The Anglo-Catholics have a home to go to in the Ordinariate once
women bishops are appointed in the Church of England. But what about
conservative evangelicals in Reform?
Once a single
clause women bishops' measure is enacted, as seems almost certain after
the next General Synod elections, will we as a constituency knuckle
under and accept the unbiblical innovation or will we be moved to take
radical action?
The reality is that for us women
bishops are not an isolated departure from biblical truth in the Church
of England. The allowance of clergy and now bishops in civil
partnerships is a concern on top of the heretical teachings the
institutional Church has been tolerating and indeed promoting for
decades.
If the Church of England becomes like TEC,
large evangelical flagships could leave the institutional structures and
carry on proclaiming the Lord Jesus Christ in their local communities
as confessing Anglican churches. Yes, it would involve leaving their
buildings, which is a messy and tiresome business. But there are recent
precedents for this. St George's Tron in Glasgow - now The Tron Church
out of the Church of Scotland - did it before Christmas. Orthodox
Anglican congregations in the United States and Canada have been doing
it for several years now. A whole diocese is doing it in South Carolina.
It's do-able for the large and well-resourced churches.
But
what about smaller conservative evangelical churches? In the Church of
England, conservative evangelical succession for smaller churches is
difficult to secure even without women bishops. With the worsening
financial situation in many dioceses, churches are increasingly being
amalgamated across the traditions making it very difficult to guarantee
that Christ's sheep in a small church will not be thrown to a liberal
wolf or wolfess.
Could conservative evangelical church
planting networks provide sound biblical ministry for such smaller
congregations? This type of network, originally deriving from an
established evangelical flagship but developing outside the
institutional structures of the Church of England, is a growing
phenomenon in cities. Could they act as minster churches for small
ex-parish churches leaving the Church of England?
Leaving
their buildings for a congregation of 40 or so adults would actually be
quite liberating, They would be spared the expense of maintaining them.
Meeting in a school or a community centre would be a lot easier and
cheaper.
Under this scenario, a nearby church plant
would provide a Bible teacher from their staff team who would travel
into that community on a Sunday or on some other day of the week when
the church family chose to meet. He would not be resident in the local
community, which is arguably not ideal. But that is better than a wolf
with a lair in residence. The sound man could teach the Scriptures and
train leaders in the small church but the day to day ministry and
outreach would be the responsibility of the resident congregation.
For
it to work, church planters would need to resist the temptation to
poach committed Christian people from those congregations who would
benefit their church plants. A servant-hearted vision for
community-based ministry would be the spiritual key to the success of
such ventures.
Can our church planters rise above the
temptation to empire-build? If they can, then our constituency has a
fighting chance of perpetuating Reformed Anglican ministry outside the
institutional structures.
We could have a home to go to.
Cranmer's Curate wishes the youth group a Happy New Year. Wasn't the Collect for the Epiphany a corker? -
O
God, who by the leading of a star didst manifest thy only-begotten Son
to the Gentiles: Mercifully grant, that we, which know thee now by
faith, may after this life have the fruition of thy glorious Godhead;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
An interesting idea but is it a practical one? Yes, because with the Spirit's guidance everything is possible. And would it make such newly formed churches 21st century " new Methodists?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that a person commuting into a community said teacher does not live in, would be conducting a ministry recognised in any known way as reformed or Anglican.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought such a method would only be temporary. The eventual goal should always be for a congregation to grow to the stage where it can call and support its own minister and family.
ReplyDeleteThe commment about methodists is a good one. One difference between now and the 18th century is that such "new methodists" would be able to call on foreign primates for recognition and oversight. Through them they would have fellowship and episcopal links with the majority of Anglicans all over the world. Thus there would never be a need for them to cease to be Anglican.
Not that I'm on that side in this debate, but does the Westminster Fellowship from Way Back When (Lloyd-Jones) offer aspects of a model?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how they handled support of fellow-travellers running smaller churches.
Sorry this excellent comment was accidentally rejected
ReplyDeletePhilip has left a new comment on your post "COULD CHURCH PLANTING NETWORKS BE REFORM'S ORDINAR...":
The other side of the buildings argument that churches may appreciate being free from the burden of maintaining buildings etc, is that problem with outcomes whereby churches lose their buildings means the loss of a point of contact with the community. People go to the local parish church for things like Christmas and baptisms etc, which are major Gospel-sharing opportunities. (Hundreds extra who came to my church at Christmas and heard the Gospel proclaimed by the vicar.) If faithful Bible-believing churches are forced out of their buildings, which looks inevitable (unless somehow buildings and vicarages etc can be declared the property of individual congregations), then it seems a whole lot more people in our communities will end up under the influence of the ministry of 'wolves in residence', rather than hearing the Gospel.
Also I wouldn't be surprised if Bible-based congregations might in the future find it more difficult to hire buildings. I think I recall that couple of years ago that one church in Surrey that was told they could no longer use a school hall because the church used the (old) NIV which was objected to because 1 Cor 6:9 in that version refers to homosexual "offenders". I don't know what the outcome was for that church
This illustrates my point that Bible-believing churches may find it difficult to hire buildings, certainly public-sector run ones like village and school halls etc - the redefinition of marriage is likely to lead to churches that refuse to conduct same-sex weddings being refused the use of such premises.
Deletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262458/David-Cameron-CofE-open-sued-human-rights-legislation.html
Julian, you can probably guess what I'm about to say, but it is anyway:
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Once a single clause women bishops' measure is enacted, as seems almost certain after the next General Synod elections, will we as a constituency knuckle under and accept the unbiblical innovation or will we be moved to take radical action? The reality is that for us women bishops are not an isolated departure from biblical truth in the Church of England."
Please stop elevating what is simply a theological opinion to the level of Biblical truth.
As I have said before, you would be most offended if someone with Baptist convictions were to berate your paedobaptist views as "unbiblical" (and please give me one place in the Bible where a baby is recorded as being baptised). Yet you happily denigrate women bishops, and by implication their supporters, using this same word.
Paedobaptism and credobaptism are obviously mutually exclusive, and both camps cannot be right. You would, I hope, say that there is a difference of theological opinion amongst Christians on this subject, and differences are not a test of orthodoxy.
So why do you not take the same approach over gender roles in ministry? You are treating fellow evangelicals like myself (who are actually very conservative) as outcasts, not as family. This is not going to help resolve our differences and I don't believe it is honouring to God.
I believe that the Church of England needs conservative evangelicals, as do open and charismatic anglical evangelicals. But so long as you take the view that anyone whose understanding of the Bible differs to yours has "departed from Biblical truth", our relationships will be strained.
In other words, a bit of humility is called for. You and I are brothers in the Lord, we love God and His word, and we are walking together as followers of Jesus, trying to understand and apply the Bible in the Church as well as in our lives. Compared to the essentials of our shared faith, the question of whether leadership is male is a secondary matter. So let's not make it a reason for schism.
Ian, please stop elevating what is simply your personal opinion to the level of biblical truth.
ReplyDeleteSome of the logic in your post is hard to fathom: your credobaptist/paedobaptist argument supports Julian's position and cuts the ground from under your own position - since credos and paedos are in different denominations and have been so for centuries, you have just supplied an excellent analogy for why those who differ on the issue of women bishops should also be in different denominations!
Your own argument, not mine.
"You are treating fellow evangelicals like myself (who are actually very conservative) as outcasts, not as family."
No, he is disagreeing with you. It happens. You need to get used to it.
"In other words, a bit of humility is called for."
Its always interesting to see demands that others show more humility!
"Compared to the essentials of our shared faith, the question of whether leadership is male is a secondary matter."
Sorry Ian, but that argument is not going to wash anymore. The vindictive behaviour of the liberals in the Episcopal Church of the USA over the last 8 years or so, and the incredible gnashing rage of the liberals in CofE at the recent Synod vote, all show that it is the liberals who will never compromise. They intend to drive out and eliminate those who disagree with them on so-called "secondary matters", and anyone who tries to fool themselves otherwise is hopelessly naive. Julian and others who prepare the way for leaving are simply demonstrating common sense.
If you really want to stop people leaving, then start taking their issues and concerns seriously. Until you do, you won't have any credibility.
MichaelA,
ReplyDeleteSorry to disagree.
I have never claimed that any of my views are "Biblical truth", which is what Julian regularly does. They are simply my understanding of the Bible, which may be right or wrong. That's the difference between Julian and I - Julian thinks he has the right to describe his views as "Biblical truth", which I regard as arrogance.
Regarding credobaptism and paedobaptism, my point is not about different denominations. My point is that it is absurd to refer to something as "Biblical truth" in one denomination but "heresy" in another. It is a logical impossibility. And just as Julian would take offence at being called a heretic by a Baptist on account of his paedobaptist beliefs, so I take offence at him calling me a heretic on account of my egalitarian beliefs.
My key point is that we all have different convictions on all sorts of subjects. It is unhelpful to take an "I'm right you're wrong" attitude and it is downright insulting to call people you disagree with "heretics".
Julian isn't just disagreeing with me (which would be fine), he's calling me a heretic. That's not how christians should treat each other.
And incidentally, I'm not a liberal and I'm not vindictive.
Ian, I understand what you're saying - although Julian didn't say "heretic" in relation to the WB issue. However, do please be aware that the moment CEs are pushed out of the CoE on this account, the position of remaining evangelicals such as yourself (still "very conservative" as you say) will be one of extreme insecurity.
DeleteThis is because having been co-opted once or twice in pursuit of certain steps along the liberal agenda, you will soon be forced to confront your very own Rubicon over the next steps - presumably over gay clergy/bishops/'weddings', or it may be something else.
In this way you will find that the issues currently exercising CE leaders such as Julian, will be yours to grapple with just five, ten or fifteen years down the line. May I recommend that you begin that planning process in good time?
After all, the vindictiveness of the pseudo-liberals which MichaelA described so well, is not going to be confined to just the WB vote business, but will in due course be trained on anyone (including yourself) who opposes their ongoing "equality/justice" agenda.
Meanwhile, re. your challenge to show where a baby was baptised in the Bible - fine, whenever you show where a redhead was baptised. Salvation is open to persons of all ages and hair colours alike - so why not baptism also?
Dan
Well done Cranmer's Curate on talking some sense into the present situation. We need to prepare to be squeezed out of the Church, but we have the Lord and the majority of Anglicans overseas to support us. I agree that the buildings could be a great pastoral loss, but so are cold, inflexibla and unfriendly ones.
ReplyDeleteMike Keulemans
Just a point about Ian's post asking us to accept different interpretations of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteAlas, this is one of our Achilles heels as Evangelicals and gets us into all sorts of messes. We urgently need to accept the Catholic rule about how to interpret Holy Scripture, i.e. that it must be interpreted as orthodox Christians have always interpreted it in every place and at every time. The definition of St. Vincent of Lerins would put paid to all our present problems with women bishops and marriage and nip a lot of other problems in the bud.
There is no such thing as an "open" Evangelical. If you are open to unhistorical views of Scripture, you are not an Evangelical at all. You may be what you like, but you do not stand in the great tradition of Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Whitfield, Newton, Simeon and a host of other great men of God. Let's use words correctly please.
Mike Keulemans
If the institution claims to own the building, why not give them the maintenance bills?
ReplyDeleteJulian, as you are based in the Sheffield area, you presumably have first hand knowledge of evangelical church planting networks based around St Thomas Crookes and Christ Church Fulwood. Are these the models which were in your mind when you wrote this post? Are you aware of other networks in other parts of the country?
ReplyDeleteThank you for this - you may it helpful to read this press release on Anglican Mainstream: http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/02/18/ordination-in-kenya-of-minister-in-anglican-church-plant-in-sheffield/#more-70809
ReplyDeleteIn other parts of the country, the Co-Mission Initiative in London has been very pro-active.