Anglican Mainstream

Rev George Curry in Evangelicals Now January 2009

Independent and free church evangelicals are not alone.  There are some – dare we say many – Anglicans who have questions about the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) which met in Jerusalem in June 2008. The doubters are not all evangelicals, but you will find conservative evangelicals among them. Those with misgivings tend to fit into one of three groups.

Traitors

First, there are those within wider Anglicanism who see GAFCON and its growing baby, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) as traitors. Traitors because they created something new; a fraternal outside existing structures. A fellowship which is seen to challenge the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This group is mainly composed of liberal revisionists. They do not want to see their agenda challenged. That is why some use the demeaning term  traitor, while others condemn GAFCON as a rival to the 2008 Lambeth Conference.

Fools

Secondly there are those who see the emergence of GAFCON and the FCA as unwise. This group includes those who are perplexed and suspicious. They are perplexed because, as far as they can see, the bishops and provinces of the Anglican Communion are supposed to be tackling the issues raised by the naughty boys and girls of North America and elsewhere. They acknowledge some have stepped out of line with what was agreed about same sex sexual relationships at Lambeth in 1998. However, they also believe, following the publication of the Windsor Report in 2004, a new way to define the limits of what is acceptable for Anglicans in the 21st century is being drafted. This is usually called the Covenant Process.

They are suspicious. They are fearful as to where GAFCON and the FCA will lead. Will it produce rival structures? Will it precipitate a formal split? There are professing evangelicals within this group, most obviously those associated with Fulcrum. This last group emerged at time of the last National Evangelical Anglican Assembly in 2003. Although its stated aim has been to renew the evangelical centre, it has been described as a group of Open Evangelicals who provide a rival to Church Society and Reform.

Misguided

Thirdly there are those who view the developments of the last six months as misguided. Many independent and free church evangelicals probably hold this view. They are not alone. Some Anglican evangelicals are fearful that the GAFCON  will not generate the much-needed reform of Anglicanism.  Whether or not a new reformation comes is in the hand of our gracious and sovereign God. His people pray earnestly for a season of refreshing. As they do they seek to avoid the extremes of passivism ( doing nothing except pray) and activisim (doing what we think is right, in our own strength and in our own way.) In humble dependence upon the Holy Spirit, they walk the path of duty. They do God’s will. They are faithful to Scripture. They preach Christ.

Leaders.

Conservative evangelicals within the Church of England are committed to these things. They are also acutely aware that respected leaders who love the Lord Jesus Christ and the Reformed faith are involved in and committed to the GAFCON process.  For example Jim Packer, Roger Beckwith ( one-time Warden of Latimer House), Wallace Benn (Bishop of Lewes) and Mike Ovey ( Principal of Oak Hill College) provide advice and guidance to the growing movement.  On the other side of the world, Peter Jensen ( Archbishop of Sydney) provides theological and administrative support to the Primates who were charged, by those who gathered at Jerusalem, to provide appropriate support for those beleaguered  brethren persecuted by the juggernaut of liberal revisionism.

Two important questions arise. One, should Reformed evangelicals within the Church of England ignore the leadership provided by these men known for their faith and courage? And two, should Reformed evangelicals be part of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans.

Faithful

The first question raises issues to do with faithfulness. Is our allegiance to our leaders or to Christ and Scripture? Biblical Christians do not hesitate to claim our first allegiance is to Christ alone.  And as the Reformers tirelessly asserted, that means submission to his written Word, the ‘sceptre’ by which he rules his church. However, we also know that the ascended Christ provides the church with pastors and teachers.  These men are charged to equip his people for service.  In so far as their leadership is godly and biblical we do not reject their lead.  Rather, we respect it and learn from it. Nonetheless, the danger of slipping into a mindset which just accepts what our leaders say without thought is always real. Happily there is no hard evidence to suggest this is what evangelical Anglicans are doing.

On the contrary, they think long and hard about events within Anglicanism ( but not to the exclusion of noting developments elsewhere).  Moreover they agonise before God in prayer as to what he would have them do to protect their colleagues from the ravages of the revisionist liberal cancer. Their priority, as they see it, is to glorify God. This they seek to do by proclaiming the gospel and the whole counsel of God.  This is done in a world that is hostile to the things of God and in a church adversely affected by the apostasy of some.

In or out?

Our second question takes us to the heart of the current debate about GAFCON. Non-Anglican evangelicals find themselves confronted by serious questions when they see who is involved with GAFCON, Anglo-Catholics as well as evangelicals.  Nor are they convinced about the strategy adopted.  Of course, they are not alone in asking such questions.  However, the questions asked invariably assume a particular slant.  They are fashioned by at least three core convictions. These convictions concern authority, the definition of a Christian, and fellowship.

Authority.

Some non-Anglicans have been wrongly informed or mistakenly assume that, as an Episcopal church ( a church with bishops), authority within the Church of England is centred upon and derived from bishops. This view has been fostered by those of a Roman or Anglo-Catholic inclination, But it is decidedly at odds with the teaching of Articles 19-21 of the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion.

These emphasise the regulatory function of Scripture within the church. They stress the need for faithfulness to Christ and his Word.  They teach that Christians are not to act contrary to nor do anything repugnant to God’s Word.  They inform us of the necessity to be led by the Holy Spirit and governed by the written Word of God.  This, of course, presents a challenge to evangelicals within the Church of England.  What do they do, and what will they do, to ensure that the FCA proves true to the Biblical Christianity of the Thirty Nine Articles and Canon A5 of the Church of England.

What is a Christian?

The question of how we define a Christian is fundamental. The twin dangers of being too prescriptive and too minimalist are to be avoided. Biblical proportion is what is needed.  We also need to proceed with caution, for  a definition of a credible profession of faith may prove more problematic than we at first thought if the examples of Ananias and Sapphire (Acts 5) and Simon (Acts 8) are anything to go by.

Some believe that those who wear robes when they lead worship or use set forms of worship may have a defective understanding of Christian life and practice. However, we must be careful not to unchurch those who really do believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone.  Jim Packer wisely reminds us that some people’s heads ( their understanding) are fully aligned with the experience of their hearts.  He also counsels that the principle of charitable assumption is of value unless we have hard evidence to the contrary.  Clearly, free church evangelicals are right to challenge Anglican evangelicals not to compromise or confuse others about how Scripture defines a Christian.

Fellowship

Anglican evangelicals also have to face the sometimes vexed issue of with whom we may pray and worship.  Just because someone does not yet see things the way we do does not necessarily mean that they must be a false teacher with whom we should not be in fellowship. But nor should we imagine that all differences encountered are insignificant. Sadly most heresies begin as modest distortions of some aspect of truth.

GAFCON and FCA are young. The fact that the Jerusalem Statement defines Anglican identity in terms of loyalty to Christ and Scripture should encourage us all. What we all wait to see is what will develop.  Will the modest beginning blossom and flourish?  Will it be a positive force for good? Will it foster spiritual renewal and reformation within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion? Surely our prayer must be that it does.

George Curry, vicar of Elswick Parish Church, Newcastle upon Tyne
Evangelicals Now January 2009
 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.