Confusion at the Evangelical Centre

Bishop of Durham Tom Wright has employed his considerable intellect and skill as a rhetorician in a passionate (almost vitiriolic?) critique of the covenant mentioned in a previous post (see here). Wright's comments can be found HERE.

He makes some valid points in many respects, comments which must sting coming from a self-confessed evangelical. He may well be right about the political inadequacy and bad-timing of the covenant, I'm not sure. He also exposes the fact that the model of ecclesiology assumed in the covenant is not exactly in line with traditional Anglican thought as he sees it. IMHO these valid points he makes probably demonstrate the ultimate untenability of evangelicals remaining within the CofE as it currently stands, rather than strengthening the case for Wright's methodology for achieving reform.

More worryingly, the Bishop seems to 'buy' the popular representation of the type of evangelicals he is criticising. At the same time he seems to sincerely believe that the majority of the bishops in this country are orthodox and that things are in a generally decent condition in the CofE. From my limited experience, I certainly do not recognise the CofE Wright seems to be living in.

This more positive picture relies partly on a dogged belief that whilst the paper definitions of the denomination remain orthodox all is relatively well. This, I would contend, is position hard to maintain in the face of long-term ignorance of and deviation from these paper definitions.

Thus, one of the major differences between Tom Wright's approach and those of his opponents seems to be Wright's faith in the structures to produce reform and renewal. Of course this is no surprise since he is a Bishop and who'd want to be a Bishop unless you believed that inhabiting the structures of the CofE would effect change? I do wonder however if Wright could ever conceive of a situation where revolt against and within the structures of the CofE would be valid, when it would be right to seek alternative oversight, when it would be ok to disobey central authorities for the sake of the gospel.

Anglican Fellowship

Curious developments in the Church of England (taken from Anglican Mainstream website read here.):

A small group met with the Archbishop of Canterbury on Tuesday December 12 and presented A Covenant for the Church of England on behalf of a wide group of Evangelical and Charismatic members of the Church of England with the support of a number of Anglo-Catholic leaders.

The Covenant is the fruit of an ongoing process reacting not to a few local or immediate difficulties but responding to widespread concerns in the national and global church.

The group were listened to carefully and as a result of the meeting it was agreed that there would be further discussion of the issues raised in the Covenant to find a way to maintain the unity in truth of the Church of England.

Click here for the covenant itself.

After a quick read, the covenant seems pretty direct and is a very welcome development as far as I'm concerned. And I am supportive of what my brothers and sisters (who are older, wiser and more godly than I) are trying to do in making this important (perhaps historically significant?) move.

But, as always for me with questions regarding the CofE, one thing nags at the back of my mind. And it's this phrase:

...with the support of a number of Anglo-Catholic leaders...

Call me uncharitable (and yes, I don't know the individuals Anglo-Catholics involved or what they believe etc. etc.), but I find it very difficult to be satisfied with a rallying call which fails to address the differences between Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical theology. I'm totally unconvinced that the problem in the CofE is only with liberalism. I'm not prepared to say that the matters over which Anglo-catholics and Evangelicals are often divided are of no consequence to fellowship. But that's maybe one of the reasons I'm not a CofE ordinand (although I am currently a member of a CofE congregation).

Maybe I'm reading too much into the covenant but talk of a developing two-way division in the Church seems to me to be a papering over of the other major division(s?). Said enough now, better shut up.

(It strikes me that these posts and comments are sort of relevant to this issue in some way)

1966 and all that

Following on from comments in a lecture this afternoon, some might find THIS an interesting read. It's my brief thoughts after reading the first volume of Dr D. M. Lloyd-Jones' biography by Iain Murray and offers an insight into something of the ministry and legacy of the man other than the controversy surrounding 1966.

Whilst on that subject, suffice to say I am of the opinion that Lloyd-Jones has been proved right in much of what he called for and warned against back then, even if the results of his disagreement with Stott were tragically damaging. And it is interesting to note that many of John Stott's heirs at least implicitly recognise the rightness of some of the Doctor's insights. Evangelical Anglicans (conservative ones anyway), who are John Stott's closest theological heirs, have been spearheading the 'gospel partnership' movement, whilst those evangelicals who've most rigorously pursued the politics of Keele have often (not always of course, but often) gone on to lose sight of John Stott's gospel. I say this tentatively and humbly, and in full knowledge that hindsight is a wonderful thing, all the while prayerful that the mistakes I make in my life (whether theologically or politically) don't damage the cause of the gospel too much.

Perhaps I will dare to comment more when I have finished reading the second volume of the Lloyd-Jones book and the relevant Stott volumes.