Reforming the church of England
By
I’m currently on holiday in London, and one of the great things about holidays is that it gives you an opportunity to worship with Christians that ordinarily you wouldn’t meet. On this holiday, we worshipped at All Souls Langham Place, and Grace Church, Hackney (a plant from St Helen’s, Bishopsgate).
It was particularly good to be able to worship with evangelical anglicans. Both of the churches we visited are firmly at the centre of true evangelicalism, and are fully committed to the authority of Scripture, and a biblical understanding of justification by faith alone. In both, the sermons were helpful, and (as you’d expect) expounded the Scriptures clearly. Rico Tice’s powerful preaching on the plagues in Egypt was a particular highlight – I could happily have listened for several minutes longer.
Unfortunately, however, the most significant impression left on me from the two services was the contradictions that seem inevitable within evangelical anglicanism. Welsh evangelicalism and evangelical anglicanism have not exactly seen eye to eye, particular since John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones very publically disagreed on how evangelicals should respond to the liberal denominations they find themselves in (oversimplifying, Lloyd-Jones said they should get out, Stott said they should stay in). It is only recently that those barriers are beginning to come down, so I welcomed the opportunity to express that unity, albeit in a very small way.
Since 1966, most evangelical anglicans have been committed to reforming anglicanism from within. The statement of the 1967 National Evangelical Anglical Congress (heavily influenced by Stott) says, ‘We are increasingly anxious to play our part in the Church of England… it is reform we desire, not separation’.
But the fundamental debate in 1966 was not really on whether evangelicals should secede from their denominations. The differences really centred around the question “What is a church?”, and even more fundamentally, “What is a Christian?”. Christianity Explored (written by Rico Tice during his time at All Souls) answers this latter question brilliantly. But (tragically in my view), evangelical anglicanism typically fudges the answer to that question in many of rituals and services. This was demonstrated in both churches I visited last Sunday.
At Grace Church, Hackney the service included a liturgical prayer of confession. In it the congregation were encouraged to “turn back to the Lord”, then prayed for forgiveness. These prayers were concluded with the priest saying “I declare to you in the name of Jesus Christ that you are forgiven.” This is an extremely bold statement to say the least, carrying with it the great danger that the congregation will assume that confession (without either repentance or faith) is all that is required for salvation and forgiveness.
If anything, the situation in All Souls was worse. The particular service we joined happened to include a baptism of an infant. There is always a danger that baptismal services (of unbelievers or believers) can be misunderstood, and therefore clarity is paramount.
Sadly, there was no clarity at All Souls, instead ambiguity was the order of the day. During the service, the tiny child is encouraged by the congregation to “continue as a faithful soldier” (implying the child is already a solider of Christ). The minster later pronounced that “God has received you by baptism into his Church”. This was followed by this declaration from the congregation:
We welcome you into the fellowship of faith in Christ. We pray that you will grow up in this Christian family to trust Christ with us. We are all one in Christ Jesus. We belong to him through faith, heirs of the promise of the Spirit of peace.
This illustrates perfectly the failure of evangelical anglicanism to grasp the nettle, and ensure that their correct beliefs of what a Christian is are seen in all the rituals and liturgy they proclaim. How can it be helpful to declare that an unbelieving infant is in “the fellowship of faith”, “in this Christian family” and “in his Church”? How does this square with the wonderfully clear teaching of Christianity Explored, or the clear gospel preaching of Proclamation Trust stalwarts such as Dick Lucas?
On the day after these two services, I read of Griffith Jones, a Welsh evangelical of the early eighteenth century, who was also very much committed to anglicanism. Griffith Jones was criticised by many Welsh non-conformists for remaining within the anglican church, and criticised by many anglicans for being too evangelical! One anglican clergyman published a leaflet condemning him. Among the criticisms directed at him was that “he secretly corresponded with the Methodists” and that he believed “there were many precious lambs of Christ among the various denominations”. But more relevant to our discussion are two other criticisms:
- That he explains away the precious doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and insists that neither baptism, nor any other thing can make anyone a Christian, without saving faith in Christ.
- That he made changes to the litany and ommitted large sections of the Service, in order to have time for his own prayers and sermons.
I know that I have many brothers and sisters in the Church of England. I know that there are many with whom I would agree on all the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. But I long to see those doctines expressed in every area of church life – not just in the preaching, not just in Christianity Explored courses, but also in the rites and rituals, and in the liturgy of every day church life. Frankly, like Lloyd-Jones, I am not convinced it is possible to do this within anglicanism. Others disagree. But, for once, I would be delighted to be proved wrong. If I am, then it will be possible to achieve both dreams: genuine unity between non-conformists and anglicans, and reformation of the church of England.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Hello Michael,Thanks for your response. I’m sure any frustration is down to me.Am I the same person as Wigrd? Well I think so, I seem to be, there does seem something permanent I know is ‘me’. Yet, like everyone, I alter with every bit of new knowledge and every new experience. (On first learning that 2+2=4 or that things die, or falling in love, we are changed for ever! (Paul Hirst goes further and says we are our knowledge) Certainly every single cell of my body has been renewed several thousand times. What is the ‘I’ that persists? (I don’t mean can I give it a name like ‘soul’ or ‘mind’, I mean what does it consist of?) But in common sense terms, ‘yes, we are one’.Like you, I take my faith seriously, and when I find people visiting churches similar to mine and planning, or at least discussing, how they might be changed to suit them and not me, it makes me angry. It is the height of hubris. How might they feel if I did the same? Where do they think I should worship?I do keep my telescope trained on the evangelicals who live on the hill. From time to time I slip under the fence and visit them to see what is going on. But I wouldn’t want to live there! Even though I am perfectly happy that they should want to.As I have said, I am interested to read evangelical texts. I have pre-ordered Christopher J wright’s new book ‘The God I don’t Understand’ (due out about now.) You may know Chris. He is an Old Testament scholar, totally evangelical and quite brilliant at what he does. Certainly the best speaker I have heard at the Keswick Convention. His ‘Walking in the Ways of the Lord’ should be required reading for all Christians. I have also just read Dennis Alexander’s book on evolution, though I was less impressed. Perhaps we can do a trade. There is a collection of short essays, edited by John Hick published by SCM Press and called ‘The Myth of God Incarnate’ Don’t be put off by the word ‘myth’ It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. That’s legend! The book is quite old now (1977) but the essays are quite short and easily handled. I’m sure your library would get a copy for you.( I’ve just checked, it is on Amazon at £4.95.)Send me a recommendation and I’ll read it. Regards and God Bless, Eric
Eric,
I’m in the middle of another referred book, one I’m not enjoying much, so I’m not going to get to any of yours any time soon.
I was meaning to get Dawkins from the Library soon and have a paddle around in his puddles. We’ll see, maybe in the new year.
But rather than recommend a book, can I suggest that you take the time it would take to read a book and instead read and reflect on Romans 10:5-13, and 1 Corinthians 15:12-20.
For these two passages and the ones like them are actually what prevent me from affirming or accepting the positions you have put forward.
God Bless, and do have a merry Christmas and a good new year.
Michael
Which book is it Michael? Don’t waste your time on Dawkins. He’s just an evangelical atheist.
Come on Mark even the Numbers donkey talks! I’ll make it easy. Just one question. When you have reformed the C of E and it becomes the evangelical church you want, where do you think I and thousands of other un-reconstituted liberals, Anglo-Catholics and ex-evangelicals should worship? OK two questions (like a sermon, finally and in conclusion). Do you care? I realise I have asked the first question three times now.
Eric,
I cannot speak for Mark (I would assume he is very busy rather than being rude) but my answer to your question if it were put to me would be along these lines:
I understand the church to be the people. So if I talk about reforming the church I do not mean changing the buildings or the heirarchical structures or the liturgies. Although this will probably be a secondary effect. I am talking about reforming the people. About people being changed by the living word of God and living in obedience to the scriptures in the fullness of Christ.
I would argue that all people would have a place in this reformed denomination, including those currently inside and outside of it. But they would also need to be reformed, that is regenerate by the work of the spirit bringing faith in response to the gospel.
For those who do not wish to be reformed, or as I would put it, to submit to the gospel, then I think the blunt answer is, there is no place in the church for those who refuse to submit to the gospel of Christ.
I think that’s the answer you were expecting/looking for.
My question for you (and this is only half teasing)is, “Why does it matter to you where you worship?” It seems to me you only half believe the traditional, foundational beliefs of the Church of England, so why cling so fiercely to the structures (the least important bits)?
I realise there’s a fair bit of jargon in this, and perhaps words that have different meanings for you and I, but I think I needed to use them to be brief.
God Bless,
Michael
Hello Michael,
Thanks for responding in such a kind if teasing way. Where to begin? Suddenly e-mail feels quite laborious. I have no idea how Bertrand Russell managed 50 thousand letters as well as all his other writing. It beggars belief! However here goes.
You are right, your answer was what I expected. Indeed 50 years ago I would have given the same answer myself. The answer is however presumptuous. There is the implication that non-evangelicals – Anglo-Catholics and Liberals and I assume you know there is a difference – either do not understand the Gospel or their faith is ‘thin’ or frivolous. (‘they need to be reformed, that is regenerated’). Now I have said before that the vast majority of Bible scholars – people who have devoted their lives to honest enquiry – are not evangelical. This is ungainsayable. The most respected Jesus scholar, Gesa Vermes, left Judaism and became a Christian but subsequently returned to Judaism! For an indication of the breadth, wealth and depth of this sort of scholarship check out Mark Goodacre’s website ntgateway.com I think you might be surprised.
You seem to think that only your understanding of the Gospel is legitimate; that there is either your interpretation or the wrong one! I agree your’s offers certainty in an uncertain world and is most appealing to those who look for authoritarian solutions. Oddly it wouldn’t take long for the reconstructionist argument to begin all over again! Who better than evangelicals and fundamentalists to fight internicene wars? Just count the number of different sorts! (‘Why charismatics are not Biblical….!’)
Much, of course, hangs on the doctrine of an inerrant Bible, a symbolic reminder that revelation is closed and complete. Non fundamentalists in contrast recognise that knowledge is incomplete and as a result commit to dialogue and openness rather than monologue. (How can we stop sermons from being boring.. You can’t!)
This brings into question the nature of truth. Evangelicals tend to deny the ambiguity of truth and instead press for uniformity to effectively govern life. Truth becomes an exclusive concept. There is no room for error. No room for alternative interpretation. No room for appropriate ambiguity
Please don’t quote Pilate at me! The only thing we can be sure about as far as he is concerned is that he was a course and venal butcher. (Tacitus, Philo and Josephus). The mild conscience-ridden person who washes his hands is I’m afraid ahistorical. The Gospel picture has more to do with the usurping of Jewish scripture, the transfer of guilt from the Romans to the Jews and the establishment of the Blood-Libel than it does with actual events. The Ethiopian Church made an attempt to canonise Pilate! St Pontious! theres athought.
Finally can I say that I am quite happy for you to worship where and how you wish. All I ask is for the same freedom! If you succeeded in regenerating, reconstituting or otherwise making my church like your church I would have to listen to those dreadful sermons! That I couldn’t do.
Try the website,
Best wishes,
Eric.
Mark,
It would be easy to critique a set of EMW camp or conference sermons and to point to equally confusing non-conformist practices that are unhelpful: legalism, nationalism, constant whingeing about past glory, leadership that is exclusively one age-group and over-authoritarian leading to generational conflict, dichotomy between reformed and pentecostal, over-emotional preaching with lack of intellectual content / rigour and arid, dry intellectual other-worldly stuff both of which lack blessed brevity serving the preacher’s desire for self-publicism rather than the congregation’s needs, using revival as an excuse to separate from the world and ignore evangelism and hagiography of a select group of individuals but it might be better to encourage profound reflection on 1 Cor 1:12 and Gal 3:28.
Thanks,
Allan
Your blog has the stamp of Anglican theology and reformed, bringing the global context of theology, a significant development.
Acess my blog.www.vivendoteologia.blogspot.com
[...] No Plan B, The Future of Evangelicalism in TEC Leave a Comment I bumped into an interesting post from a UK blogger that has a generally negative take on the prospects of reforming the Church of [...]