The Need for Process and Crisis in Evangelism

Last weekend I was at a Study Day organized by the Colchester Episcopal Area, part of the Diocese of Chelmsford, on the topic of ‘Evangelism Without Tears’.

The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell, observed that properly speaking, evangelism could well be ‘with tears’, but he gave a rousing introductory talk nevertheless.

Both he and subsequent contributors also rightly stressed the importance of ‘process’ in evangelism. Research shows that the average length time from first becoming aware of spiritual questions to full faith is from four to five years. Certainly this was true in my own experience. I have often said that it took me my first year at university to work out what a real Christian was and a further two years before I took the plunge of personal commitment. Many others would tell a similar story.

In the question-time at the end of the Study Day the matter of ‘process’ was again stressed. Some people, it was said, become believers ‘overnight’. For others it may happen much more gradually. And this is true. But there is a danger, I think, of representing ‘process’ and ‘crisis’ as exclusive alternatives, whereas in fact they need to be kept as complementary factors in the path to faith.

To return to my own example, the ‘process’ of conversion took three years. But there was also a ‘crisis’ — a day and an hour in which I quite consciously ‘became a Christian’. And in our thinking about evangelism, I would argue that we need to see the ‘crisis’ not as an alternative to, but as part of, the ‘process’.

Take, for example, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. He was clearly a man on a journey in every sense. When we meet him, he had been up to Jerusalem and was on his way home with his souvenir scroll. But he clearly had not ‘arrived’ where God wanted him to be, for the Holy Spirit himself directed the evangelist Philip to meet with him and answer his question concerning Isaiah 53: “About whom is the prophet talking, himself or someone else?”

And it is important that we relate Philip’s response to our own practice. What would — or should — we say to someone to cause them to ask, “Here is water, what is to prevent me being baptized?”

Or again, what of Cornelius? Here is a man who is also ‘on a journey’, at least spiritually. Indeed, we might be tempted to say when we meet him at the beginning of Acts 10 that he has already ‘arrived’. His prayers and alms are already a memorial offering before God (10:4).

But once again, God clearly has other ideas, sending an angel to tell him to send for a man called Peter. And when we read in chapter 11 Peter’s re-telling of the story to the Jerusalem church, we learn an important detail about this vision that is actually not in chapter 10, for the angel told Cornelius that the man they would find at Joppa “will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved” (11:14).

Thus whatever we may make of the positive verdict pronounced on Cornelius in 10:4, we must concede that there is more. The process in his case must also include the crisis — a crisis which, in a real sense, can be called ‘salvation’.

And this raises two questions. First, does our understanding of ‘process’ evangelism include an adequate view of ‘crisis’? And secondly, what actually needs to be communicated at the point of ‘crisis’ in order for ‘salvation’ to result? To quote another example from Acts, what should we answer to the question of the Philippian jailer, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30) What must we say if we are to ‘speak the word of the Lord’ to others in a similar situation (16:32)?

In Acts 16, we are not actually told what Paul said to the jailer. In Acts 10, however, the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the subsequent sign of speaking in other languages, can reasonably be taken as signalling the point at which Cornelius and his household have heard enough. So when does the Spirit descend?

Peter has been rehearsing the events of Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection. Yet still the Spirit is held back. And then he comes to these crucial words:

⁴² He [Jesus] commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. ⁴³ All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (Acts 10:42-43)

Here, surely, we have the sine qua non of evangelism — that without which the gospel message is incomplete and without which faith has no suitable object.

Thus we may suggest that no matter what the process by which people become Christians, or how long it may take, it cannot be regarded as ended until they are essentially brought to this point: to believe the apostolic message that there is a coming judgement of the living and the dead and that the crucified, risen Jesus is the saviour from sin of all who believe in him, as testified to by the prophets.

You will notice — and some will doubtless take delight from the fact — that there is no explicit theory of the atonement put forward here. But one should not be too hasty. In Acts 8, for example, we have the reference to the prophetic testimony of Isaiah 53, which also includes important references to the nature of God’s work through the ‘suffering servant’:

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (vv 5-6)

Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and ... [to make] his life a guilt offering ... (v 10)

... my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. (v 11)

... he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (v 12)

Steve Chalke writes concerning these verses,

I ... have no desire to become involved in a technical debate about how the cross works. As Scripture says ‘he was wounded for our transgressions, by his stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5), and for me that is enough.

Yet it would seem to me that the penal nature of God’s action and the substitutionary office of the servant makes a doctrine of ‘penal substitution’ hard to avoid. Nevertheless, we are saved by that work not by our right grasp of doctrine. It is sufficient to believe that, as another Apostle puts it, “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3).

At the same time, however, it is vital to recognize not just the sufficiency of this faith but its necessity.

Paul asks the Galatian Christians, “Did you receive the Spirit [ie ‘were you saved’ cf Acts 11:14] by observing the law or by believing what you heard?” (Gal 3:2). The form of the question means he clearly expects the answer, “By believing what we heard.” But what was it they heard? The answer is, “the gospel”. And once again the emphasis in that ‘gospel’ is on the death of Christ on our behalf for our sins:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” ¹⁴ He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (Gal 3:13-14, NIV)

And here is another important point, for if hearing and believing this gospel message is the key to receiving the Spirit, then we must solemnly say that anyone who has not heard this and believed it, or who has heard it and has not believed it, has not received the Spirit.

Returning to my own example, I think this is the state I was in on the afternoon of that particular day in August 1971 when I opened up my copy of Journey Into Life and began to read what I had to do to be saved. In all my years of churchgoing, I had not really ‘heard’ the message that Jesus died for my sins and that I must believe and trust in him. And when I did hear it, through my Christian Union friends in my first year at University, I understood it, but did not want to do it.

What happened that afternoon was that I received the Spirit, although I didn’t understand it in those terms at the time!

This is not to make my experience normative. On the contrary, the normative pattern is found in Scripture. But what my experience shows is that when we follow that pattern we see its certain effects in the lives of those to whom it is applied.

As our own diocese gears itself up for a year of evangelistic effort in 2014, this is surely something that needs to be clearly understood. Evangelism is about more than a positive encounter with the church. And whilst ‘belonging’ may well precede ‘believing’ (indeed we see that all the time) it is no substitute for the latter.

Furthermore, it may be possible to have beliefs about Jesus which, whilst correct and sincere in themselves, are not a sufficient belief in Jesus to count for our salvation. There are some — indeed many — in our churches whose faith goes up to Acts 10:41 but has not encountered, or in some cases baulks at, Acts 10:42-43.

They rightly believe in Jesus who “went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him” (10:41). Yet the apostolic testimony, “he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead” and the message of the Scriptures that “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” is either unknown or, in some cases, unacceptable.

Evangelism is a challenging task. And yet as Stephen Cottrell observed on Saturday, it is the Great Commission of the Church. We are to go and make disciples, and anything which contributes to that is evangelistic — it is part of the process.

But the word ‘evangelism’ derives from the Greek word for our ‘news’ or ‘proclamation’ from God. And to engage in that task as the apostles did, we must proclaim what they did, which means bringing people to the point of ‘crisis’. Therefore we must proclaim to all that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and that all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom 3:23-24). This is what we must make known, and this is what they must believe.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Some Notes on Modern Marriage and the Church's Role

I have been asked to lead a session during our Episcopal Area Study Day on 'evangelism and marriage'. The theme of the day is 'Evangelism Without Tears' and very encouragingly over 250 people have signed up for it. Below are my notes.

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

Making Marriage Matter

1.         Introduction

Consider the following statement about marriage, put forward in an official Anglican report on evangelism:

Marriage presents the parish priest with, perhaps, the greatest evangelistic opportunity of all. [...] We would emphasize that no preparation for marriage is adequate which does not appeal for decision for Christ, as the only sound foundation for married life. [Note 1]

But things are different now. According to the same report, the opportunity is so great because:

As at no other time in their lives, those who are about to embark on the adventure of uniting their personalities “as joint heirs of the grace of life,” and of setting up a home for themselves, are moved to listen to the claims of Christ and to yield their hearts to His obedience.

We must think about what is different now from 1945, particularly as suggested by the assumptions in the above sentence.

2.         Modern Marriage and the Church’s Role

In 2006, the Church of England commissioned some official research on modern marriage from market researchers Henley Centre and HeadlightVision. This looked into why couples choose to marry in church and put forward some suggestions as to how the Church of England might respond as one amongst several ‘players’ in the marriage ‘marketplace’. [Note 2]

The authors observed:

            1.         We believe that there is ‘space’ within contemporary society for the Church to talk positively about marriage

            2.         There is a need for clear, coherent and unapologetic communication about what the Church does in fact stand for in relation to marriage

            3.         There is a need for the Church to make explicit the implicit understandings within the Church about who is entitled to a church wedding, and to actively reassure couples that the Church is happy to marry them

            4.         Couples have different expectations of a church wedding experience, and it is important that clergy are aware of these and communications tailored accordingly where possible

            5.         The personal dimension of a church wedding is a huge potential draw which the Church should emphasise

            6.         Couples preparing for marriage and planning a wedding have many anxieties that the Church could look to at least partially alleviate (Kasriel, 3-4)

3.         Marriage — What’s the Difference?

In 1945, getting married involved undertaking several major transitions at once: leaving home, setting up in your own place, moving in with someone, having a legitimate sex-life within which to have legitimate children, etc.

For some decades this has not been the case. In 1960, according to figures from the US Census Bureau published in 2002, over 60% of men had completed five key milestones (completing school, leaving home, becoming financially dependent, marrying and having a child) by the time they were thirty. In 2000, that figure had dropped to about 27%.

People do not get married now for the reasons they got married in 1945. The shift in sexual behaviours in particular is highly significant. TTCE deplored the fact that,

The “double standard of morality” for men and women ... no longer obtains. Instead, owing to the immunity which contraceptives and prophylactives [sic] promise, the “man’s standard” is increasingly being adopted by both sexes. (TTCE, para 7)

            Kasriel and Goodacre note, 

In 1990 the mean number of sexual partners in a lifetime was 3.7 for women and 8.6 for men, whereas in 2000 the figure had risen to 6.5 for women and 12.7 for men. (11, quoted from ‘The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles’, 2000)

Interestingly an awareness that they might be judged as ‘living in sin’ is one factor in people deciding against a church wedding (Kasriel, 35).

4.         Why Marry?

Kasriel and Goodacre identify the primary motivation for marriage as ‘usually a couple’s desire to feel more committed to one another by making a public, lifelong commitment.’ (16)

This is, incidentally, important in helping us understand the current debate on ‘same-sex marriage’. In modern terms marriage is all about a public expression of love and commitment.

We need to see, therefore, that the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of marriage is not a matter of a radical change in lifestyle but of a declaration, thus making the wedding the key event. Kasriel and Goodacre note ‘a growing disconnect between the marriage ceremony and the marriage itself” (23).

Significantly, according to Kasriel and Goodacre ‘getting married’ is seen as a more significant social marker of commitment than starting a family, which actually comes third after moving in together!

The normal pattern of a modern relationship is thus:

Meet ➔ ‘Go Out’ ➔ Have Sex ➔ Move In ➔‘Commitment’ ➔ maybe Engagement ➔ eventually Marriage

5.         Where Does the Church Fit in?

Yet a remarkable percentage of couples want to get married in Church: 53% of the population think church weddings feel ‘more proper’ (Kasriel, p29) and in couples planning a church wedding, 56% state that their own or their partner’s religion was an important factor.

In other words, it is not just about the venue, although it would be naive to suggest the venue makes no difference.

Couples fear the interview with the ‘vicar’, which may be perceived as a ‘grilling’, but can be pleasantly surprised. A good relationship with the vicar can ‘make the day’, but it has to be genuine and personal. Modern and not too stiff, ‘approachable but not too matey’, are perceived as good (Kasriel 32).

Marriage preparation is also appreciated: ‘36% of those getting married in church say the sessions offered by the church were an important part of their decision’ (Kasriel 31), though the prospect of this can also be off-putting. Much depends, once again, on the relationship with the minister.

According to Kasriel and Goodacre, men particularly were found to appreciate preparation sessions, not least as a ‘check’ that they are doing the right thing:

Rather than simply being commitment-phobes as the stereotype would have us believe, men are often more likely than women to think about the meaning and the significance of the marriage commitment, and are less willing to rush to this stage. (Kasriel, 16)

Marriage preparation thus offers an opportunity for the Church to be involved in a way that many couples appreciate. (In our benefice we have been using the ‘Prepare Enrich’ programme [Note 3] for which I am also about to take the training course.)

6.         Marriage and Evangelism

But what of the earlier statement, ‘We would emphasize that no preparation for marriage is adequate which does not appeal for decision for Christ’? Is this also possible?

Kasriel and Goodacre offer a number of observations in their Recommendations:

It is absolutely reasonable for the Church to have a strong view on marriage, and to firmly hold to its values; people are in fact counting on the Church to do so. [...]

... it is vital that the institution recognises the importance of clear, coherent and unapologetic communication about what the Church does in fact stand for. It is absolutely vital for many couples that the Church continues to take marriage as seriously as it does, and to continue to emphasise that the wedding is primarily about the marriage commitment. [...] (Kasriel, 40)

Finally, the challenging nature of contemporary meanings of marriage and weddings mean that couples preparing for marriage and planning a wedding have many anxieties that the Church could at least partially alleviate. For example, the Church could help couples to understand and overcome the tension between individualism vs a desire for security within their relationship ...

And,

... it could provide particular support for men helping them to overcome fears about the seriousness of the decision ... (Kasriel, 41)

But what is the gospel for couples getting married?

Marriage is ‘an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man’s innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church’ (Book of Common Prayer). The trouble is, we expect this to be accomplished by two sinners living together in close proximity.

The problem is particularly acute where the Church is approached by those who have been divorced and now wish to remarry. Jesus’ words (eg Matt 19:1-12) must be taken with full seriousness, indeed they underlie the Church’s unique, and apparently valued, view of marriage. But we are in a different situation to 1945, when TTCE could deplore the fact that,

In the past 30 years the number of divorces has risen from upwards of 500 a year to approximately 12,250 in 1944. (para 7) [Note 4]

According to the Office of National Statistics, there were 119,589 divorces in England and Wales in 2010. [Note 5] Indeed, these divorce statistics themselves suggest just how much marriage is in need of the gospel:

22 per cent of marriages in 1970 had ended in divorce by the 15th wedding anniversary, whereas 33 per cent of marriages in 1995 had ended after the same period of time. [Note 6]

Despite, therefore, the widespread acceptance of cohabitation before marriage and the general agreement, even amongst the younger generation, that marriage is an expression of commitment, divorce is widespread, and although people are marrying older, they are also divorcing older.

Contra what was said in 1945, it may well be that marriage is no longer the best time at which to engage people with the challenges, demands and promises of the gospel. But we must nevertheless ask with absolute seriousness what the gospel is for marriage and how we may convey it, not just at the point of the wedding, but before and after.

Endnotes

1. Towards the Conversion of England (The Press and Publications Board of the Church Assembly, 1945) para 97.

2. Tamar Kasriel and Rachel Goodacre, Understanding Marriage, Weddings and Church Weddings: An Exploration of the Modern Day Wedding Market Among Couples (Henley Centre HeadlightVision, 2007) http://www.churchofengland.org/media/45657/weddingresearch.pdf

3. http://www.prepare-enrich.co.uk/

4. The actual figure for England and Wales was 12,312. It peaked at 60,254 in 1947 but thereafter dropped back to 30,870 by 1950, not rising greatly again until 1965. The 1947 figure was only surpassed in 1971. (Source: The Office of National Statistics, http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-238035)

5. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/divorces-in-england-and-wales/2010/stb-divorces-2010.html

6. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/divorces-in-england-and-wales/2010/stb-divorces-2010.html

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Wanted: Believing Bishops for the Salvation of the Nation

The other day (as you do) I wandered over to the ‘Thinking Anglicans’ website to see what Anglicans were thinking about. Apparently it is women bishops and same-sex marriage (or for tweeters out there #WomenBishops and #gaymarriage).

Actually, you might well get the same impression reading this blog, though in fairness to myself I would point out that when I try posting on other topics the rate of hits goes down and vice versa (on the day of the women bishops vote, there were over eight hundred hits before I even posted anything), so perhaps the problem is also the readership.

But what should Anglicans be thinking about? Or to what will their thoughts turn when we have bishops who are women (and same-sex marriages at least in some denominations)?

I doubt whether it will be what they were thinking about towards the end of the Second World War, namely the conversion of England. As some readers of this blog will be aware, I have gone on at considerable length about the report Towards the Conversion of England and have posted extracts here so people can read it for themselves.

Indeed, I could genuinely claim that this report provides the framework for everything I am trying to do via the blog and my other involvements. My personal dream would be ‘every parish an evangelizing parish’.

And that is why the present debate about the gender of our bishops has to be seen as a distraction.

Please note, however, my careful choice of words. I am referring to the present debate, not all debate. There are perfectly good grounds for debating the role or otherwise of women in the episcopate, but in the present situation in the Church of England, our troubles will not be resolved either way by settling this issue, whether to the satisfaction of some or of all.

The Church of England has only ever had male bishops, and until 1993 only had male incumbents, but for several decades (at least) it has failed to be an evangelizing body, or even to uphold the core truths of the gospel.

Consider what Towards the Conversion of England had to say about the state of the Church of England in 1945:

In view of the immense opportunities open to parochial evangelism, it is alarming to discover how few of the clergy have been given any training in the work of an evangelist, such as in the art of preaching or of personal dealing with enquirers; how few, again, have been used of God to bring a soul to new birth ... (98)

Or again,

The ignorance of the Bible to-day, not only in the ranks of the laity but also amongst many of the clergy (and particularly the younger clergy) is really horrifying. Yet there is nothing more vital for the work of evangelism. The Bible contains the title deeds of our Faith. How many priests, to-day, by pointing to passages and verses from the Holy Scriptures, can bring that assurance of salvation to enquirers which our Bible-loving forefathers were able to mediate to countless multitudes? (100)

Indeed earlier on the report makes this damning observation:

... the Church is ill-equipped for its unparalleled task and opportunity. The laity complain of a lack of creative leadership among all ranks of the clergy. The spiritual resources of the worshipping community are at a low ebb. Above all, the Church has become confused and uncertain in the proclamation of its message, and its life has ceased to reflect clearly the truth of the Gospel. (6)

Yet that was the situation with an all-male clergy and all-male bishops. And whilst it might be objected that little has changed today, clearly gender is absolutely no guarantee of evangelistic endeavour.

And here is another point to recognize. If that is still the situation in much of the Church of England today, creating and maintaining all-male enclaves of ministry and episcopal oversight, far from transforming matters may actually make them worse.

But what have bishops got to do with it? Some critics of Conservative Evangelicals have rightly observed that until they were threatened with women in the role, they rather preferred to ignore bishops entirely. And that is true. But the answer is not to carry on ignoring them.

Another book that I believe should be on the shelf of every bishop is that by the Rt Revd Samson Mwaluda, Bishop of Taita Taveta in Kenya, titled Reorienting a Church for Accelerated Growth (Nairobi: Uzima, 2003). In it, Mwaluda points out,

Our experience in Kenya, as in many parts of the Anglican Church worldwide, is that the diocesan bishops [sic] leading rôle affects every aspect of the Church. I want to contend that one key factor in the reorientation of the Anglican Church in Taita Taveta for accelerated growth, is for the diocesan bishop to focus on his rôle as the chief teacher-evangelist.”(18)

Then he adds,

The Anglican Church, particularly in the West, is decreasing in areas where bishops undervalue evangelism and the teaching of the apostles’ doctrine. [...] Anglicanism is growing quickly where bishops are vision bearing evangelist-teachers ... (19)

And this is surely the crucial point — not just about bishops but about the Church of England. According to the latest census figures, nominal Christianity has fallen by about 10% in ten years. That is not a decline, it is free-fall. And that has taken place whilst the majority of the population have, I would suggest, been indifferent to the Church’s disputes about the gender of its bishops or its attitude to homosexuality. (And furthermore it is during a period when women vicars have become widely accepted as normal. The Vicar of Dibley, which initially relied on the ‘novelty factor’, first aired in 1994.)

I don’t know how many contributors to Towards the Conversion of England are still alive (and I would very much like to contact any who are), but they must be amongst the most disappointed people in Christendom.

But as Mwaluda suggests, we do not have to look far to find one area we might address, yet which has been almost entirely ignored, and that is the attitude of our clergy in general and our bishops in particular, to evangelism and apostolic doctrine.

Towards the Conversion of England actually has some suggestions to make in this regard:

Any forward move ... in evangelism must begin with the clergy themselves, and with their coming together to gain a new liberation into the vision of the glory of God. Our first recommendation as a Commission is that the Bishops (if they have not already done so) should arrange for gatherings of their clergy for this purpose. (90)

That was in 1945. Yet what bishop has done so? I am not saying there are none, but certainly none under whom I have served (which is several). Indeed in all my thirty six years (almost to the day) in ordained ministry, none of those bishops has tested me on my understanding of any theological issue whatsoever, let alone the gospel itself.

There aren’t even questions asked during the process of Episcopal Review. Yet surely the most basic question that ought to be asked regularly of all clergy is ‘What do you preach and what do you teach?’

And this is where we come to the bishops themselves.

Bishops are the overseers of the shepherds and the guardians of the gospel. I feel no embarrassment in making that statement. That is why we have them and that is, first and foremost, what they are supposed to do. If they don’t do it, no one else will or can.

So the first question that should be asked of any candidate to the episcopate is the one they themselves ought to ask regularly of those under their charge: ‘What gospel do you preach and what gospel do you teach?’

Actually, I do know a suffragan bishop who, in his interview, was asked almost exactly this, and I was very impressed by the fact. (I don’t know his answer, but I am glad the question was put.) Yet if you look at the preaching and teaching, or simply the priorities of bishops, you do wonder what they feel about the Apostle Paul’s charge to the Corinthians:

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you — unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ... (1 Cor 15:1-3, NKJV)

Now whenever I post this, someone always objects ‘What about the resurrection?’ And indeed the resurrection is there in Paul’s preaching. But the crucifixion is the horse that pulls the cart, as we see elsewhere not least in the words of Jesus himself:

For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Mk 10:45, NKJV)

But the important word in what Paul has to say, as far as our present debate is concerned, is the word ‘if’; as in ‘the gospel ... by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you’.

For the Apostle views life in these terms: that the only guarantee of salvation is to hold fast to the word of the gospel, of which the first and key element is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (which means, incidentally, as a ‘penal substitutionary’ sacrifice — try Numbers 8:15-18 for a change and Article II).

This concern — this gospel — is what should be at the forefront of episcopal ministry. Every bishop should believe that the word of the gospel begins with Christ’s death for sins, scripturally understood, and only if people believe and hold fast to this can we be sure of their salvation from the coming wrath of God.

And every bishop should ensure, as far as possible, that the clergy under his — or her — charge, who hold his or her license, believe, preach and teach the same.

Whether and how that can be the case is the real debate we should be having and which we are yet to have. Who are the bishops who believe this, and who are the candidates for the episcopate who believe it?

Without that, we will never be the Church which Christ builds and whose prevailing against the gates of hell he guarantees.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend:

Has Keele Failed?

This was the title of a book edited by Charles Yeats, to which a number of then-prominent evangelical Anglicans contributed in 1995, arguing that ‘Keele’ had very much succeeded. What they meant was that the commitment made at the first National Evangelical Anglican Congress to remain as part of the Church of England, against pleas to leave, had a good outcome both for evangelicals and for the Church.

I refer to this in my e-book, A Strategy that Changes the Denomination, partly as an example of the historical development of Anglican evangelicalism, partly because I think it shows how past generations of evangelicals have been over-optimistic in their assessment of the last forty-five years.

If we think that the aim of ‘Keele’ was to ensure that evangelicals remained within the Church of England, then obviously it was a success. We have.

But that is surely not a sufficient aim.

If we assess the results of Keele by what subsequently happened, both to evangelicalism and to the Church, the outcome is far less assured, not least because the Church of England itself has changed so much since then.

When I was a young trainee clergyman (just six years on from Keele), the phrase going round was that we were ‘in it to win it’. In other words, our commitment to the Church of England was on the basis that we expected to change it — we expected it to become more evangelical. But more than that, we wanted it to be not just ‘the best boat to fish from’ but a better boat doing more fishing.

So is it?

My own answer would be ‘no’. It is not a worse boat, but it is not a better boat. More importantly, there is no greater commitment to actual fishing now than there was then. Yes, we have ‘Fresh Expressions’ — but doesn’t that say that the old expressions are a bit stale? And we have ‘Back to Church Sunday’, but then we fill our churches at Christmas anyway.

But are we an organization where the norm is seeking conversions? I don’t see that happening, and I don’t see that being encouraged to happen by those in positions of leadership — the bishops and the archbishops, despite the greater presence of supposed ‘evangelizers’ in their ranks.

If we assess the current state of the Church of England by the proposals put forward in the 1945 report, Towards the Conversion of England, we are no nearer addressing that agenda than sixty-six years ago — and Keele is just a ‘blip’, a bit of ‘in house’ business for a little group of enthusiasts.

Next year brings elections to our diocesan synods. I have argued in A Strategy that Changes the Denomination that we evangelicals need to organize ourselves to get good people elected onto our diocesan boards and governing bodies where they can systematically address the agenda so as to encourage the evangelization of the nation.

The problem is in getting organized! Where is the drive for this going to come from? Who is going to encourage it at the grass-roots level? Who is going to endorse it from their pulpits or in their parish magazines or the national church press? What needs shouting from the housetops is currently being whispered in private!

What Keele succeeded in doing, I have argued, is creating an ‘enclave’ for evangelicals, where they could safely get on with doing their thing without threatening, or being threatened by, the institution. But the ‘thing’ of the institution ought to be evangelism, and it isn’t, despite the fact that the evangelicals stayed in 1967. In this respect, Keele failed.

Can we do any better?

John Richardson
4 September 2011

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend: