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% [?]
I’ve been reading “Evangelicalism Divided” Iain Murray in this same regard. It is a very serious issue, but in some cases goes beyond the matter of the evangelical presence as it may easily affect evangelical theology. Personally, I believe that some splits can be valuable as they lead all parties to clarification instead of compromise, and that makes it easier for members to learn and choose.
Thank you for a very thoughtful discussion. It is a criticism I would argue applies to some sections of Australia’s liturgical denominations. If you were closer I would ask you to turn your eye to Australian Baptists (of which I am one). Each of us has our denominational blind spots and baggage. A fresh eye from the outside can often help us to reform and become more Biblical.
Time for some serious theology folks. I know evangelicals find theology uncongenial but might I suggest you try anything by Bishop John Spong, Keith Ward or even Hyam Maccoby’s ‘The Mythmaker’.I know evangelicals of various hues, talk frequently of ‘scholarship’ but scholars must be prepared to change their minds.
Beware those who think they know the truth. (I think this has been said before!)Especially if the enterprise is as threadbare as the Evangelical Right.
When Moses was leading the Children of Israel out of Egypt but still in the desert, some wanted to settle because they thought they were already in the Promised Land; some wanted to return to Egypt because they thought they were better off there; some wanted to continue into the unknown.
Make your mind up folks.
re
to E Brough,
If you want to do some scholarship and do some serious thinking, perhaps you might like to do some of your own myth breaking.
Evangelicals are also ‘known’ to be arrogant (they know they’re right) but your post felt condescending to me. Do you suggest the Bible has no theology? That Spong has a monopoly on theology? That it’s only theology if you deconstruct traditional beliefs?
Friend, evangelicals have theology, but it is disciplined to submit to the revelation of Scripture. Please be careful of condescending to people whose theology differs from yours. It is not that we have no theology, it is that it is not recognisably the same as yours. This is one of the common mistakes of humanity. “They have no culture.” “They have no morals.” “They have no honour” because it is worked out in a way unrecognisable to me.
The Australian Aboriginals have a civilisation, but built on different parameters and looking vastly different to mine. Evangelicals have a robust theology, it looks vastly different and is based on different foundations to yours. (Would I be right in saying that since Calvin there has been vastly more theology written and explored by traditional evangelicals than there has by Liberals?) The question is, whose theology is consistent and credible.
To continue your wandering and settling metaphor, I would suggest that The Son was the promised land. That Evangelicals are the ones who want to stay in him, not into the unknown but on into God’s promises. Perhaps that Liberals (spong etc) are the ones who want to go back to Egypt. (We had onions and garlic there)
Michael Hutton
Did you get my response?
When you have reformed the Church of England (i.e. turned it into something you agree with) where do you suggest I should worship?
I have sent my reply again (3rd time!). Can you at least acknowledge that you have received it and let me know what is in it that offends you? I can think of no other reason why you havn’t posted it on the site.
Regards,
Eric.
@wigrd/Eric: If your comment was directed at me, I’m afraid I’ve received nothing from you. I checked my spam filters too. You’ll notice that when you post comments on this site they show up immediately, and are not moderated.
In reply to Michael; re-evangelical scholarship.I can do no better than to quote the following:-’….the one question I have is: are you capable of concluding that there is ever a ripple in the text, ever an editorial hand and a different theological perspective? The fact that you might not ever be, well, that’s what I find disturbing, because it means that you are fortified only to deny that which must be denied, rather than prepared to look at the evidence as you would if it were any other book than the Bible which is before you because- to me – if a person enters into a debate with a counter-analytic agenda, he is an apologist not a scholar. He has a prior agenda, of which others may approve, but which betrays honest sight, and evangelicals have become expert in inventing pseudo-scholarship to prove what they already believe. Bruce Gardner, Dept. of Divinity and Religious Studies, University of Aberdeen.
Mark, are you happy for this discussion to veer off a little?
Assuming Eric and E Brough and wigrd are the same person (seems to be the same conversation) I haven’t had any other communications either. I have had some trouble accessing comments on this post, if that helps.
Back to the question.
“prepared to look at the evidence as you would if it were any other book than the Bible which is before you…”
I am quite happy to acknowledge the humanness of the Bible. Its ‘ripples in the text’, ‘editorial hands’and ‘different theological perspectives’.
But I also want to acknowledge its divine origin. It is not any other book. Underpinning the Chritian faith is the truth that God has intervened, nay, entered human history. If one cannot believe that God can do this, in the virgin birth, in the resurrection, in the Bible, then the whole edifice collapses into theological spinning aroud in circles on the front lawn. It is worthless, worse, a terrible deceipt and of no value whatsoever.
That is my understanding, that is why I would argue for the robustness of evangelical scholarship. It does stufy the text hard, acknowledges the flaws and difficulties, but finds their resolution in the revelation of Christ in the Scriptures.
At least, that’s what evangelicals are like round my way.
Thanks for the good discussion,
Sorry it’s been exasperating for you.
God bless,
Michael