The level of denial within Evangelical Anglicanism is deeply distressing for all who are concerned for Christ’s bride and particulary those who respect and treasure this particular expression of the church. Sadly, one such example is offered by George Crowder’s article in Evangelicals Now “Four myths about contending for truth in the CofE”[1]
The first myth Crowder offers is that “The grass is greener in other denominations (or none)” He goes on to say:
Behind this clumsy statement lies a bigger myth – the idea that we can create the perfect church. The church is already made perfect in Christ, but her new body will not be given until His return. Until then we have thousands of imperfect manifestations of kingdom growth in various shapes and forms all seeking to stand for gospel truth in a sinful world. A different but Biblically legitimate expression of Christian fellowship might avoid a particular crisis, but it won’t avoid the cause of the problem. You could avoid having revisionist bishops by not having bishops, but, in our current cultural moment, you can’t avoid injurious trouble over sexual ethics or human identity. It will simply affect different polities (different ways of doing church) in different ways.
The first problem with his statement here is that it makes presumptions both about those who already belong to and serve in churches outside of the Church of England and those considering leaving the CofE to join other networks or possibly to start a new one. Those of us in either position are not assuming that we can create a perfect church. I’m sure that George will want to correct the record on this.
However, there is agreement that it is possible to have an essentially faithful church and that such a local church can and should partner with similarly faithful churches. This is of course an understanding central to Anglicanism itself. Article 19 of the Thirty Nine Articles states 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 ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.”[2]
In other words, from the beginning, the Church of England recognised that a church could be faithful but could also become unfaithful in those areas. Where that happened, then separation was required. The question that Evangelical Anglicans considering leaving the Church of England are asking is as to whether or not the CofE remains faithful in those essential or necessary matters. My own view is that it has not been faithful for many years.
Crowder then offers a second myth, that “The Episcopacy is top down.” He states:
It is an accident of English church history, not a rudiment of episcopal church polity, that bishops in the Church of England have so much power. Yet, despite that, it is ironic that evangelicals in the denomination have become so concerned about changing their minds or swapping them out. Until recently we ignored them and many of us operated like congregational churches, except without the checks and balances of a fully orbed congregational polity. Even with the careful machinations of General Synod, the Church of England is not a consistent entity. Populating an inherited authority structure with more agreeable personnel – a “top-down” approach – is politically savvy, but it is theologically flawed. A reformed view of episcopacy works from the ground up, starting with the local church and then seeking partnership and oversight. We should be making every effort to populate the parishes with faithful, patient Biblical ministers and to keep going for the long haul.
Well, whether or not by accident, and if it is an accident it is one that goes right back to the beginning, the reality is what it is. Crowder claims that reformed episcopacy is bottom up. Well, if this reality is true for the Church of England, then I would encourage Anglican churches to give it a try. Why not see if it is okay to recognise John Stevens or Terry Virgo as having that kind of oversight? The reality is that congregationalism is not possible within the structures of the Church of England. Indeed, the problem comes not just from a liberal hierarchy but from evangelicals themselves offering the kind of argument that Crowder offers in his first myth.
I agree with Crowder’s third point that digital media cannot be “the vanguard of grace and truth”. He is completely right that this needs to be in the local church. However, this requires exactly the change of polity not possible within the Church of England.
His final myth is that “Church politics are a distraction from mission.” He says:
For many ministers and church members, church politics are a drain on their energy. Surely, we just need to “keep the main thing the main thing” or at least leave the wider debates to people who like that sort of thing. Reading the New Testament, however, shows that the story of mission in the early church is embroiled in church politics. Satan will always attack from within, as Jude warned, and so we will always have to contend for the faith within the church.
The problem here is that the things he refers to as “church politics” in the New Testament are very different from what we see in the Church of England right now. You find apostles and others contending for the faith by insisting that the church remains faithful. Those who are unfaithful are removed and churches that are unfaithful have their lampstands removed. This is very different from the situation now where accommodation is sought with the unfaithful. Can you imagine Paul saying to Timothy
“remember that some of the elders you will appoint will be well dodgy. They won’t believe you when you tell them that I wrote this letter to you. They’ll think that the Gospels aren’t due to be written for another 100 years or so. They’ll argue that love means you can pick and choose which of Jesus’; commands to obey. Some of them won’t be sure if Jesus himself really existed. If they do accept that he did, they will presume that most of the things you’ve heard about him from me are embellishments and they’ll describe the resurrection as ‘a conjuring trick with bones.” That’s all okay providing you ensure that a few elders are always provided for those who want to stay faithful. They will never be allowed full recognition as elders and they will always be accountable to the very elders denying the faith but that’s okay.”
Of course Paul didn’t say that. The problem with Crowder’s article is that he is the one creating the myths. There have been frequent claims that Evangelicals stay in the CofE to contend. Their version of contending looks sadly like Donald Trump”s plan for Ukraine, a carve up where those who deny the Gospel are allowed to keep the territory they have gained, install their people into positions of influence and ultimately decide what the rest of the Church are permitted to do. Meanwhile the Evangelical power brokers carve out the bits they want to hang on to. The biggest myth of all is that this is contending.
[1] Four myths about contending for truth in the CofE | Evangelicals Now
Faithroots 
1 comment