PRECARIOUSNESS OF CofE REFUSAL TO HOST CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS

The Church of England has declared its opposition to its buildings being used for civil partnership ceremonies, but an ominous question mark must hang over the security of that commitment.

Clearly, it is to be hoped that the line holds. But can an institution that allows its clergy to enter into civil partnerships be relied upon to hold the line?

The shameful fact that openly immoral clergy continue to hold licences to officiate does not inspire confidence. Nor does the recent news that the Church of England is trialling an application form for posts that will not ask clergy about their marital status.

The change is supported by those who perceive ordained ministry as akin to a secular career where a person's private life is divorced from their capability for the job. But this essentially Clintonesque approach is contradicted by both the Pastoral Epistles of the New Testament and by the biblical doctrine of the Church of England as expressed liturgically in its Book of Common Prayer.

The Apostle Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus could not be clearer that the marital and family circumstances of church leaders are decisive for their suitability for office (cf 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). And the BCP Ordinal, reflecting the biblical doctrine of the Church of England, enjoins clergy to 'be diligent to fashion your own own selves, and your families, according to the doctrine of Christ'.

Anyone who thinks that Anglican doctrine embraces politically correct 'diversity' in its conception of the family would be advised to read the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony according to the Book of Common Prayer. It makes clear that the first God-ordained purpose of heterosexual, monogamous, life-long marriage is 'for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name'.

The Roman Catholic Church's refusal to host civil partnerships has a robust theological basis judging by the statement from the Archbishop of Southwark, the Most Reverend Peter Smith:

Marriage does not belong to the state any more than it belongs to the church. It is a fundamental human institution rooted in human nature itself. It is a lifelong commitment of a man and a woman to each other, publicly entered into, for their mutual wellbeing and for the procreation and upbringing of children.

Unfortunately, such clarity exposes the precariousness of the Church of England's current stance against civil partnership ceremonies on its premises.

EDMUND GRINDAL AND THE NEED TO UPHOLD BIBLICAL INERRANCY

Cranmer's Curate this week spent a lovely four days at Wycliffe Hall, in the company of Archbishop Edmund Grindal (c1519-1583) and J. Weingreen's classical Hebrew grammar, on a study break cum retreat. He thanks the administrative staff very much indeed for making his time out of the parochial front-line so refreshing.

Patrick Collinson's 1979 biography of the Elizabethan Archbishop of Canterbury who clashed with the Queen because of his refusal to suppress local preaching classes, known as 'prophesyings', was a wonderful book to read in the library of an Anglican evangelical theological college.

In the course of his spiritual reflections at Wycliffe, it struck your curate forcibly that the need for a clear conviction about biblical inerrancy is the underlying issue facing the modern Church.

Inerrancy is essentially the conviction that the Bible does not err in the theological, moral and historical truths that the God of all truth wishes to reveal to mankind this side of the Second Coming.

The truth of God's Word written is inseparably linked with its supreme authority in the Church because, unlike human reason and experience and church tradition, the Bible is unerring.

Incidentally, inerrantists have to work harder at biblical interpretation than liberals. We must pay careful attention to the literary genre through which God wills to communicate his truth, to questions of authorial intent and to the unfolding salvific narrative of the Bible.

It is the case that a robust notion of biblical inerrancy has become necessary because of the institutional ascendancy of liberalism in the mainline Protestant Churches since the 19th century. But Grindal's struggle for biblical authority was closely related to the struggle inerrantists face in the modern Church. It was surely his commitment to the truth of the Word of God written and its supreme authority in the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ that got him into trouble.

Professor Collinson shows convincingly that to describe Grindal as a 'Puritan' Archbishop out of sorts with the 'via media' institutional flavour of the Church of England is to read the 1640s into the 1570s. It is anachronistic. Grindal was a moderate Calvinist episcopolian dedicated to the Reformed doctrine of the national Church as expressed in its 39 Articles of Religion and their commitment to God's Word written.

Biblical inerrancy is thus a belief that belongs to the mainstream of Anglicanism - it cannot be dismissed as a hobby horse for narrow-minded bigots with loose commitment to the Church of England.

To be reminded of that at Wycliffe Hall was both apposite and spiritually energising.

GONGS, MARGINALISATION, REFORM & FISHING PLATFORMS

Some evangelicals do get made bishops and some gain gongs for services to the Church of England, but not if they join the Reform Council.

What Reform stands for is too counter-cultural to earn garlands from a compromised church and a politically-correct world. So anyone wanting to stand firm for the classic evangelical convictions Reform stands for can kiss good-bye to that purple shirt or Birthday Honour.

Which is one reason why we should thank God for the spiritual courage of those men and women who do volunteer to serve on the Council.

Reform chairman Rod Thomas says the Council decided not to form a Society purely for the purpose of providing episcopal oversight for those opposed to women bishops because

the effect might be to marginalise us. We needed to show that we occupied, and argued our case from, the middle ground.

Below the news story about this on this blog Ugley Vicar Revd John Richardson pointed out that Reform is already institutionally marginalised in the Church of England. Evidence: one Reform bishop appiointed since the network formed in 1993 and he a suffragan of Lewes, the Rt Revd Wallace Benn.

Who can argue with the prophet Richardson on that? But just because Reform is institutionally marginalised does not mean that what it stands for is marginal in terms of what the living God is doing in his world - building his Kingdom through the transforming power of the true biblical gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

So why worry about the institutional 'middle ground'? It may constitute a raised platform at the centre of the pond. But below the surface and indeed increasingly above it, the wood is rotten to the core.

That is why it makes sense to build a fishing platform adjacent to the rotting one that is firmly established on the Reform Covenant. It may not be as fancy. But there are some nice people on the rotting one who are willing to lend a supporting hand, just as they are for the Anglo-Catholics who are building a SSWSH platform.

A fishing platform with the Reform Covenant as its basis has the significant advantage of being theologically coherent on the male headship issue unlike one built on the Jerusalem Declaration.

RELOCATING THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION

This appeared in February's New Directions:

Julian Mann explains why the current location of Anglican evangelical theological colleges is not ideal for the challenges of twenty-first-century mission

If it was ever right to locate Anglican evangelical theological colleges in Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, the needs of biblically faithful ministry and evangelism in twenty-first-century Britain urgently call for a re-think. The question is now whether these rarefied and socially elitist collegiate universities are the right environments for the training of Christ’s missionaries to the United Kingdom.

Late Victorian Anglican evangelicals wanted theological colleges in influential universities to combat the rise of Anglo-Catholic ritualism. But the centralization of Anglican evangelical theological training in Oxbridge was one factor that undermined the broad social base of our movement in the eighteenth-century revival. As the twentieth century unfolded, Anglican evangelicalism became more socially narrow, southern-based and obsessed with ‘strategy’, i.e. reaching the influential upper echelons of society.

In the face of the twenty-first-century missionary challenge, why not move Ridley Hall, Cambridge, to Luton; Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, to Leicester; and Cranmer Hall, Durham, to Darlington or Middlesbrough? Arguably, Trinity Bristol, though not suffering quite the same locational disadvantages as the above three, might be better off in Swindon.

There is a good argument for moving either Ridley or Wycliffe to the north-west of England, which currently does not have a residential theological college – in which case Blackburn, Lancashire, would be a very strong contender. There are several advantages of relocation to such multicultural cities and towns.

Firstly, it would sort out the motivation of the teaching staff, weeding out the career academics wanting to associate with the big published names at a collegiate university. Staff willing to take up posts in Luton, Leicester, Darlington, Middlesbrough or Blackburn are much more likely to be committed to training men and women for front-line Bible ministry in a diversity of communities.

Secondly, moving ordinands out of the collegiate cocoon would set a much better tone for future ministry. Their placements in local churches would be much more varied, cross-cultural and socially challenging. Trainees would gain experience in unfamiliar situations where they would see the need for risk-taking and self-sacrifice in ministry. This could help to break the evangelical gravitational pull towards the safety of affluent southern suburbia.

Thirdly, ordinands would no longer be distracted from the core purpose of theological education. That is to gain a theological grounding in preparation for a lifetime of Word ministry and some practical experience of the diversity of Gospel opportunities in the Church of England. The denomination is not paying for them to do student ministry on the cheap for evangelical networks and churches in Oxbridge and Durham.

It is important to stress that this is not about middleclass guilt or inverted snobbery. If I may make a personal comment, I hugely enjoyed Cambridge as an undergraduate. This issue is about mission: does not the unchanging Gospel of eternal salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone urgently call Anglican evangelicals to break free of late Victorian priorities in the training of Gospel ministers to the nation?

Julian Mann is vicar of the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire

REFORM REPORTS PROGRESS ON PANEL OF ORTHODOX BISHOPS

This news story by Cranmer's Curate appeared on the US-based orthodox Anglican news service VirtueOnline:

Revd Rod Thomas, chairman of UK Anglican Evangelical network Reform, reports significant progress on the development of a biblically orthodox Society within the Church of England with its own panel of bishops.

In his latest newsletter to the 1600-strong membership including 500 clergy, he reveals that the Reform Council has decided that the new Society announced at the October 2010 conference would not be formed "purely for the purpose of providing episcopal oversight for those who cannot accept women bishops. Not only was it unlikely that the General Synod would respond in a way that would be adequate but the effect might be to marginalise us. We needed to show that we occupied, and argued our case from, the middle ground. However, the development of a broader based Society, able to operate with its own panel of bishops across a range of issues could be a positive development".

He reports that "a considerable amount of work has been done on this within the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) in the UK and an initial panel of (existing) bishops has been proposed. The Primates of the FCA worldwide have also been consulted. The doctrinal basis of the Society would be the Jerusalem Statement agreed at GAFCON in 2008. There might be two categories of membership – one for those who were supportive but who had no immediate ministry need, and another for those who did need alternative episcopal oversight".

Mr Thomas continues: "The existence of such a panel of bishops could well be a help to the English House of Bishops in dealing with the current dilemma over women bishops. One possibility is that the House of Bishops may decide that in the light of the consultations in the dioceses, the present legislative proposals should be amended in order to provide better safeguards for those who are opposed to them. If this turns out to be the case, they might be open to positive proposals for changes that would enable parishes to have oversight from a recognised panel of bishops."

He argues that "quite apart from the issue of women bishops, the formation of a Society could help in situations where irregular ordinations have had to take place over the last few years or will be taking place in the future. Where the ordinands involved have been through the Reform Panel of Reference, there is every reason to commend them and their congregations to the FCA’s initial panel of bishops for recognition and oversight. The Reform Council was warmly supportive of this – and supportive too of the idea that in due course a way should be found to give all those involved a public welcome".

He concludes: "Needless to say, there is still much work to be done on all these proposals. In order to help the process, the Council agreed to set up a joint working group with Church Society to consider how a future panel of bishops might be selected."

THE CAMERON DECLARATION: CHRISTIAN ISSUES THAT NEED RESOLVING

This section of Prime Minister David Cameron's Munich Security Conference speech is highly significant for desirable orthodox Christian engagement in British civic life:

Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism. A passively tolerant society says to its citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It stands neutral between different values. A genuinely liberal country does much more. It believes in certain values and actively promotes them. Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality. It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe in these things.

The New Testament exhorts Christians 'to strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord' (Hebrews 12v14 - RSV). In the light of Mr Cameron's call for social coherence and our New Testament imperative to pursue civic peace and maintain our Christian integrity, efforts need to be made to resolve the following outstanding issues between us and government:

• Does 'a genuinely liberal country' understand that freedom of worship for a Christian means the ability to present his or her body as a 'living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God' (Romans 12v1)? That means worship affects the whole of life, and is not confined to what Christians say or do in church or in their private devotions.

• What should be the outcome in a genuinely liberal country when freedom of worship and a perception of equal rights clash as happened in the Cornish B&B case?

• Will a genuinely liberal country allow churches and indeed other religious organisations to employ people for a range of roles who adhere to their beliefs on faith and morals?

• Will a genuinely liberal country allow Christians and others publicly to point out what they see as the theological and moral errors of the Koran without being proscribed for 'Islamophobia'?

• Will a genuinely liberal country allow Christians and others to proclaim and uphold their belief that the expression of sexual love should be exclusively reserved for heterosexual marriage without being proscribed for 'homophobia'?

• Will a genuinely liberal country be pro-active in protecting those who wish to convert from one religion to another?

• Will a genuinely liberal country allow traditionalist Christians to incarnate different roles for the sexes in the ordering of their corporate worship? And will it recognise the fact that the mainline churches go about this in a very different way from Mosques?

Christian volunteerism and caring social action are a vitally important part of our witness to the Lord Jesus Christ. As spending cuts kick in, local churches are well placed in communities to serve our fellow men and women, particularly the elderly, in practical deeds of loving service.

The other imperative towards active social engagement by orthodox Christians is the fact that we are or should be firmly on the side of law and order and supportive of government in its responsibility to wield the sword of justice. We are or should be supportive of Mr Cameron's indictment of a cultural climate that has allowed Islamist terrorism to breed.

And we are or should be supportive of the promotion of civic peace by counter-acting a cultural isolationism that feeds off the welfare state.

Mr Cameron's Munich declaration highlights the urgency of resolving our issues for the sake of gospel proclamation, Christian social action, and civic peace.

TIME TO START RECRUITING FOR ST AUGUSTINE'S

Surely it does not take much to get an ecclesial Society for Reformed Anglicans up and running.

It just takes a group of credible and respected Anglican Evangelical leaders to register a charity, set up a website and start recruiting members.

The model is the Anglo-Catholic Society of St Wilfred & St Hilda. Even Cranmer’s Curate was able to click the right button and fill in the simple online form in order to join it.

It is ironic that the Anglo-Catholics are setting the pace here. Their churches tend to be smaller and have an older age profile than our Anglican Evangelical churches. Yet they are proving to be the whizz kids in the creative use of internet technology and social networking in the cause of Christian orthodoxy.

There is in fact already a website for the Society of St Augustine. According to Thinking Anglicans, it is registered in the name of Canon Chris Sugden, executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream.

If progress on setting up St Augustine’s has stalled in the councils of leading Reformed Anglicans, surely it is fairly straightforward to get the ball rolling – just soup up the existing site so it can take members, and post up some aims, prayer requests and some membership criteria.

These would need to include commitment to:

• pray for St Augustine's and its leaders

• the biblical doctrine and mission of the Church of England

• a structured provision with jurisdiction for those who remain committed to the Church of England but believe that Holy Scripture teaches that it is inappropriate for women to be presbyters or bishops

• the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 on human sexuality.

As for the argument that St Augustine's would isolate Reformed Anglicans from the rest of the Church of England, a few things need to be said:

• That could be an argument against joining Reform.

• Unless we Reformed Anglicans get serious about forming our own ecclesial structure, our movement will become confined to large churches in affluent areas of the south of England, homogeneous church plants and proprietary chapels as liberalism gets further incarnated in the Church of England. That would be regional and socio-demographic isolation.

• Forming an ecclesial Society is a perfectly Reformed thing to do. There is nothing unevangelical about churches supporting one another in ministry and mission and indeed in sharing godly episcopal oversight.

In fact, it is strongly arguable that Christ’s mission in the UK would be greatly strengthened by an Anglican Evangelical Society led by gospel-preaching, Bible-believing bishops.

NO, THE 39 ARTICLES ARE NOT 'LOST PROPERTY'

This review of Dr Gerald Bray's exposition of the Church of England's 39 Articles of Religion appeared in February's edition of Evangelicals Now under the interrogative headline 'Lost Property?'.

The answer to the EN sub-editor's question is - no, the 39 Articles are not lost property, for Canon A5 affirms that, along with the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal, they express the biblical doctrine of the Church of England.

THE FAITH WE CONFESS:
An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles
Gerald Bray
The Latimer Trust, pp236, £9.99 (£8 online from Latimer)
ISBN 978-0-946307-84-5

Dr Bray uses his profound depth of doctrinal and historical knowledge to unearth the firm evangelical foundations of the Church of England.

The established Church is currently in big problems but Latimer's director of research shows that its 39 Articles of Religion contain sound biblical doctrine.

That is why The Faith we Confess deserves to be recommended reading for evangelicals considering Anglican ministry and should inspire confidence.

But it is also helpful for church members. Because it is a collection of pithy essays on each Article, with an excellent introduction, it can be used for example at a church council meeting. I used part of his essay on the Three Creeds (Article 8) at a PCC recently.

I had to point out that there was some specialist language, a bit of Latin and one German location I could not pronounce but that if we listened carefully we would know more about the two creeds we say regularly in church – the Nicene and the Apostles’ – at the end than we did at the beginning.

Dr Bray lucidly shows how Article 8, characteristically of the 39, treats the Bible as the supreme authority:

Acceptance of the creeds was common to the main Reformation churches, but the reasons for this were different from the ones usually put forward by the Roman Catholic Church or sometimes advocated by ecumenical bodies today. The latter like to refer to the tradition of the church, and the more universal that tradition is, the more acceptable is the creed...Article 8 advocates accepting the creeds not for traditional reasons, but because they state the clear and unequivocal teaching of Holy Scripture (p56).

So no ambiguity there. The Christ we confess in the creeds rules his church by ‘God’s Word written’ (as Article 20 refers to the Bible).