Differences, divisions or diversity
Chris Sugden From Church of England Newspaper January 30
The recent NEAC 5 consultation raised again the question of the unity of Evangelical Anglicans, and the ‘divisions’ which some see have been emerging since NEAC 4 in 2005. We need to think carefully about the language we use here: is what is happening best described as differences, divisions or diversity? To answer that we need to ask what values and observations inform the ‘differences’, and what needs to be done to recognize the nature of those ‘differences’ among Evangelical Anglicans in order to address them.
Bishop Pete Broadbent of Willesdon said recently: "I think there are major divisions. I think there is a denial on the part of some of the more conservative people that there are divisions. Unless they can get a bit of honesty about facing those things, it can’t be solved."
Diversity
That there is diversity among Evangelical Anglicans is clear and indeed a potential strength. As Anglicans we are members of a church and therefore have a commitment to standards of orthodox Christian belief and practice set out in Canon A5 of the Church of England. We are united on that. We are a church-based movement, located in parishes, societies, mission fellowships, theological institutions which are all related to the institutional church in various ways.
Division?
The popular perception or caricature of the Christian Church is of a body rent by division. Currently the real divisions within the Anglican Communion give cause for such a perception. But are the differences among Evangelical Anglicans of the same order? Surely not.
Is not the real division in our culture that between secularists and those who believe in the authority of a transcendent God be they Roman Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, Eastern Orthodox or Evangelical Anglican? And is not the substantive difference between those who call themselves Christian the one between those who believe in a transcendent God who raised Jesus from the dead, and invites people to be born again to enter his Kingdom, and those who do not?
Differences
There are differences of emphasis between evangelicals. One polarity is the issue of women in leadership which is a subset of different ecclesiological understandings. But is the diversity of emphasis on the questions of the atonement, mission, pneumatology and eschatology of the same order? Would not all who call themselves Evangelical Anglicans agree on the supremacy of scripture and share 95% of matters of belief and conduct that flow from that – especially the acknowledgement of Jesus as the only Lord and Saviour of all through his cross and resurrection?
What then is the source and nature of the diversity among Evangelical Anglicans? Are the different emphases really issues of unbridgeable theological divisions?
More often than not such differences are matters of strategy rather than fundamental doctrine. Frequently they relate to the understanding of ecclesiology and different perceptions of the leadership of the institutional church. There could be very healthy discussion in these areas. For example, does the local church mean the diocese, as argued by Colin Podmore in his recent paper on the Governance of the Church of England, or the local congregation, as argued by John Richardson, citing Article 19, that "The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered"?
Responses
How should we then respond to differences among us? The familiar attempt to categorise issues among us as first or second order is unhelpful. Those in North America who promote the ordination of non-celibate gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex marriages insist that they will not turn back. So for them these are first order issues. But they urge on those who disagree that these are second order issues over which unity ought not to be threatened. This is not a theological argument but an exercise of power and intimidation.
It would be more helpful to characterize these issues by asking what kind of response is needed to resolve them.
Should the response be repentance by those in error: for example for non-biblical practice on faithful marriage between one man and one woman or for propounding heretical views (rejecting the virginal conception of Jesus or his bodily resurrection)? Or is the response needed careful and courteous discussion and debate, building on common ground with the objective of building a consensus ( for example on liturgical renewal or the establishment of the church)?
Differences over strategy are also connected with issues of exercising power in the institution. Some are comfortable with exercising their faithful ministry within acceptable constraints that the institution allows. Others believe that in their situation, a line has been crossed by the leadership to whom they are accountable, and so they have to follow a different strategy in bearing faithful witness.
The drive for adopting an "outside" strategy is not always to do with a desire for a pure church. More often it is a question of how to be faithful witnesses and obedient disciples. The current cultural emphasis on "me and my experience" leads some to interpret that as seeking an unattainable purity. But is it not more helpfully characterized as driven by an acknowledgment of a transcendent Truth to whom we are accountable and must seek to be obedient? Surely in our desire to be faithful disciples of Jesus Christ we shall share something of that.
Cross words, and frustrated spirits there may have been at NEAC 5. Many would say (and I agree ) that these should be addressed. But do such reactions really indicate a true and deep division? Or are they better seen as revealing differences and in some cases legitimate diversity of opinion about matters of strategy and tactics as Evangelical Anglicans explore different ways of relating to institutional leadership? "United we stand….."
Chris Sugden is Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream, and offers
these reflections in a personal capacity.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
