Caveat: in general, I find church-political blog entries drive me nuts. But this is just a thought I am trying to put into words, so indulge me!
I take it as a fait accompli that the Anglican communion as it has been known for about 120 years is on the point of disintegration. Now, I am a Protestant, so I don't find this as alarming as some do. I find unity for unity's sake, shorn of any content, incomprehensible.
But: there is a danger that as the new alignments emerge evangelicals will pursue sectarianism to its logical extreme and split even amongst themselves.
The benefits of being Anglican for an evangelical are actually quite considerable.
For one, the formularies and liturgy are ones which we can happily and even proudly sign as an expression of the Reformed and Biblical faith. Still.
Second, the besetting sin of Protestantism - sectarianism - is considerably ameliorated. So, evangelicals are protected from their own tendency to pursue an ideal and over-realised church on earth. (The problem of course is a lack of clear church discipline, which has got us into this mess!) While taking doctrine seriously - very seriously - it is not so to the extent that adiaphora become matters for schism. Reformed and Presbyterian groups are notorious for this finding of ever more strict and particular theological positions.
Third, the intellectual and cultural and political heritage of Anglicanism has protected us from the anti-intellectualism, obscurantism and culture-hostility that is feature of much evangelicalism. So, you won't find many young earth creationists amongst Anglican evangelicals. When I meet Americans for whom 'evangelical' equates to a particular political stance and a craven capitulation to the culture, we take a long while to sort each other out!
Fourth (and this is a somewhat perverse point) - being in a denomination alongside liberals and catholics has meant that evangelicals have had to fight major theological battles rather than minor ones. And think this means strength.
Fifth, while we hold to a the ultimate authority of the Bible, we are still brought into engagement with a lively (even firey?) tradition of Christian orthodoxy. We are of the magisterial reformation. And, we aren't wedded to the Regulative Principle (whew!).
There are more advantages to be outlined, doubtless. My question is: in the forthcoming new Anglican world order, which for some evangelicals will mean a purer and more faithful church certainly, what will be lost? Is there a danger of becoming sectarian? How can it best be avoided?
15 comments:
Being a part of the Church of England in South Africa (CESA) which is already seperated in many ways from the broader Anglican communion I must confess that there do seem to be a lot of benefits. We are able to do mission in a fairly united manner - our churches have a fair level of uniformity in terms of general gospel convictions and bible teaching convictions. I know that a lot of the evangelical fervour of this denomination was developed as CESA sought to define themselves against the more liberal and catholic CPSA - the official Anglican denomination in South Africa.
With that struggle no longer as intense as it was in the earlier parts of the previous century I wonder if our evangelical fervour will diminish?
Remind me again why sectarianism is a sin?
Not that I am one. It is they who should leave us, as any fule kno.
Well, there is sectarianism and there is sectarianism, so you are right to call for clarification.
To my mind, sectarianism of the bad sort is bad because it involves splitting over adiaphora. And it involves a kind of flagrant disregard of contact with churches other than the local.
Adiaphora? Que?
Sorry to keep on about this point, but words like this shut out people without theological degrees like myself. I end up spending my time asking you what that one word means, rather than considering the main point of your post.
Sorry.. Adiaphora just means 'the not-central areas of dispute that Christians argue about'. So, rock music or choral? That's an example of adiaphora.
I think I was the last person to throw the word around here, so I should probably share some of the blame. In my/our defence: it's a good word.
Is there a danger of becoming sectarian? How can it best be avoided?
What I would most like to hear in this area is a shift in evangelical rhetoric and self-awareness: a shift away from equating the movement with faithfulness, and towards outlining what evangelicals actually want, or would be prepared to setttle for. Because some other people might just want (some of) the same things, or be prepared to live with them.
(I, and another correspondent, pressed a related point back when we were discussing the collapse of the evangelical consensus.)
Just to toss off an example: is an anglo-catholic minister who "teaches the Bible" a Good Thing? (As far as he/she goes?) Or is the real wish that everyone with any swing at all should be a paid-up evangelical?
Thanks for this Michael. I think you're right. The real questions will be: when the "new Anglican order" arrives, who will be responsible for moulding it into a new thing.
To be honest though, I think things will be considerably more difficult even than this. As O'Donovan pointed out in his Fulcrum Lectures, it is not at all clear what this new order would look like; and it would be far from easy to construct. Perhaps we should speak of a new world disorder. I think many evangelicals have been far too enthusiastic about this process. If there is re-configuring to come, it may well be an experience, at least in part, of God's judgment.
æ
Lloyd-Jones was right and Stott was wrong back in the 1960s. Schism over minor issues is ridiculous, but schism over something as important as the Divinity of Christ is, to my mind, justified.
Remember, the entire protestant movement would not have occurred had it not separated from Rome.
If the Sydney Diocese, for example, formally cut off ties with the rest of the Anglican church in Australia and did its own thing, the result would be the growth in Bible teaching churches throughout Australia.
I know that your Dad isn't going to sanction such an outcome, but there comes a point when enough is enough. You draw a line in the sand, Dude, and by the way the preferred nomenclature is "Asian American".
I don't understand your last comment at all...
But Lloyd-Jones was deeply mistaken back in the 60s - on this and on a few other things too. His hysterical call was greeted with the reaction that was entirely appropriate. And, if evangelicals play it well, they stand to inherit much of value. They may have planted Bible teaching churches etc but the cost would be very high. That's what I am suggesting - avoiding sectarianism!
I guess what I am suggesting is that, despite what we might think, evangelical Anglicanism wouldn't be as strong - intellectually or in terms of mission - as it is if it were seperated from ANglicanism in general. CESA is of course a case that disproves my point... oh well.
Once a well known Sydney Anglican said "Waiting for other Anglicans to change is like leaving the porch light on for Harold Holt to come home."
Contrary to this, I think evangelicals are having an effect on Anglicans in other places, so to split would be to forfeit the battle when lots of ground can be made (and to complete the metaphor, the war will not be won until the Jesus comes again).
The question is not whether to split or not: I am taking it as a given that pretty soon there will be nothing to split from. (Also, we shouldn't see withdrawing ties from the World-wide Communion as meaning we need to withdraw from the national Anglican church).
What I am asking is: how will we manage the realignment, which is inevitable? Will we proceed by drawing our circle as narrowly as possible, or as widely?
My concern about lay presidency is that it will prove disastrous for us in the long term. We stand to lose so much - and for what? I fail to find it a compelling cause. Nobody really cares, not really. So, why not give it up? Find ways around it.
o.s.e.'s closing reference which so mystified you, Michael, is to dialogue from the film The Big Lebowski. (The lines are spoken by Walter.) It's not as obscure as it appears: the "Dude" reference is a bit of a giveaway.
Having thus thrown an olive branch, let me now opine that the rest of that post is an example of the kind of self-defeating fantasy that is exactly the danger here. The Anglican Church in Australia is not the unreformed Catholic Church of the 1500's, the juxtaposition of the two cases notwithstanding. "Enough is enough" of what exactly? Indulgences?
The "result [of schism] would be the growth in Bible teaching churches throughout Australia." Right. If every imagined good consequence --- essentially, Sydney being able to do whatever the **** it wanted --- came true, and no unintended consequence intervened, along the lines of Michael's remarks or others. How probable is this? How successful has this style of thinking been in other endeavours, so far in this decade?
Elsewhere in this discussion, I am disturbed by this one-sided talk of "they" / "other Anglicans" / "the battle": really, guys, are you saying that neither you nor anyone you know has ever drawn benefit, or found they can work with at some level, other Christians more liberal or catholic than yourselves? Really? Because I have. I will go out on a limb and guess that Michael has. Evangelicals in dioceses other then Sydney have. And if you have, then schism would mean loss, right there ... and in any case, this kind of talk is what gives Sydney and its confederates a reputation for arrogance.
Patience and humility were virtues, when last I checked; and trying to take people as you find then was, at the very least, a worthy habit.
Yes, though I am not even saying 'oh, you know, we could really learn from those Anglo-Catholics'. You are verging on the romantic here Bruce! ;-)
I am saying that without having to define oneself in opposition to or alongside Anglo-Catholicism, we are the weaker, and liable to turn inwards.
I will take that as a mostly satisfactory answer to my request for evangelicalism to view itself as a movement within the church. And certainly I accept that outlining a view of other factions is a wider, or at least a different question, and outside the purpose of this thread.
As to your other point: I am a romantic from way back. I try not to let it show, but sometimes the truth will out.
Post a Comment