Somewhere in the midst of debates about evangelical Anglicanism (or Anglican evangelicalism), as represented, e.g., in the comments to Michael Jensen's recent 'nerve-hitter' post, lurks a mischievous hidden premise!
The hidden premise is that this thing called 'evangelicalism' provides the perfectly sound foundation upon which to stand and pronounce judgment upon the state of both Anglicanism and evangelical Anglicanism/Anglican evangelicalism. One knows something fishy is going on - terrible pun about to be unleashed - when the conclusion reached by many from this perspective is that the Anglican church is 'a good boat to fish from'.
The premise is questionable and many evangelicals do not understand this! Evangelicalism is not a sound platform from which to judge other theological positions because (a) it is not itself one uniform position, thus the judgment boils down to 'my group of evangelicals' perspective' or even 'my perspective'; (b) it is a doctrinal amalgam new to the history of the church from after the time of the Reformation (but often confused as being equivalent to either the original Lutheran Reforming theology or even the theology of Paul himself); (c) even when in Anglican circles the implicit claim is that (true) Anglican evangelicalism is more or less Cranmer's theology, the reality is that Cranmer can be ditched to suit the needs of our day.
In other words the supreme confidence of many evangelicals that evangelicalism (accepting for a moment that it is one uniform body of theology) is the true theology revealed by God misses the point that for some 1500+ years this true theology was missing from the church of God! There has to be a better way to understand what it means to be Anglican, to be evangelical, and to be an Anglican evangelical or evangelical Anglican!
My view, in sketch form is this: the church of God and the theology of God grew out of the experience of apostolic churches and apostolic teaching; part of that growth occurred in the British Isles; with some chopping and changing here and there (Celtic mission; Augustine of Canterbury; Synod of Whitby; Magna Carta; Henry's revolt against the Pope; Cranmer's theology-via-liturgy) a way of being Christian developed which has become known as Anglicanism. At certain formative points Anglicanism has been reformed according to Scripture, the most prominent, decisive and influential of these being the English Reformation. But all along the heartbeat of Anglicanism was the heartbeat of Christianity itself, which has been scriptural at its core, exemplified and constantly renewed through weekly liturgical worship in which the liturgy - the great liturgy of the ancient church - has itself been a way of worshipping God in the language of Scripture. The English Reformation lopped off accretions inconsistent with Scripture, and, in revising the liturgy, made a theological statement about the centre of theology, namely the atoning action of Christ dying once for all for all of us on the cross, but it was not the birth of a new form of Christianity!
Evangelicalism, in all its varieties, is a special concern to do theology based on Scripture, with an organising centre for this activity in the doctrine of the atonement. From this perspective some aspects of Anglicanism today may be critiqued, but Anglicanism itself should not be judged as to whether it conforms or can be conformed to the requirements of evangelicalism so much as praised and appreciated as a way of being Christian which is soundly Scriptural and, with some failures, always has been through history. If evangelical Anglicans wish to speak to the Anglican Communion it should be to call the Communion to be true to itself - an ancient church founded on and continuously shaped by Scripture - not to question whether the particularities of evangelicalism are well served by the Communion or not.
The latter questioning has already answered the question 'where is the true church of God to be found, in Anglicanism or evangelicalism?' With that answer there will always be turmoil and tension for evangelical Anglicans, and the distinct possibility that the tension will be resolved by ceasing to be Anglican (as, say, the Puritans settling in America, or the Plymouth Brethren did). My suggestion is that a different way of looking at the core of Anglicanism resolves the tension in a different way: to be Anglican is to be evangelical!
13 comments:
Good post Peter. Thanks for naming the underlying premise. I think the other missing piece of the Michael's post (and I understand why it isn't included - given he writes from Moore and the Sydney Diocese) is the "Catholic" dimension and the perspective it too provides on historic Anglicanism, sitting as it does between Roman Catholicism and Protestant Europe.
There may well be other standpoints that need to be included, and I think there are.
I'd be very concerned if a narrow evangelicalism (as distinct from the broader and richer evangelical perspective I think you're offering)held itself up as judge and jury on all matter's Anglican.
And, of course, there is no one “Anglicanism” but many, each of which is shaped by its own unique history, like the Anglican Communion itself. Here in America, for example, the Episcopal Church has always been much more influenced by pre-Oxford Movement High Church supporters (like Bishop Seabury) and Low Church Latitudinarians (like Bishop White) rather than evangelicalism. This is no doubt because the origins of the American Church goes back much further than the late 18th and early 19th century origins of evangelicalism itself.
Kurt
Brooklyn, NY
Thanks Paul
Thanks Kurt
Is there no one "Anglicanism" or is there an Anglicanism trying to understand its variegated manifestations? Our reflections on these matters these days are (mostly) predicated on finding a way to be one Anglican Communion rather than several!
I agree with you, Fr. Carrell. I don’t know, however, how much longer this situation will last (internationally, I mean). The conservative evangelicals (along with most of the anti-women’s ordination anglo-papalists) appear to want to push more liberal provinces (eg, Canada and the USA) out of the Anglican Communion. As presently written, I don’t think the Covenant will receive much support here. Most folks I know in my local parish in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, are not in favor of it. They think it is a mechanism to “punish” TEC for exercising its right of Provincial autonomy. Obviously, we are not asking everyone to agree with us; but breaking table fellowship with us is serious business.
Kurt
Brooklyn, NY
"This is no doubt because the origins of the American Church goes back much further than the late 18th and early 19th century origins of evangelicalism itself."
"Evangelicalism" did not begin then. It's the spirt of Luther - and the odctrine of St Paul. it has subsisted in many forms throughout church history.
The departure of the Reformed Episcopals in the 19th century meant that PECUSA would ultimatelt sev er from the Reformed faith, although pockets continue to exist. Today it is increasingly post-Anglican and even post-Christian, adopting many heretical positions that would have Cranmer turning in his grave.
Anon1
Morning Peter
Apologies in advance that this will be a long "comment".
In an interview with Charles Taylor that I put up on my blog a day or so ago, I was struck by Taylor’s notion that reform inevitably segues towards conformity. This struck me particularly in relation to the (narrowly defined) evangelical resurgence and ‘reform’ (e.g. GAFCON) attempts within the wider Anglican Communion. Here’s what Taylor said, and I think there’s a lesson in it, particularly if - and I think this is a point you are making (whether implicitly or explicitly) in your reflection that there was a rich and varied Christian tradition prior to the Reformation.
Taylor notes that “... [The] conformist effect [of reform] is very, very strong. I mean take for instance—I hate to single this out but—the Protestant Reformation itself you can see a very radical homogenisation, a kind of crushing of the variety and difference in the forms of spirituality that existed before. I mean there were forms of spirituality of monks, of anchorites, of people who were totally outside ordinary life, and people who were in ordinary life but with in a rather strange relationship to it. And the consecration of a single way of being, married, family life, in a calling, with a sense of piety and so on. [Y]ou can see this, and indeed all forms of Puritanism [again “Puritanism” is just a broad a description as you suggest “Evangelical” is Peter] this kind of homogenisation of peoples' lives. And you see it today in the contemporary church—in every Catholic Church in many parts of the world imposing in even clearer fashion a single way of being a sexual being, and we're not going to have any truck with homosexuality and so on and so on and so on. You see this reform drive homogenises, it allows for only one, or a small number of forms of correct, proper living. So one of the big things you find with the Romantics again is a defence of the heterogeneous, a defence of the offbeat, a defence of the different, [and] a defence even of the shocking. Of course this pushes people like Byron and Nietzsche very, very far. But that's part of the tension that we are in in the modern world and the greatest force against this homogenisation, which is I would say today the ethic of authenticity—its basic thrust is that every person has their own way of being so you have to fight against this homogenising conforming force—that comes right out of the Romantic period, comes out of people like Herder and others. But we wouldn't have this kind of reaction if we didn't live in a world where the other force [the force toward conformity – which to me (Paul) seems to run contrary to the Scriptural image of Christ as the head one body comprising many many different parts] was so powerful—the force towards conformity, towards uniformity [surely this is a characteristic, for example, of so-called “Sydney Anglicanism”]...”
Thanks Paul - Taylor is a sharp observer!
I agree there can be, and are forms of homogenization going on in the churches ... but it is also the case that more variety can be at hand than we think ... the "headline" view of my Diocese, for instance, seems to be (variously) 'the conservative diocese' or 'the evangelical diocese' with hints of one style and one substance, but, in fact, within a unified diocese, there is quite a bit of variety.
Anon1, that's just plain ahistorical silliness!
Kurt, the 'ahistorical silliness' is perpetrated by TEC in its claim to be faithful to historic Anglicanism. That is why it will soon by removed from the inner circle of Anglicanism.
The word 'evangelical' goes back to the early 16th century.
Anon1
Well, Anon1, you can predict the future, too. My, my, my what gifts you have been given.
Well, Kurt, as you say, it's all of grace; non sum dignus etc.
And I am glad that you are not a sarcastic person but are gentle and forebearing in your spirit.
Even now, if Tec listens to the voice of global Anglicanism, it could reverse things.
But it has become like Judah in the days of Zedekiah. Earlier on in Jeremiah's ministry there was a hope that it would return to the paths of the covenant (!), but there was no real repentance and instead Judah under its leadership took to persecuting Jeremiah instead of obeying the Word of the Lord. Notice any parallels here?
The good news is that God's people were preserved even in exile as the 'good figs' (Jer 25) and the promise of salvation continued.
Pax et bonum.
Anon1
I have found your thoughts in this post most helpful, Peter. I regularly struggle with categorising people into boxes, and would rather discuss issues individually (with as much light and as little heat as possible). On this blog I see both you and, for example, Howard Pilgrim claim the title “evangelical”. I too hold scripture and the atonement central – and there was nothing in your post to which I could not say “Amen.” I wonder if you are using “evangelical” as (a) a particular flavour of Christian spirituality – much like one might say “I have a Benedictine spirituality rather than a Franciscan one”. So that “evangelical” becomes one (important and/but equal) colour in the rainbow of Christianity. Or are you using “evangelical” as (b) synonymous with “orthodox Christian”? So often I hear people speaking about “Bible-believing Christian” or “Spirit-filled Christian” – that to me is a bit like a “white alb” or a “two-wheeled bicycle”. If you took “evangelical” out of your post – how would it read differently? Is it a useful concept, or when your post writes “evangelical Anglican” in its context are you saying an “Anglican Anglican”?
Hi Bosco
I don't think in a brief comment I can do full justice to the issues you raise! So, briefly,
(i) I would understand that there are orthodox Christians who may not care to think that 'orthodox' is synonymous with 'evangelical';
(ii) though some people are evangelical in the sense that they are gospel, creedal, orthodox Christians who read and obey Scripture and hold the atonement central, I find that not all such are 'evangelical' in the sense of intentionally belonging to certain evangelical organizations, networks, and/or aligning themselves with prominent evangelical spokespersons such as JI Packer or Chris Sugden: my point is that evangelical Anglicans belonging to such organizations and keen on the views of the Packers and Sugdens of evangelical Anglicanism might consider looking at Anglican history in a different manner. (I accept you are evangelical in the first sense - I make no comment re the second sense because I do not have access to membership lists of such organizations!!)
There is more to be said, but I need to stop here tonight.
Post a Comment