This letter to the Ugley Vicar, the Revd John Richardson, on the damage to true Gospel unity from Open Evangelicalism may interest the youth group:
Dear John,
In his talk at Fulcrum's Spirituality of Unity conference now available on Anglican Mainstream, Canon Hugh Palmer referred to a blog-post he had been shown that made a list of ‘demands’ as to what he should say as the representative Reform speaker on the platform.
I have to put my hand up as the guilty blogger in question – see the post in the March archive of Cranmer’s Curate: ‘Spirituality of Unity Must Include Rebuke for Fulcrum’. It was also published on VirtueOnline.
You mentioned in your talk at the Oak Hill Annual School of Theology how unhelpful Open Evangelicalism is as a theological approach. I would like to add a practical perspective to what you said as the minister of a small turnaround parish church here in South Yorkshire.
When he was vicar of Christ Church Fulwood before becoming rector of All Souls' Langham Place, Canon Palmer was chairman of the Sheffield diocesan mission committee. The parish statistics for this diocese make very humbling and sobering reading indeed with the overwhelming majority of parish churches both financially and numerically unviable.
That includes the parish church I am privileged to serve. There are tremendous opportunities for the Gospel in Anglican parochial ministry but Open Evangelicalism is in fact a hindrance to the deep spiritual culture change that is necessary in small turnaround churches if they are by God’s grace to become effective witnesses and partners for the Gospel in their dioceses:
· Open Evangelicalism sits loose to the traditional Anglican doctrinal formularies and liturgy. As I have found, the Book of Common Prayer, the 39 Articles of Religion and the Ordinal are the best and most reliable theological ally for an Evangelical minister coming into a church that has drifted spiritually.
· Open Evangelicalism will not embrace Reform in both senses of the word. It will not join the group called Reform but also fights shy of clearly Evangelical reform that is urgently needed to make a local church evangelistically effective.
· Open Evangelicalism treats 'people skills' as more important than doctrinal faithfulness. Handling people wisely and winsomely is important, but not as important as faithfully and lovingly proclaiming God’s Word and indicating a clear practical intention to act on it in the reform of the local church for the sake of the Gospel.
Therefore, if practised in small parish churches that desperately need deep spiritual culture change, Open Evangelicalism ill serves the existing members who need to be firmly grounded on the Gospel; ill serves the lost to whom those parish churches should be proclaiming Christ’s Gospel in the power of His Holy Spirit; and ill serves the net-giving orthodox churches in their dioceses which are subsidising their ministry of Word and Sacrament.
In all, Open Evangelicalism is hardly a soundtrack for a true spirituality of Gospel unity in and through the local church. In fact, it is downright dishonouring to Christ.
With all Christian good wishes,
Julian Mann
The Parish Church of the Ascension
Oughtibridge
www.oughtibridgechurch.org.uk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Excellent.
ReplyDeleteDominic
PB of the EC-FCE
D'oh
ReplyDeleteJulian, that's blown a lot of things right out of proportion!
So I gather you don't want to be united with anyone who is not the same as you
Unity is not the same as uniformity; surely you can appreciate that different approaches and perspectives on evangelicalism are necessary to keep the church accessible to a wide variety of people.
You seem to have painted yourself into a corner. Perhaps some more profound insights might come after I link this to Fulcrum
in peace (but a bit disappointed)
Tim
Thank you Tim. Linking it to Fulcrum? Sounds like you're sending the boys round!
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing personal.
Every blessing,
Julian
Hi Julian. Just stopped by to see how this was going. I see Tim posted that "Perhaps some more profound insights might come after I link this to Fulcrum."
ReplyDeleteApparently not! (which is a shame).
It leaves me wondering, is the hope of an Open-Conservative rapprochement a lost cause? I'm reminded of Michael Jensen's comments here about a couple of articles I wrote, where he says, "if you look at the Fulcrum site ... you get the impression that the only enemies of the gospel in the C of E are the conservative evangelicals."
Now he later modified that, but I get the same feeling. It's a bit like reading Giles Fraser. He's OK-ish on other topics, but he really gets fired up about evangelicals. In the same way, I feel the Fulcrum 'sap' rising when Conservatives are the subject - take a look at this whole thread, which seems to be set up just to have a go at Oak Hill. The 'shibboleth' here, of course, is women's ordination, but as we know (hah, hah) there are two 'integrities' on this issue, so why the angst?
And where is the critique of Cuddesdon or the other 'High' or 'Liberal' colleges for their theology? (Or Martin Percy for his, come to that?)
Even the discussion of wider Communion issues is 'sniffy' about GAFCON, Chris Sugden, FCA and other conservative stances. I see little indignity about New Westminster's attitude to conservative Anglican congregations.
What would Fulcrum have left to get excited about if the Conservatives disappeared? I wonder ;-)
Thank you very much John. As you say, there seems to be a lot of steam coming out of people's ears on the Fulcrum thread but not much wisdom off the keyboards.
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to comment on this matter of 'people skills' as it relates to ministry in a local church. Relationships, people skills, managing change are of course very important in local church ministry but it seems to me that Evangelicalism is in danger of making an idol of these priorities and therefore becoming too man-centred in our approach.
The other point I'd like to make relates to the comparison between Anglican Mainstream and Fulcrum. Both are claiming to be central rather than peripheral groupings with one claiming to be 'mainstream', the other to renew 'the evangelical centre'. But it's surely a no brainer as to which grouping is a more benefical force for spiritual renewal in Anglicanism. It's the one that's taking a clear stand for the biblical theology of Canon A5.
I'm very worried that attempts to take mediating positions - a form of evangelical indaba - are resulting in disloyalty to those who are being faithful to Christ.
Every blessing,
Julian
Hi Julian and John
ReplyDeleteI am one of those people who have commented on the Fulcrum thread, though not with steam coming out my ears, but rather with genuine bemusement ... partly because I do not live in the UK.
When you say, "· Open Evangelicalism treats 'people skills' as more important than doctrinal faithfulness. Handling people wisely and winsomely is important, but not as important as faithfully and lovingly proclaiming God’s Word and indicating a clear practical intention to act on it in the reform of the local church for the sake of the Gospel."; and then reiterate in the comment above, I am left wondering about the evidence for this!
No doubt you have some, but is it sufficient to determine that it is a defining characteristic of Open Evangelicalism?
I consider myself to be 'open evangelical' (please note lower case!) to the extent that being evangelical in the Anglican church I am genuinely open to listening to other points of view and thus to the possibility that I might need to change my mind on some matters. But I find myself far from pitting people skills as more important than the gospel, or making an idol of them!
As for Fulcrum not taking a clear stand for the biblical theology of Canon A5? I fail to see the evidence for that given Fulcrum's advance theological guard of Wright, O'Donovan and co!
With warm regards
Peter Carrell
Nelson, NZ
Thank you Sir - to expect text-book, foot-notable definitions of Open Evangelicalism seems a bit harsh when it is a rather amorphous movement that appears to be largely a reaction against Classic Evangelicalism. But I would stand by the contention that in its practical incarnations, like its liberal kissing cousin, it appears to be rather man-centred in its pastoral and evangelistic approach.
ReplyDeleteAlso, with respect sir, I can't share your faith in the so-called advance guard of academic theologians.
With all Christian good wishes,
Julian Mann
Hi Julian
ReplyDeleteIs not the point about 'harsh' that contentions about an amorphous movement may themselves be amorphous without substance to back them up?
My bet is that a survey of OE parishes in the Church of England would show the usual thing about most theological movements: when represented in parish life some of its parishes are growing well, some are static, and some are falling behind. The key factor, incidentally, not actually being the theology of the vicar but his or her abilities in communication, personality, and relational skills.
As for faith in an advance guard of academic theologians, like you I place my faith in God, but I find that faith stimulated, stretched, and supported by an array of theological voices, not confined to any one strata of the church.
One of those voices I am coming to appreciate is yours!
With all good wishes for your ministry in Oughtibridge and through your blog.
Peter Carrell
Thank you sir for commenting again. 'The key factor (in growth) not being the theology of the vicar but his or her abilities in communication, personality, and relational skills.'
ReplyDeleteSo the key factor is not the Word of God applied by the Holy Spirit then?
Surely that proves the point about Open Evangelicalism.
With all Christian good wishes,
cc
Hi Julian
ReplyDeleteNot quite. My point is that every theological approach to preaching the Word of God in the power of the Spirit (does any Christian preacher attempt to preach anything else?) when examined closely for its effect on congregational growth and development will show that a key factor in making a difference is the combination of communication abilities, personality and relational skills in the vicar.
This is a conclusion I have drawn after years of observing many different approaches to preaching in parishes; it is not made with any particular theological axe to grind, nor to advance any specific theological cause.
With all good wishes
Peter
Thank you Peter - I take your point that you are making an observation. But it is important to put a value judgement on it. There is good church growth and there is bad. Good is generated by the Holy Spirit applying the Word of God to us miserable sinners; bad is driven by the personality of the vicar/leader, the pull of a crowd, the atmospherics of the music. There is of course bad growth in Conservative Evangelicalism but my point, to adapt David Wells' phrase, is that there would appear to be less place for truth in Open Evangelicalism than in Classic Evangelicalism.
ReplyDeleteThank you for commenting - I think I'm going to wrap this up for now. An interesting guest-post from NZ would be welcome.
Warmly in Christ,
cc
Though of course comments are not closed on this.
ReplyDeletecc
Julian,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that conservative evangelicals in the C of E do not also (or even moreso) sit loose to the traditional Anglican doctrinal formularies and liturgy?
Thank you for this - please see comment below Peter Head's on the post above about evangelicals not finding curacies.
ReplyDeleteKind regards,
Julian Mann