This piece appeared on the US-based orthodox Anglican news service VirtueOnline:
Without the late Revd Dr John Stott, ‘there would be fewer evangelicals in the Church of England today, and those in it would be brash, old-fashioned and a little like the church's version of the US Tea Party,' argued Matthew Creswell in his Guardian article of August 4th.
But a strong case can be made that had Dr Stott backed Reform, the Anglican evangelical group formed in 1993 after the Church of England’s decision to ordain women as priests, UK evangelicals would be a more coherent force.
Dr Stott was uncomfortable with Reform, despite the fact that its leaders had been hugely influenced by his conservative biblical scholarship and shared his controversial commitment to penal substitutionary atonement. Dr Stott magnificently expounded and defended this classic evangelical doctrine in his 1986 book, The Cross of Christ.
He was there looking manifestly uneasy as an observer at a Reform national conference I attended as an Oak Hill ordinand in the mid-1990s. At a conference later in that decade, I heard a member of the Reform Council publicly responding to a particular criticism Dr Stott had levelled against Reform.
Dr Stott had apparently accused Reform of encouraging infringements of ecclesiastical law. This council member pointed out that, when Dr Stott was rector of All Souls’ Langham Place in the West End of London, a post he held from 1950 to 1975, he himself did not observe the letter of the law over the organisation of Confirmations.
Whatever the precise details of this particular case, there is in fact nothing discreditable in an evangelical being less than a stickler for the finer points of ecclesiastical procedure if there are clear advantages for Christian ministry in being flexible.
It is apparent from Dr Stott’s 1996 Bible Speaks Today commentary on 1 Timothy that he was more equivocal than Reform over the appropriateness of women being put in pastoral charge of local churches. But he nevertheless upheld the Pauline principle of ‘male headship’ which underpins the Reform Covenant, the theological basis of the movement.
He remained conservative on the Bible until his dying day.
It is strongly arguable that had Dr Stott been more supportive of Reform, Fulcrum, which formed as a counter to conservative evangelical influence in 2003, would have been less able to claim him as a guiding light. One of Fulcrum’s founders, the feminist theologian Dr Elaine Storkey, currently its president, had been director of the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity, the evangelical think tank Dr Stott set up in 1982.
It is all very well celebrating the growth of evangelical influence in the Church of England since World War II under Dr Stott’s leadership and congratulating ourselves that we are no longer the ‘fusty’ movement we allegedly once were. But if a movement departs from its convictional foundations, then it is no longer an influence even though its leaders may occupy prominent positions in the hierarchy. It becomes a capitulation.
I am personally persuaded that if Dr Stott had identified more closely with the biblically conservative movement Fulcrum set out to oppose, Anglican evangelicals would be a more spiritually coherent force for Christ in the Church of England.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Perhaps evangelicals would be more coherent if the conservatives were willing to accept that their convictions are but one view amongst many and stopped being so arrogant and divisive.
ReplyDeleteThanks for approving that, Julian.
ReplyDeleteI just also thought that "Uncle John" was a man full of grace, treating everyone with respect and dignity, who was willing to work with all who sought to spread the gospel. He accepted that evangelicals could interpret the Bible in more than one way, and even changed his convictions when he became convinced they were incompatible with the Bible.
Perhaps he felt that Reform didn't share this approach...
Ian:
ReplyDelete(1) It takes two to make a division. How do you tell which side is the divisive one to the exclusion of the other?
(2) Evangelicals used to be united on the issue Julian describes, in a basic complementarian position. Who then introduced a division?
(3) The accusation of divisiveness is arbitrary and opportunistic. Is the doctrine of the Trinity 'divisive' with you? No; but it would be with a Muslim or JW. It all depends who you are and what the issue is.
(4) True teaching always divides the hearers between believers and unbelievers (in what is taught - not necessarily the same as Christians and non-Christians!). Jesus, Paul and so on were self-consciously 'divisive' in this sense, and Paul even insisted this was necessary for the greater ultimate good.
(5) Please see my reply just now to your reply on the earlier thread....
Dan
Conservatives are arrogant and divisive, you say, Mr Smith. The Apostle Paul wrote this to the divided Corinthian church (whose divisions were particularly manifest at the Lord's Supper): 'for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized' (1 Corinthians 11v19 -RSV).
ReplyDeleteThat pressuposes that there is a genuine standard of Christian faith and conduct from which some professing Christians can depart, thus showing the genuineness of those who do adhere to the standard.
It was not arrogant or divisive of Paul to teach this. He was being faithful to the revealed gospel of God.
Elaine Storkey has written an attribute to John Stott – it can be read below:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.licc.org.uk/tribute-tributes/elaine-storkeys-tribute-to-john-stott-1166
I have searched to find out if Elaine has ever been ordained as an Anglican priest. If she is not, I do not understand your point of contention. “Male headship” as far as she is concerned, is, and should not be your concern. In her tribute, Elaine refers to “double listening” – an attribute which Reform does not appear to practice – and Fulcrum does employ as a characteristic of its “balanced evangelical centre”.
I certainly believe that John Stott, undriven by ego, humble and gracious, died with an unruffled and undisturbed spirit. That would be a characteristic I would hope to emulate, and is commendable for all Christians, not least the members of Reform.
Beryl Polden
Wirral
John Stott had clear biblical convictions that he both proclaimed and defended with energy and commitment. That was absolutely compatible with his personal humility and indeed was an aspect of it.
ReplyDeleteAll I am suggesting is that it would have been better for the evangelical cause in the Church of England if John Stott had been able to be more supportive of Reform's desire to proclaim and defend the biblical gospel he believed in in an institution in which corrosive liberalism is becoming ever more entrenched.
Ian and especially Beryl - why this preoccupation with doing down Reform? Whence this chip on your shoulders?
ReplyDeleteActually Elaine Storkey's tribute to John Stott doesn't refer to double listening - that comes in a comment below the piece. What Stott meant by this was that as well as of course knowing the Bible, preachers need to be aware of what our culture is saying about various issues. From this it's plain enough that the double listening process is radically asymmetrical: we should submit ourselves to God's Word and definitely not to ambient unbelieving cultural prejudices!
Given this accurate description of the practice, what Beryl would be your reasons for thinking that Reform (NB I've never been a member) doesn't do it enough - or for that matter, that Fulcrum does do it properly? I imagine that many Reform folk would say that on certain matters Fulcrum folk give more weight to the culture than the Bible, thus reversing the priority Stott himself set out.
And yes, I agree with Julian that Stott's clearer support for Reform would have been a great help.
Dan
Dan,
ReplyDelete(1) Perhaps "divisive" wasn't the best word, but conservative evangelicals have a long pattern of refusing to countenance the validity of theological positions apart from their own.
(2) It is not true that evangelicals were always united on women's leadership. The same web page I linked to on the other post has some historical examples – see http://www.jameswatkins.com/womeninministry.htm
(3) See my answer to (1). Also, the trinity is a fundamental doctrine relating to the nature of God. The gender of clergy is not (in protestant theology at least).
(4) I presume you're an Anglican. How would you feel if a Baptist told you that you were a divisive heretic for approving of infant baptism? You'd probably be most upset and say that paedobaptism is an accepted protestant theological position. So please don't call me divisive for arguing for women's ordination, which is also an accepted protestant theological position.
(5) I have responded to that comment.
Julian,
There is a disagreement amongst Christians on this subject. Some, like you, believe the Bible teaches that leadership is for men only. Others, like me, believe that the Bible teaches both men and women can lead. Both parties are evangelicals committed to biblical authority and historical-grammatical hermeneutics.
I regard the evidence is favour of my view as overwhelming, but you no doubt believe the opposite.
In cases like this, where there is a difference in understanding of the Bible, an accepted theological approach is to choose the interpretation that allows for the greatest level of ministry and the greatest spread of the gospel. That requires ordaining both men and women.
My concerns with the Reform position are:
1. The way they often resort to throwing insults such as "liberal" at the other side. I heard a sermon yesterday where the preacher bashed supporters of women's ordination as "denying the authority of the Bible", which is nonsense.
2. Your comments on 1 Cor 11:19 confirm that the approach of conservative evangelicals like yourself is to treat their interpretations of the Bible as having the same level of authority as the Bible itself. This is arrogant.
3. Reform claims to be a society dedicated to the evangelisation of England. That is a lie. It is a pressure group aimed at promoting a narrow form of evangelicalism and specifically opposing women in leadership. This has absolutely nothing to do with spreading the gospel to a country which, as recent events have shown, desperately needs it.
John Stott was a wise man, and I can fully understand why he didn't want to back Reform and end up being linked with the above.
Earlier in chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians Paul expounds very clearly the principle of male headship. So that is an apostolic conviction Reform is upholding.
ReplyDeleteEarlier in chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians Paul expounds very clearly the principle of male headship. So that is an apostolic conviction Reform is upholding.
ReplyDeleteNo. You interpret that passage as implying male headship. Other evangelical scholars do not draw that conclusion. (eg the Ian Paul booklet, pages 15-17. He has a PhD in New Testament Interpretation, so I'd suggest his opinion carries more weight than yours).
I note that your choice of wording was carefully chosen to say that "Paul expounds", whereas it is actually you who is doing the exposition. So once again you equate your interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself. Please could you show a bit more humility in future.
Whatever the hermeneutical difficulties over the veil, the principle in verse 3 is pretty clear. And in fact Stott upheld the Pauline principle of male headship. See his BST commentary on 1 Timothy (p86).
ReplyDeleteMany of us are very grateful for Stott's measured approach and resistance to partisan, political affiliations within evangelicalism.
ReplyDeleteClearly those who are broadly comfortable with the decision the General Synod made in 1992 will take such a view.
ReplyDeleteThose of us who believe that the decision was contrary to Holy Scripture and therefore not good for the Church of England take a different view.