meanwhile, on the Fulcrum website, there are rumblings about whether this is going to be truly 'representative' of the current state of Anglican Evangelicalism in England.

Personally, I can't help wondering about 'karma' at this point - or at least, a possible episode of My Name is Earl!

Fulcrum was founded in reaction to the direction being taken during the organizing of the last residential NEAC, at Blackpool in 2003. An article on the Fulcrum website speaks of "the restrictive nature of the planning ... and the sharp reaction of some conservative evangelicals to the appointment of Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury".

Early in September 2003, the founders of Fulcrum met in St Mary's vicarage, Islington, and decided to launch at NEAC itself. Francis Bridger, the former Principal of Trinity Theological College, Bristol, was appointed as the chair and Elaine Storkey and Tim Dakin (of CMS) as vice chairs. Graham Kings, the Rector of St Mary's was appointed Theological Secretary, Rod Green, a member of St Mary's as Administrator and John Martin (formerly editor of the Church of England Newspaper) as Press Officer. Others involved in the planning included Christina Rees (of WATCH) and Andrew Goddard (of Wycliffe Hall Theological College).

Just three days before the start of NEAC 4, Graham Kings e-mailed the CEEC about the formation of the new organization and used the fact that he had booked the bar at the Conference venue for Fulcrum's informal launch. In addition to Kings himself, speakers over the subsequent evenings included Bishop Tom Wright, Christina Baxter (Principal of St John's Theological College, Nottingham) and Bishop Graham Cray.

Since then, Fulcrum has claimed the 'Evangelical Centre' and, simultaneously, has steadfastly opposed more Conservative groupings such as Reform, and initiatives such as GAFCON. In effect, therefore, it has formalized the divisions in Evangelicalism between its Conservative and Open strands.

Thus Evangelical unity in the Church of England is probably at an all-time low since the end of the Second World War. The old pattern of Evangelical clergy and laity gathering in Diocesan Fellowships - which provide one of the electoral bases for representation on the CEEC itself - has almost disappeared in many areas. There is deep mistrust, exacerbated by what is perceived amongst many Conservatives as a drift of Open Evangelicals into Liberalism. Christina Rees, for example, now seems thoroughly committed, via WATCH, to the 'Inclusive Church' network and agenda, and equally committed to the marginalization of Traditionalists, both Evangelical and Catholic, on the issue of women bishops.

However, one consequence of this disunity is, ironically, that whilst Conservative Evangelicals are doubtless in a minority, they are disproportionately represented within many established bodies and organizations simply because they have continued to be involved, attend meetings and generally do the donkey work. By contrast, the movement of self-confessed 'Fulcrumites' to the supposed 'centre' has been a movement away from identification with an overriding 'Evangelical' identity and therefore leaves them marginalized from the established Evangelical structures.

One thus reads complaints about NEAC and 'representativeness' by Fulcrum supporters with a sense of 'coming back to bite you'.

A possible solution, of course, would be for Open Evangelicals to commit themselves once again to involvement in Evangelical structures. But in the present context that would necessarily be to express a 'distinctiveness' from the rest of the Church of England, and this seems to be something which, by their very nature, Open Evangelicals are not willing to do.

Given the condition of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, the logic of this would seem to lead, inexorably, to the absorption of Open Evangelicalism into a TEC-style denomination, whilst Conservatives are driven to the edge, and perhaps beyond.

That, however, is no doubt one of the reasons for holding NEAC 2008 - to prevent further drift in both the demonination and the constituency. My advice to Fulcrum and to Open Evangelicals would be, "Go back to the old paths. Put your commitment to Evangelicalism, and Evangelicals, above your commitment to the Church of England and you will benefit the Church of England more than by trying to do things the other way round."

But it may be too late for that.

John Richardson
12 August 2008

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

What is it with Fulcrum?

See the 'update' at the end

One last thing before I start a week's holiday. What is it with Fulcrum, yet again?

In the forums, one poster is now re-running the rumour about Archbishop Akinola being about to consecrate Chris Sugden as a Nigerian Bishop in England. This one is taking on the 'urban legend' status of the Vanishing Hitchhiker (see especially version M on this page).

Even better, the poster manages to cap rumour with conjecture followed by condemnation:

"I'm not sure that the rumour is completely unfounded. I also think that these 'shady anglican fixers' to quote Andrew Carey in last week's CEN about the new kenyan bishops in the US, are deliberately working against the Windsor process and the Dar es Salaam communique, and precipitate behaviour is not going to solve anything! come on guys, stop the power play, because that seems to be what all this is about - power. shame on you Chris Sugden if this is the way you go."

I say, "What is it with Fulcrum?" because it is their blog and posting is moderated, so it is, to an extent, their responsibility. I know things can slip through the moderating net, especially when you're tired or bored with reading the stuff, but the responsibility is still there. Given Graham Kings' cool response to the Kenyan consecrations, the sense persists that Fulcrum are distinctly unsympathetic to the 'Mainstream'/Global South response to TEC and Canada. As to "working against ... the Dar-es-Salam Communique", there is surely always this to blog about as well as the rumoured and alleged actions of the so-called 'shady fixers'.

This, incidentally, is another reason why I insist on comments here having a proper name and a location. Speculate if you must, but I'd rather you didn't do it anonymously or pseudonymously here.

John Richardson

Update

What's more, this story is even old on theFulcrum website, as you can see by following this particular thread back to here. Probably all that needs saying was said there a month ago by Revd Simon Butler:

"I think this is a non-story. There's been a rumour like this for ages. Because CS is the most visible activist on the conservative side of the current debacle, and because he's known to be regularly in close communication with Peter Akinola, there are many liberals who assume he's doing it for personal gain and ambition. I am not party to CS's motives, but I do know that many liberals assume that he's likely to be at the centre of things when and/or if a breakaway movement takes place.

"The report also talks about the person who is the source of the rumour as "a worker in the Nigerian diocese" which is a very strange phrase indeed as no such place exists as "the Nigerian diocese" and "worker" seems rather vague (it could be anyone from Akinola himself to the Provincial Secretary to the person who cleans the toilets in a diocesan office!).

"I'm also not convicned that ++Akinola would want to take such a radical step at this time, with the Covenant process ongoing. It may be something he would do once the Covenant has failed (which, in the end, it probably will); but surely it's not the right moment for such a radical step.

"My guess: it's either a silly season story that a bored journalist has resurrected while everyone's on holiday from all this nonsense, or it's an opponent of ++Akinola stirring things up in Nigeria. My money's on the former..."

Or maybe an opponent of Chris Sugden stirring things up in England. Meanwhile, "a silly season story that a bored journalist has resurrected while everyone's on holiday from all this nonsense" just about sums it up, only in this case it was re-resurrected by a post-holiday Fulcrum member. Is that ironic (I'm never quite sure)?

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

Why “Open” means closed and “Conservative” means radical

Amongst my sources of internet information is the Fulcrum “Open Evangelical” website. Not only does it occasionally get hold of a good story early, but it is a valuable weathervane for Open Evangelical opinion.

Fulcrum was launched at the 2003 National Evangelical Anglican Congress, somewhat to the chagrin of the organisers who said that it “undermined their attempts to build evangelical unity”. Indeed, the launch was preceded by private consultations amongst some of those in the Evangelical constituency who felt concerned at the way the Congress was being managed, and the decision to go ahead was taken behind closed doors two and a half weeks before the Congress began.

The claim of Fulcrum has always been to represent the ‘middle ground’ of Evangelicalism — inclining neither too far towards the ‘left’ of Liberalism nor the ‘right’ of Conservatism. However, as events, and comments on the Fulcrum website, have shown, if this is ‘Open Evangelicalism’ it cannot entirely live up to its name.

The problem for Open Evangelicalism is that those who adopt this position agree primarily on just one thing, namely that they are not Conservative Evangelicals. And this inevitably means that the ‘Open’ label is misleading, both to others and, perhaps more significantly, to themselves.

Moreover, many Open Evangelicals have come from a Conservative Evangelical background, which exacerbates the problem even further.

The ‘Open’ in Open Evangelical is supposed to indicate openness to other Christian traditions than that of Evangelicalism. Thus Open Evangelicals may feel there are things to be learned from Anglo-Catholicism as regards the liturgy or the nature of the Church, from Charismatics as regards the work of the Holy Spirit or freedom in ‘worship’, and from Liberals as regards intellectual rigour or engagement with the world.

At heart is the realization that Evangelicals don’t know everything, and that therefore what others claim to know may be worth listening to, particularly at the point where they differ from Evangelicals.

The problem is, at the point where Open Evangelicals differ from Conservative Evangelicals, there is no willingness to listen or to change. In reality, where Open Evangelicals differ from Conservative Evangelicals, they think the latter are wrong and, understandably, they are not prepared to change.

Unfortunately, the ire of Open Evangelicals is thus reserved for, and directed almost entirely at, their Conservative ‘brethren’. Indeed, one only has to read the comments and articles posted on the Fulcrum website to realise that Open Evangelicals scarcely regard Conservatives as brethren at all. One is tempted to say that if there is a Hell in the Open Evangelical universe, then Conservative Evangelicalism is in its ante-chamber.

And thus Open Evangelicalism, for all its claims to the ‘middle ground’, is neither truly open nor in the middle. It is not open, because it is closed to Conservative Evangelicalism. And it is not in the middle because Conservative Evangelicalism is, in its distinctives, beyond the pale.

By contrast, and somewhat ironically in the circumstances, true radicalism in the Evangelical camp is represented by the Conservatives, for although their theology reflects that of the 16^th century Reformers, both English and Continental, and (they would argue) the correct understanding of the gospel that they represented, as regards ecclesiology they are revolutionaries.

Hence it is typically amongst Conservative Evangelicals that you will find the most radical application of the notion of the ‘priesthood of all believers’ (both men and women), expressed in the principle of the ‘lay’ celebration of Holy Communion. Again, it is amongst Conservatives that you will find a widespread tendency to be liturgically flexible, dispensing with robes and re-casting services according to local need. Admittedly these provisions are not without their problems, but the basic stance certainly would reflect that of Martin Luther, regarding his emphasis on the freedom of the local congregation, and Thomas Cranmer regarding the comment in the Preface to the Prayer Book that nothing has been devised in the past which can’t sometimes be improved on in the present.

It is also Conservative Evangelicals who are at the forefront of planting churches, even at the expense of the institutional conflict, and who are prepared to act irregularly regarding matters like ordination.

Of course, these things cause problems. Moreover, it may be admitted that they are not always done out of a good heart. There are those amongst the Conservative Evangelicals who enjoy a fight rather too much. But the history of the Anglican Church shows that the way it changes is via radical principled action, not by common consent and abiding by the rules.

It is no coincidence that one of the definitive histories on Anglo-Catholicism is titled Glorious Battle. And reading it, one finds example after example of outright disobedience and rebellion against authority, both in the state and in the Church. How else do people imagine that several Anglo-Catholic clergy wound up in prison? Yet the result was that within fifty years what the Anglo-Catholics introduced as illegal acts became the Anglican norm.

Or again, consider the ordination of women. The Anglican Communion did not wait for common consent before women were ordained. On the contrary, in America and in Australia, bishops acted against the will of the Communion, and sometimes against the constitutions of their own churches. Open Evangelicals are adamant in their support for women priests and in their rejection of those who do not agree with women’s ordination, and often fierce in their criticism of those who break the rules. Yet the first women priests were ordained illegally.

The truth is, we are all liable to appeal to the law when we are opposed to the lawbreakers, and to criticize the law when it holds us back against our will. It is human nature, and to some extent human sinfulness. But what we cannot do is overlook, as if it never happened, the fact that an institution like the Church of England will never behave both radically and collectively.

It is the true radicals who lead the way. And in the present-day Anglican Communion, whilst the radicals on the left are pushing ahead with an agenda on human sexuality, it is the radicals on the right - the so-called ‘Conservatives’ — who have an agenda to express gospel living in church practise.

Revd John P Richardson
25 May 2007

Now read, What's really wrong with English Conservative Evangelicalism