What is The Church of England Evangelical Council Up To? Some Autobiographical Reflections

by Charles Read, a priest in the Diocese of Norwich and a  former member of General Synod who works in theological and ministerial education across East Anglia and continental Europe

In its response to Living in Love and Faith (LLF), The Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) has said that evangelicals need separate structures in the Church of England. This has puzzled many people, including many evangelicals.

CEEC was set up in the 1960s by John Stott. The evangelical wing of the Church of England had been in decline for some time. You might trace this back to the very negative and reactionary response of evangelicals to the later Oxford Movement in the 19th century but certainly by the 1920s the future in the Church of England was Anglo-Catholic with great congresses and Prayer Book revision which leaned in a clearly Catholic direction.

The evangelical resurgence came after the Second World War and by the 1960s was growing, but evangelicals remained a minority voice in the Church of England. John Stott, rector of All Souls Langham Place in London, was acknowledged as the leader of this growing section of the church. One of the things which Stott was good at was organising and putting in place structures of support. He founded CEEC to bring different evangelical groups together for networking and support. It was not a campaigning group in those early days, and has only become so quite recently.

I was born in the 1960s in a single-parent family in a fairly prosperous village in Staffordshire, although our family was not at all prosperous and we lived in some of the very small amount of rented accommodation in the village. The only religious options in the village were the Methodist Chapel and the Church of England church. This latter was evangelical in its tradition with strong evangelical patronage from the Martyrs’ Memorial Trust. However, like most evangelical Anglican churches at the time, it had a clear vision of being there for everybody in the community. So although my family were not churchgoers on a regular basis, apart from my uncle and his wife who were Salvationists, I was duly baptised in this local church.

When the vicar introduced a Family Service once a month, my mother took me along. (It was evangelicals who invented family services in the 1960s.) She sent me to Sunday school on the other Sundays but by the time I got to secondary school I had lapsed out of this. I started going to the school Christian Union because it was somewhere warm to go during the long lunch break! It was run by the head of RE who happened to be a Reader in the village church where I lived. He persuaded me to go to the church youth group (Pathfinders) on a Sunday morning and it was through the ministry of this group that I became a Christian in 1973.

Growing up in this kind of evangelical Anglican church, I recall that we did not expect a bishop to share our theological convictions. We were only three miles from Lichfield but did not see the Bishop of Lichfield very often. We welcomed him warmly when he came and we took people off to the cathedral for confirmation, including me. We assumed that bishops would be theologically liberal and liturgically Catholic and we had no problem with that – it was just how it was. When Maurice Wood became Bishop of Norwich in 1971 there was much rejoicing that an evangelical had become a diocesan Bishop. (People did not generally think back to Ryle in Liverpool some decades earlier or to the 19th century evangelical bishops.)

From this sketch of my early experiences of church life as a child and teenager, I hope you might see the fact that evangelicals like us were happy to be who we were in a church where we were a minority, and where we did not expect to find bishops, archdeacons or diocesan staff who shared our theological views. We just got along with such people, and in the parish we got on with preaching a message of God’s love and salvation open to all, if they would simply turn to God and accept Jesus as their saviour. I was never aware of being rejected because I came from a single-parent family and my unmarried mother was never rejected by the local church either. This is a far cry from the judgmentalism of the first CEEC video which was produced in response to LLF where, in passing, at least one participant speaks about children growing up in single-parent families ending up in a life of delinquency and crime because of the absence of a father. I am afraid that I did not get the memo and so, rather than enter a life of crime and anti-social behaviour, I became a Christian and ended up in full-time Christian ministry as a priest. I can only apologise to CEEC that I missed my preordained vocation. I am too old now to embark on a spree of delinquency but I am doing my best to cause disruption at Diocesan Synod and I hope that will do.

We did not, in those days, want or ask for separate structures in order to flourish. Gradually, we learned how to work within the structures of the Church of England and to bring some evangelical witness into things. Many of us learned to appreciate things in other parts of the Church of England which we evangelicals did not have. It’s true that evangelicalism was probably more united then than it is today, even within one denomination. When Anglican evangelicals met evangelicals from other denominations we found we might disagree over things like infant baptism but we put such disagreements to one side. (With the re-emergence of Charismatic Christianity in the 1960s, a fault line did appear amongst Anglican evangelicals.) Nowadays it is common to think that there might be several different tribes of Anglican evangelicals and often they are not speaking to each other very much.

The CEEC was supposed to bring these different tribes together but in fact has become increasingly associated with the conservative evangelical tribe. It has long since ceased to represent the breath of evangelicalism within the Church of England. As such, its claim to speak for evangelicals in the Church of England is difficult to take seriously. Very few evangelical bishops are associated with it (and there are a lot more of them now than there were in 1971!).

We managed with bishops who were theologically and liturgically different from us and we never thought it would be appropriate to insist on a Bishop who thought and worshipped in the way that we did. This was all part of being committed to being part of the Church of England. In more recent years, evangelical Anglicans have not needed separate structures over such issues as divorce and remarriage and very few have opted into the provision of a ‘flying Bishop’ – largely because most Anglican evangelicals support the ordination of women. The suggestion from CEEC that we have separate bishops and separate structures in the light of LLF is truly puzzling, not least to those of us who have grown up evangelical. Is this an attempt at setting up a pure church? Who knows – but it is a novel move within Church of England evangelicalism. I am glad to have come to faith and grown up in the welcoming, inclusive and truly Anglican evangelicalism of my youth. I do not recognise myself or this type of evangelicalism in the pronouncements of CEEC.

 

 

 

 

Comments

38 responses to “What is The Church of England Evangelical Council Up To? Some Autobiographical Reflections”

  1. Joseph avatar
    Joseph

    You raise many interesting points. My thinking is evangelical Christianity means different things to different people nowadays. In 1960s, the mainstream Christianity had a more uniform theology. However now, Christianity under pressure from secularism, scepticism, other religions and more importantly public opinion has many strains giving the impression that evangelical Christians are disunited. They are, I think all want to be biblically-based.

    Many studies say that children from troubled families, single parent, absentee-father families struggle later in life. You are blessed in this respect. Maybe a good extended-family network helped? Maybe you had a fantastic mum?Maybe being god-fearing helped? I struggled in my teens before settling down.

    The issues facing CofE now are a deeply troubling one. It’s a conflict between biblical/revealed view of Christianity v a Christianity which blends biblical principles with ethics and public opinion. I don’t see how these two views can inhibit the same public space. They have to go their separate ways. CEEC problem is there is a separate diocese (flying bishop) to cater for the dissenters. Maybe they want a independent province. However, the current gulf is too great to gloss over. I foresee that they are two separate religions.

    1. Liz avatar
      Liz

      My sons grew up in a single parent family, and have also failed to cause trouble. Many of their friends were the same, and I can’t think of any who fit the stereotype. No huge extended family, and no wonderful mother. I’m perfectly normal, but did add the stress of becoming vicarage kids in their early teens and dragged from one post to another from that point on. They had all the time in the world to cause mayhem when I was working, but any trouble in their group usually came from the kids in two parent families. This stereotype needs putting in the bin where it belongs.

    2. Peter Jermey avatar
      Peter Jermey

      I think one difference between CEEC style Christians and the rest of us is that they see no need for their theology to work in the real world or be applied to real people. One of the strongest arguments against CEEC theology with respect to gay people is that it doesn’t have anything to say to real life gay people, but instead treats gay people as a theoretical concept that bears little resemblance to reality.

      I think we need, not blending, but certainly reality checks on theology, especially if we want real people to believe.

  2. Helen King avatar
    Helen King

    The trouble with trying to find extenuating circumstances – exceptional mother? extended family? being ‘god-fearing’? – is that this just protects the stereotype.
    It reminds me of the bishops’ “Unpastoral Statement” on which I commented at https://shared-conversations.com/2020/01/25/how-not-to-be-pastoral-the-bishops-new-statement-on-civil-partnerships/

    1. charleswread avatar

      Thanks Helen – yes this articulates my nervousness about deflecting the discussion away from naming the stereotype! I have had two spells as a secondary school teacher and have seen many children from two parent homes who exhibited problematic behavior more than children of single parent homes.

      1. Brian Davison avatar
        Brian Davison

        I was such, expelled from primary school, the only boy in my year to get the cane in secondary school. (I remeber it well, he was a kindly man in general, and genuinly meant it when he said it hurt him more than it would hurt me. however when I kindly offered to swap round he really lost it and put his heart and soul into it!! 50 year later I can stil feel it?

  3. Ray Barraclough avatar
    Ray Barraclough

    I went to an evangelical theological college whose Principal supported Apartheid in South Africa on a “biblical revelatory” basis. Is that what Joseph has in mind? And is the subordination of women to men an infallible evangelical teaching? Just wondering.

    1. Joseph avatar
      Joseph

      Ray, I suspect you know the answers to your wonderings. Evangelicals take the bible as the authoritative Word and believe in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Wherever man treads, sin is never far behind from the time of Adam. Man enjoys sinning like discrimination, abuse and as listed in Galatians 5:19-21. It is a unfortunate state but that’s why grace is needed to save us. I do find it odd that some people do like to call themselves as evangelical Christians but behave appalling. Maybe there are different degrees of evangelical! Maybe to be a evangelical is a social thing and makes them feel good. I wonder how many degrees of evangelical was your principal.

      Subordination? This is a red herring.

      Ephesians 5:15-33 and 1 Peter 3:7 governs the relationship between God and man, man and woman, God and church etc. Those verses explain that husbands must love their wives and treat them like as their own bodies. There is no suggestion of abusing women. If one consider that these verses are wrong, then one may as well conclude Christian God is wrong and flawed. Then why worship a flawed God. Maybe there is a better God out there! Better still why worship any God? God is either Omnis Bonum or Iniquum?

    2. Brian Davison avatar
      Brian Davison

      and if subjugation of women is an infallible biblical principle did anyone tell the Apostle Paul that, and that he shouldn’t have made his commendation of Junia , a woman leader in Rome so public? – his principles in Gal 3 were abolute, his advice on the ground to churches focussing on the gospel not gender equality was pregamtic given he expected the Lord soon.

  4. Peter avatar
    Peter

    Charles, you make it all too complicated and infer puzzlement when all you are really saying is you disagree with a particular perspective.

    There are a group of people who think SSM is a fundamental issue in a way that has no precedent. You obviously disagree. That is fine, but there is no basis for suggesting it’s all very mystifying.

    1. Helen King avatar
      Helen King

      Peter, I remain unconvinced by this ‘in a way that has no precedent’. I am old enough to remember when precisely this level of insistence on structural differentiation was happening with women in the episcopate, and when the claim for a ‘first order issue’ was being applied to the ordination of women.

      1. Peter avatar
        Peter

        I am also old enough to remember the divisions over the role of women.

        There are people such as yourself and Charles who do not agree with the theological perspective of CEEC. That is perfectly clear and is acknowledged.

        My point is that it is not therefore necessary or helpful to maintain that there is something puzzling or disproportionate about the CEEC position. If you don’t agree with them you will reach a different set of conclusions.

        Their conclusions are entirely reasonable given their view of the situation.

      2. Stephen Lynas avatar
        Stephen Lynas

        Charles Read takes a witty and thoughtful look back at how Anglican evangelicals have operated during his (and my) years of ministry.
        One of Colin Buchanan’s great assessments of his years on General Synod was that evangelicals had to assess which ditch they should decide decide to fight to the death in. Not sure myself, that CEEC in their current campaigning have chosen well.
        Charles Read takes a witty and thoughtful look back at how Anglican evangelicals have operated during his (and my) years of ministry.
        One of Colin Buchanan’s great assessments of his years on General Synod was that evangelicals had to assess which ditch they should decide decide to fight to the death in. Not sure myself, that CEEC in their current campaigning have chosen well.

    2. Peter Jermey avatar
      Peter Jermey

      Peter

      I’m certainly not alone in having puzzlement why blessings for married couples is such a fundamental issue, especially as these evangelicals have spent a decade failing to come up with plausible theology around it or practical teaching for how gay people should live. You’d think that such fundamental issues would come with really sound and well thought out views.

      1. Peter avatar
        Peter

        It is a logical fallacy to claim that because you do not agree with an argument it therefore follows that the argument must be ill founded.

      2. thoatswold avatar

        The other Peter said: “It is a logical fallacy to claim that because you do not agree with an argument it therefore follows that the argument must be ill founded.”

        There is a basic logical confusion here: an argument is not the kind of thing you can agree with or disagree with. You can disagree with the *conclusion* of the argument, in which case you must *either* show that the reasoning is fallacious *or* that one or more of the premises is untrue or doubtful.

      3. Peter Jermey avatar
        Peter Jermey

        Peter

        To clarify

        I’m not claiming that because I dont agred with it therefore its ill founded! I’m claiming it is based on false assumptions, poor logic and famously fails to answer some pretty fundamental questions.

    3. charleswread avatar

      I am mystified by the idea that separate structures are thought to be needed. I am not surprised that evangelicals disagree over things!

      1. Peter avatar
        Peter

        The surprising and counter productive aspect of the case for change is the insistence – seen in comments above – that the conservative position lacks credibility.

        I can see that people may wish to advance an argument for change. I may or may not be convinced by it. But the claim that the conservative position is just not based on serious analysis is simply too extravagant. It is essentially hubris.

      2. Peter Jermey avatar
        Peter Jermey

        Peter

        There are lots of reasons why the CEEC position on gays is not credible and when given these criticisms they have failed to produce any answers.

        It cannot answer fundamental questions like “what actually counts as same sex sex and what does not” – conservative evangelicals don’t agree on if it is a sin for two men to kiss or if it is a sin to merely state that you are gay. Yet all claim that the bible is “clear”.

        The biblical references involve a lot of “what Jesus/Paul meant to say was…” and requires a totally anachronistic historical context

  5. Fiona Souter avatar
    Fiona Souter

    Well said, Charles. Speaking as one of your former students and definitely on the Anglo-catholic side of things, I am reassured by your qualification of evangelical thinking outside the narrow confines of the CEEC. Many of us are concerned by the divisive and offensive material that the CEEC has produced (with what authority?) I’m pleased to say that my children also missed the memo on deliquency following the breakdown of my marriage. If a faction wants to pick their ball and go home, let them. Hopefully the broader church will continue that most Anglican of traditions – agreeing to disagree.

  6. Ian Paul avatar

    Charles, it is curious that you find this all puzzling. If you had been a regular member of your DEF, I think it would look pretty straightfoward.

    The idea that marriage is between one man and one woman is, according to C of E Canon Law ‘the teaching of our Lord’ and the doctrine of the Church. I cannot think of an occasion when evangelical Anglicans have disagreed with the teaching of Jesus or the doctrine of the C of E.

    The most obvious conclusion, then, is that CEEC has remained consistent, but that it is you that have moved, in a more liberal direction.

    Can you offer any evidence to contradict that conclusion?

    1. charleswread avatar

      The issue I am addressing is not the rights or wrongs of affirming same sex partnerships but why this of all issues needs separate structures. The fact is also that many who own the label evangelical have come to think that the question of same sex partnerships is an open question. CEEC has changed its basis of membership so as to exclude even debate on this matter. This excludes evangelicals who want to have a place where those who take different views on this can hear each other. This is why I cannot be a member of my DEF – I was secretary of a DEF for many years and think DEFs are in principle a good and important thing. Most evangelicals in my diocese are not members of the DEF – we are not welcome.

  7. Bob Baker avatar
    Bob Baker

    Charles very much reflects my own experience and I regret that some evangelicals find remaining in the C of E problematic. John Stott, Colin Buchanan and others persuaded us to get involved in the structures and fight for evangelical values from within. I was invited to work in Norfolk by Timothy Dudley Smith and Maurice Wood. Their passion for the gospel and commitment to growth have never been matched since they left. In the present period of decline the C of E needs strong evangelical voices at its heart if things are going to change.

    1. Ian Paul avatar

      I regret that some are claiming that you can be evangelical—or even Anglican—and reject the teaching of Jesus and the consensus of the church catholic on this question. I have no doubt that John Stott would also see this as a red line—and in fact he said so quite explicitly. The problem has been caused by those campaigning for change, not by those holding to the doctrine of the C of E.

      1. thoatswold avatar
        thoatswold

        This is a classic straw-man argument. If someone (knowingly) “rejects the teaching of Jesus” they are not a Christian, let alone an Anglican or an evangelical. But of course neither side of this argument rejects the teaching of Jesus, rather they read and study Scripture in very different ways.

        As for “the consensus of the church catholic” it is surprising to see a conservative evangelical arguing for that to be authoritative – what happened to _sola scriptura_? In any case, there is no such consensus, as different branches of the church catholic have come to different conclusions. Unless you exclude the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, and many other churches from the church catholic – which would, I hope, be too hubristic even for you.

      2. Phil Nott avatar
        Phil Nott

        Ian, Jesus was asked a question on divorce and answered it. If Pope Francis is changing the Roman Catholic teaching on Same sex relationships is he authorarive to say the Church Catholic may have changed. The “majority” of the Church “Catholic” would vehemently disagree with you on the ordination of women/women in leadership would you be okay with them saying you are not a Christian on that basis?

        Also history. As someone who has researched the history of the enslavement of Africans by Anglican Christians in Bristol 8n particular they would have said similar things to you about the historic church and it’s position on slavery. And they would point out Jesus (on their reading of scripture) never condemned slavery indeed he used images of slavery without comment in his parables.
        Can we not go around deciding who is a Christian and who not on the basis of this? to do so risks a schism in the Church of England which will damage our ability to share the good news of Jesus with the majority of our nation who don’t care about this debate but who all need to find the forgiveness and hope only found in Jesus Christ…

      3. Helen King avatar
        Helen King

        I’m afraid I lost it at ‘from the time of Adam’…

      4. Peter Jermey avatar
        Peter Jermey

        Ian

        Theres a difference between your extrapolation of Jesus’ teaching and the plain text.

        I have been reading the gospels since I was a child and it honestly wasn’t until parliament started debating same sex marriage that I came across this idea that Jesus had banned gay people from marrying! I can accept that this is a genuine belief that this is what the passage ostensibly on divorce and remarriage is really about, but it’s not an interpretation that a casual reader could reasonably be expected to catch. Theres a difference between heteronormative language and prohibition of homosexuality. If I get invited to “bring my wife” to an event I don’t interpret the message as being that it is prohibited for my husband to attend.

        It certainly cannot be “sola scriptura” if it’s not actually in the text!

  8. Phil Groves avatar
    Phil Groves

    last year I was in an email conversation with a then Council Member of CEEC who asked me his three questions that he uses to see if people are true evangelicals. The questions were:
    – Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and humanity and it is through faith in him that we are saved and adherence with other religions will not save someone.
    – At the end of time Jesus Christ will judge all people perfectly and some will enter into eternity with him and others will be separated from him in hell
    – Abortion and euthanasia are sinful
    I replied that the Pope could easily pass his test – does he think the Pope an evangelical?
    However,
    Q1 is complex. Adherence to any religion – even Christianity is not a way of salvation, but people of other religions may have all kinds of incomplete understandings, but a relationship with God – Father Son and Spirit. Melchizedek comes to mind. I am not called to be a judge – just to follow.
    Q2 John Stott would have struggled to pass because under the influence of John Wenham he embraced an alternative narrative of destruction rather than Hell.
    Q3 Evangelicals were very unsure of these issues until Francis Schaeffer and his atheist son ran a campaign to put the issue of abortion front and centre of the agenda of the Christian Right. I am not at all sure if this is a mark of evangelicalism.
    The evangelicals that inspire me are people like Josephine Butler, Festo Kivengere. Esther Mombo. John V Taylor. Max Warren. Samuel Crowther. None of them orthodox. Well, Jesus and Paul were anything but orthodox.

    1. David Hawkins avatar
      David Hawkins

      “Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and humanity and it is through faith in him that we are saved and adherence with other religions will not save someone.”
      I remember this argument from my university days and contact with the Christian Union and my reply remains the same,
      What about people born before Jesus ?
      What about people without access to Christianity ?
      The Bible may well have been divinely inspired but it was written by human beings not God.
      So in summary, this CEEC Council Member believes in a loving God “who so loved the World” that he condemns to hellfire anyone who has never known about Christianity That would seem a very strange way of loving the World.

      1. John Davies avatar
        John Davies

        Didn’t C S Lewis say something about the ‘magic working backwards’?

  9. David Hawkins avatar
    David Hawkins

    “Jesus’s harshest words, we might recall, were said to those who thought they’d got it right, those who felt themselves superior and those who considered they had nothing to learn from those who in their eyes were ‘sinners’.” (Bishop Cherry Vann)
    If you believe that women can’t or shouldn’t be priests then separate episcopal is unfortunately necessary if you want to avoid schism.
    But I don’t understand why same sex marriage is such an issue. Nobody suggests that conservative evangelical churches should marry same sex couples or agree that it is OK. I can see that there could be an issue if a diocesan bishop was married to someone of the same gender but that is covered by the existing arrangements.
    I believe we have everything to learn from “sinners”. The great, unique strength of the Church of England is that it is a big tent in which we can still talk to each other even if we disagree about quite fundamental things. This is not a “problem” it is a God given gift and the Church of England is in serious danger of squandering that God given gift.
    And I think we need to ask ourselves very hard questions. If we can all live with fundamental theological differences about the nature of the Eucharist why is the breaking point someone’s private sexuality ?
    “Jesus’s harshest words, we might recall, were said to those who thought they’d got it right”.
    More humility, more empathy, more tolerance, less arrogance and inflated egos.

    1. Joseph avatar
      Joseph

      There has been several seminal issues on which the church has struggled to respond- slavery, colonialism, abortion, women’s ordination and now SSM. The difficulty with SSM is, Christians read the same scriptures but interpret differently. How is that even possible? One group says you can’t ask God to bless sinful activities as in Rom 1:26,27. The other redefine those activities as not sinful and therefore ask God to bless those activities of love. To do so seems like a peek behind the curtain into the abyss. Tomorrow when we read that Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6), can we then say there must be other ways to the Father as David Hawkins above asks, “What about those who have never heard about Jesus” and are they condemned to hell? This reinterpretation need not stop here. The whole bible can be reinterpreted in any way you like to conform with world’s view. The Bishop of Worcester says the bible influenced secular policies in the past and it is quite right now for secular policies to influence church policies. Has he read Roman 12:2 “Also, do not continue to conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, so that you test and approve what is the will of God—what is good, pleasing, and perfect.” Reinterpretation or misleading?

      Either the bible is the authoritative word of the infallible God or another Feel-Good-Spiritualist book on the shelf. You can’t pick some verses and ignore any verses you don’t like. [There are many religions in the world which claim to be Christian by blending public opinion and “anything in favour now” theology dusted with some biblical verses. That’s Mass Christianity for a pluralistic, tolerant and modern society!] At the end of the day, we worship different Gods. One a infallible God v another a reinterpreted, flexible God. We don’t come to God on our terms but on God’s terms. As Christians we serve God not man. This is why true evangelicals can’t share the same space with different versions of evangelicals or non-evangelicals and a schism is unavoidable.

  10. John Davies avatar
    John Davies

    Surely, as someone said to me once, God loves sinners – that’s why he made so many on us. We are all sinners – ful stop – and there’s no difference. And if Christ said “No one can come to me, unless my father draw him,” and “Whoerver comes to me I will not cast out” then we’re treading on very dangerously thin, thawing ice if we start deciding which sinners are acceptable to us, and which not……..

  11. Joshua Penduck avatar

    I do chuckle when I read that because I accept that Scripture is normative for sexual ethics, I am now a ‘conservative Evangelical’. Obviously, that means that even if I accept such things as the polyvocality of Scripture on multiple issues, women’s ministry in all three orders, the use of postmodern philosophy as a hermeneutical lens, an acceptance of evolution and historical criticism, the importance of dialogue with catholic and liberal theologians, a recognition of some kind of development in doctrine, yet am conservative on this issue – mainly because the Scriptures are pretty univocal about it – I am now classed as a ‘conservative Evangelical’. I mean, isn’t allowing the Scripture to have a normative role in ethics and doctrine partly what Evangelicalism is about?

    One of the problems in this whole debate is that we have lost the language of ‘Low Church Liberal’. Those who used to have a low church approach to liturgy, preaching and robes but were more liberal on interpreting the Scriptures and were critical of catholic approaches to doctrine were simply ‘low church liberal’. After all, many ex-evangelicals in the 19th and early 20th Century kept up their Evangelical stances on liturgy etc. The dividing line between Low Church and Evangelical was not liturgy etc, but their approach to the Scriptures and to catholic doctrine. We might need to reclaim that.

    1. charleswread avatar

      I think you miss the point. Those evangelicals who take a ‘not conservative’ line on same sex partnerships do so because they interpret the scriptures differently from those who take a conservative view. They do not see themselves as having abandoned scriptural authority. Now you might scratch your head and wonder how on earth they can possibly interpret the Bible in that way but please do not label them liberals who have abandoned scriptural authority. Your comments about Low Church liberals are insulting. Real life is complicated – I am very conservative on Biblical authority and penal substitution, lead worship in robes, sometimes use incense, encourage speaking in tongues and campaigned for the ordination of women. I am not a liberal.

  12. Ken Petrie avatar

    Where do I begin? Let’s start with God. God is an objective reality, not a construct of our minds or our belief about him. Even in Christ, from this world, we see him only “as in a riddled mirror”. That does not diminish or change who he is. He does not exist in our thoughts, rather “in him we live and move and have our being” as Paul affirmed. We have a good enough model in Biblical revelation, but it would be foolish to think that is all there is to know, for we only know “in part”. Therefore, to suggest people who think differently about him “worship a different God” is nonsense. There can be no such thing as a different God and one certainly cannot be created from our thoughts. Rather, they worship God in a different mindset, but he remains the same unchangeable God. Their knowledge might be lacking or defective, but so, no doubt, is our own. That does not invalidate our relationship with him, which is certain in Christ.

    Secondly, we are all sinners without exception. That is why we need Christ. Some of us sin in some areas of our life and some in others, but we all fall short. Christ died and rose in our place to save us. (There may well, of course, be more to that than we can understand, but it’s another good enough model for now.) There is no unforgivable sin unless you count rejecting the evidence of the Holy Spirit and claiming he is a demon instead, which creates a barrier to receiving Christ’s work in faith. Singling out a single sin and making it a divisive issue therefore makes no sense either. I believe same-sex relationships fall short of the ideal as Scripture witnesses, but I also believe opposite sex relationships fall short. So do business relationships and parent-child relationships and all our relationships, because we are sinners, but God forgives us in Christ.

    More to the point, I think the Biblical definition of marriage is a union between the sexes which models and reflects the unity in diversity in the Godhead and running through nature and ecclesiology and probably many other aspects of God’s creation. Marriage is defined as that special relationship in the earliest Scriptural evidence which shows no formality such as our current culture imposes, only the two people of opposite sexes coming together and becoming one flesh (indeed, probably embarrassingly for most of us, Paul even sees that happening in prostitution (I Cor
    6.16))! Therefore, I consider same-sex marriage oxymoronic. However, that is just my analysis. I can’t demand others agree with me. They must think for themselves.

    On the question of separate ministry, as Anglicans we have Article XXVI to assist us. Some might argue that applies only to the two sacraments, but how could that make sense? Would you really accept someone as a minister of Communion, at the very heart of our witness to the Gospel, but not ordination or confirmation? Is this not just a revival of Donatism? (If you don’t know what that was look it up.) Of course, if you don’t accept the 39 articles you can still be an Evangelical, but you can’t be an Anglican.

    The Pharisees believed righteousness consisted of obeying the Law. Jesus disagreed. For him, righteousness might lead to obedience or something similar, but was not sourced from it. That is why his teaching would often expose how obedience could still fall short of the ideal (eg the Sermon on the Mount). However much the scholars of the day worked on their situational ethics guide to the Law, they could never cover every possible situation which could arise, and that assumes pure obedience would be achievable which, for fallible human beings it is not, because we are all sinners. Any idea Evangelical faith requires strict obedience repudiates the very basis of Evangelicalism, that we need faith because we cannot get there by obedience.

    Finally, the Bible contains a clear witness against those who think they know more than they do in the book of Job. Job takes a simple view; God is sovereign and can do what he likes. That’s not good enough for his friends. They think God has to obey their concept of justice and accuse Job of calling God unjust in thinking him free to act as he wills. They want to contain God within their own viewpoint. That should serve as a warning to us all.

    And I’d better stop there before God gets fed up with me and pours a whole heap of sarcasm on us all!

Any thoughts?