Stirring the evangelical pot

The Ugley Vicar has written a piece which will no doubt ruffle a few evangelical feathers. But he's right in what he has to say so he has my permission to ruffle away. Essentially he makes the point that being "evangelical" is not enough and has called on "evangelicals" in the Church of England (and I think by extension Anglican churches in other parts of the world as well) to start being Anglican, even ahead of being evangelical. And Amen to that say I. That being evangelical is not enough is something I have come to appreciate over the last ten years. I haven't stopped being evangelical, but I have come to realise that "evangelicalism" is not the sum total -- or even necessarily the focus -- of my Christian identity and I think it is a grave mistake when we aim to make it that. Of course to most evangelical Anglicans (or perhaps that should be Anglican evangelicals!) of the kind where I grew up (and no doubt in many other places as well) that statement is bordering on the heretical so I will have to explain and defend myself. There is of course a right concern in the "evangelical first, Anglican second" position but ultimately is premised on a flawed understanding of "evangelicalism", "tradition" and "denominations".

Fundamentally, I think the mistake that most of the "evangelical first, Anglican second" type Anglicans make is to conflate "evangelicalism" with "the gospel" and even "Christianity". It is often said that "evangelicalism" is "gospel Christianity". So, the thinking goes, of course we should be "evangelical" first and "Anglican" second. What's wrong with this, you ask? Well, nothing if all you are implying is that the gospel takes priority over Anglicanism or indeed any particular historical and cultural expression of the visible church. Of course it does and Anglicanism -- and indeed all of Protestantism -- is predicated on that important truth. The reasons the churches of the Reformation (including the Church fo England) split from Rome was because of the gospel. Given a choice between faithfulness to the gospel and faithfulness to the Bishop of Rome the Reformers chose the former and several paid for that decision with their lives. The gospel should be at the heart of our churches and if it's not then we need to call our churches to repentance and reformation. As Article 20 of the 39 Articles puts it (the point is on faithfulness to Scripture generally which obviously includes the gospel):

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

The Anglican Church's own standards state that Scripture (which includes the gospel) takes precedence over what the Church says. If the church ordains anything contrary to Scripture or requires a Christian to believe something not in Scripture then it has exceeded its rightful authority. And amen to that. In that sense I am a "gospel" Christian before I am an Anglican (or whatever particular denomination we're talking about).

But the devil, as they say, is in the detail and that little word "evangelical" carries a lot of extra baggage. The word's root meaning is of course simply the adjectival form of the noun gospel (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion): "Of or pertaining to the gospel" would probably be a the first definition of the word evangelical in any good English dictionary. But that's not the only definition of the word. All of the definitions have some connexion with the "gospel" and no doubt everyone who claims to be "evangelical" is no doubt sincere in his belief that he is being faithful to the "gospel" (although not all who claim to be are in fact). But for English speaking people of the present day, the word "evangelical" has particular connotations and it's not quite correct to say that all that that word means is "a gospel Christian" as if we are starting with a tabula rasa and simply taking "believing in the gospel" will inextricably result in a full-blown theology of all kinds of things that Christians believe and do. The word's meaning and connotations are rooted in history -- obviously in the apostolic era as the apostles took the gospel to the world, particularly in the Reformation of the 16th Century and subsequently in various "evangelical" movements (revivals, awakenings etc) of the 18th and 19th centuries. And then it is a word whose meaning has been shaped by further events in the 19th and 20th centuries, for example the impact of theological "liberalism", "fundamentalism" and -- of particular importance for Anglicans -- tractarianism/ritualism on the church. And from the latter third of the Twentienth Century the term has come to be shaped by particular approaches to gathered worship which differ from more "traditional" forms known to virtually all Christians (including "evangelicals") of previous generations. So it's not quite right to say that an "evangelical" Christian is simply a "gospel Christian". There's a lot more to it than that. Now I'm not saying these other things are bad or even that they don't flow out of a concern for fidelity to the "gospel" (although I don't think all of them do; the link between the last development I mentioned and the gospel is tenuous at best but then perhaps many evangelicals would want to deny that their "evangelicalism" entails this) but my point is that "evangelicalism" is not some form of naked "gospel Christianity", pure and simple. It's a form of Christianity that has been shaped by history and tradition. There is, quite simply, an evangelical tradition. So the first thing we need to do is recognise this fact. No-one in the 21st Century is a "gospel Christian" pure and simple. If we are gospel Christians then we are gospel Christians of a particualr culture, standing in a particular tradition. The second thing flowing from this is that once we realise that evangelicalism is itself a tradition, we need to understand it, appreciate it and of course critique it. It is my view that once we understand it on its own terms we shall see that it is not Christianity in its fullness and nor is it to be equated with "the church". "Evangelicalism" is an emphasis within Christianity -- and a right emphasis at that -- but it is a mistake to equate it with the church or Christianity itself. The gospel should of course lie at the heart of our churches and of us as individual Christians and that is what I mean by saying that evangelicalism is a (right) theological emphasis. But an emphasis is not the whole thing. I do not think that evangelicalism is enough. And (personifying things), nor do I think that evangelicalism would want us to think that of it.

I could come at this from a number of different angles and each would be legitimate. The Ugley Vicar has come at it from a perceived crisis of evangelical identity within the Church of England. So-called "evangelicals" who you would think should have everything in common and would get on like a house on fire quite plainly do not and are not. There are deep divides among those in the Church of England (and the Anglican communion more generally) who call themselves evangelical. The Ugley Vicar's very sensible suggestion is that perhaps we ought to be committed to making our "Anglicanness" our unifying feature. Take the theology and liturgy (or perhaps the liturgical approach if not the liturgy itself) of the Book of Common Prayer 1662, the 39 Articles and the Ordinal as our starting point rather than some commitment to an amorphous "evangelicalism". A good point, but one I fear will largely fall on deaf ears. While (as the saying has it) it may be hard to teach an old dog new tricks, in actual fact (as the saying doesn't have it) I suspect it's much harder to teach a new evangelical dog old tricks. Most modern evangelicals have a strong aversion to anything that was already in existence before they happened to be born which means getting them enthusiastic about authentic Anglicanism will be a tall order.

But the point I wish to raise in this essay is this:
Evangelicalism as we know it is a kind of "lowest common denominator" Christianity. Rightly understood and applied there is a useful and God-honouring place for this but it is a grave mistake to make the lowest common denominator the norm. As a tradition, evangelicalism is dependent on other traditions, particularly Christian "denominations".

First, "the good". The right place for this kind of lowest common denominator Christianity is where Christians of different denominations and traditions come together, enjoy genuine fellowship with one another and learn from God's word and one another. I rejoice in my involvement in the AFES, UCCF and SMD during my time at university (many years now after a double undergraduate degree, a couple of Masters degree and now a doctorate!) and my fellowship and united mission there with fellow believers from different Christian denominations (and cultures even, particularly with the SMD when I was at uni in Germany). As Psalm 133:1 says, "Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell [together] in unity!" And Amen to that! I loved the fact that I could meet with Christians from differing Christian and cultural backgrounds, agreed in the essentials but differing (or with different emphasis) in some points and still "dwell together in unity". Through my involvement I have learnt many valuable things from Christians coming from markedly different backgrounds from me. And I have very much benefitted from interdenominational evangelical events and conferences such as the Katoomba Christian Convention. I support these kinds of minstries and want to see them thrive. So this kind of non-denominational "lowest common denominator" evangelical Christianity definitely can and should be done. In its proper place it is a wonderful blessing, not to be shirked. And yet ...

While it's a wonderful thing in its proper place, when elevated beyond that it can become a dangerous thing. We should not think that lowest common denominator Chistianity is Christianity in its fulness. Let's take doctrine as an example (although this point doesn't just apply to doctrine as well -- it also applies to other things such as liturgy as well). For instance, the IFES doctrinal statement is a wonderful statement of Christian truth, and it truly does provide a basis for brothers to "dwell together in unity" but to state the obvious it is lacking in some important points. Here are just a few which should drive the point home: although it mentions salvation, it expresses no view on the doctrines of predestination and election; although it mentions the unity of the three persons of the Godhead it doesn't really have anything else to say on the subject of Trinitarian theology; it expresses a very thin view on ecclesiology; and there is no mention at all of the sacraments. This doctrinal statement is fine in so far as it goes, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. That's not a criticism of the statement or its authors. It serves a distinct purpose and serves it well, viz. enabling Christians from different traditions (which are assumed to have highly developed positions on the kinds of questions which the IFES doctrinal statement doesn't address and are often questions on which various Christians disagree) to dwell together in unity in the particular context of university ministry. But if my local church had a doctrinal statement like that then something would be seriously amiss. And if thoughtful Christians in a local church have a set of statements like that as the end product of their theological reflexion then again something is seriously amiss. There are whole swathes of things missing.

Now perhaps more controversial among evangelicals is the way we conduct our public gatherings. I'm talking the liturgy of gathered worship here. I've already mentioned that I have benefited enormously from interdenominational evangelical minsitries such as IFES in its various national incarnations (in my case AFES, UCCF and SMD having been to uni in three different countries!) and the Katoomba Christian Convention. When Christians of various traditions meet together in settings like this then it would be silly (and quite insensitve) to impose a particular denominational (eg Baptist, Anglican etc) liturgy on such a group made up of Christians from various denominations/liturgical traditions. No, there is a way that Christians of various liturgical traditions can gather together in common worship. And again, I'm all for it in its proper context. But it's a mistake to think that this is the most edifying way and what we should be aiming for when we meet in our local (denominational) churches on a Sunday. Should we be satisfied with a lowest common denominator approach to the liturgy of public worship? I think not. So it is a mistake in my view to water down our Anglican distinctives as a seeming majority of evangelical Anglicans want to do. There is a kind of evangelical Anglican who does everything in his power to deny all Anglican distinctives. In part it comes from good intentions (only in part -- in part I think it also springs from a number of bad intentions) but in any event it is a deeply mistaken approach.

This kind of lowest common denominator evangelical Christianity is in my view an inadequate expression of the Christian faith -- both in terms of doctrine and our theology and practice of gathered worship. The various Christian denominations have their own approaches to gathered worship which are theologically and historically informed and much richer than any "lowest common denominator" approach. If I attend an Anglican service then I think it fair to expect it to be recognisably "Anglican". And if I attend a Baptist service the same would apply in it being recognisably "Baptist". And not only is it fair to expect that, it is actually a good thing. These various liturgical traditions are themselves a good thing. Now obviously we should expect a degree of overlap here. Both are Christian churches, and both are churches which have been shaped by the Reformation, and if they are evangelical congregations I would think that each would be shaped by a particular concern not only for the proclamation of the gospel but also for a personal response. But although there should be many similarities, there should also be some noticeable differences in praxis reflecting not only differences in theology but also history and culture. (And it's not just with fellow Protestants that there are similarities; there are also similarities -- but also some very important differences -- between Anglican and Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox forms).

Anglicanism (or any denomination or particular Christian tradition really) is not just one of several "boats" for evangelicals to "fish" from (as it is often put by or to people considering full time gospel/pastoral ministry). In an important sense it is a "boat to fish from": Anglicanism and Anglican forms are not ends in themselves; they serve a higher purpose. Of course you can be a faithful gospel minister in an Anglican context and you can be a faithful gospel minister in a Baptist context etc so there is in this sense a choice of "boats" from which Christians can "fish". But there's more to it than that. Much more. These respective "boats" come with a whole history of theological and liturgical practice and reflexion. Generation upon generation of faithful Christians have thought long and hard about theology, liturgy etc and in the Anglican tradition this finds its expression particularly in the Book of Common Prayer of 1662. As well as being a great "boat to fish from", there is a particularly Anglican way of "doing" church to which Anglicans ought to be committed (subject of course to Scripture -- if we are doing what Scripture forbids or not doing what it commands then of course we need to change our ways: but that thankfully is built into the Anglican way, at least in theory anyway). And I would say the same about other Christian denominations/traditions as well. Of course we always need to be faithful to Scripture and let Scripture guide and shape both our doctrine and our praxis (or put another way our theology and our liturgy). But we should do so conscious of our place in the overall scheme of things. When we understand this we will come to appreciate that we are not the first generation of Christians, that we have much to learn from generations past, and that we are standing in a particular tradition.

One of the sad developments I see among evangelical Anglicans is that we have produced a whole generation of Anglicans (and the way things are going will continue to produce them) who know nothing of and care little for Anglicanism. Look, I realise that Anglicanism came into existence at a certain point in time and it may very well disappear again. I for one readily accept that the gospel is far more important and the church far bigger than Anglicanism. BUT, my point is that you can't actually "do" church in some kind of tabula rasa "just the Bible" way and that what we are now doing in many Anglican churches is an impoverished way of doing church in comparison with more traditional Anglican forms. We are not tapping into the stream of our tradition as we ought and individual Christians are missing out on so much it has to offer. Most evangelical Anglicans in Sydney my age and younger (I'm 30) have next to no knowledge of -- let alone appreciation for -- traditional Anglican forms of worship. That is a scandal and it should not be. This stuff should be in our spiritual DNA so that even if we are going to deviate from these forms we are going to do so in a theologically and liturgically informed way. It's like musical improvisation. You can't just sit in front of a piano having no knowledge of how to play, what music people have already composed, and what "works" musically and expect to play brilliant improvisation. No, the best improvisational artists have actually studied a lot of music and can play from memory the classics which they had to learn by hard slog. They have been reared on the classics and music theory. They know where they stand in the great stream of musical history. They have the classics in their fingers before they even start to improvise. And when they do improvise it will sound so much better as a result. What's more, when it's done really well the informed listener will even be able to recognise where the improvisational artist has taken the classics and given them a little creative twist.

So how can we call ourselves Anglican -- let alone evangelical Anglicans -- and not be infused by the theology and liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer, particularly the central Anglican liturgies of Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer and the Lord's Supper? I'm not saying that all our services need to follow the prayer book by the letter. But like our improvisational artist at the piano we need to know where we've come from, know where we stand in the wider scheme of things, know what "works" and what doesn't "work", know what is edifying, and then do all this in a way that draws on and is faithful to the wider tradition (be it liturgical or musical) in which we find ourselves. As Anglicans the theology and liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer should be part of our spiritual DNA. But sadly for a whole generation of younger Anglicans this is not the case. I can remember being greatly saddened by the fact that my fellow young adults at church (who by the way had been brought up their entire lives in Anglican churches) did not even know what a "choral evensong" was (yes I'm a chorister and I do sing in my fair share of choral evensongs but that's besides the point). Anyone who knows anything about Anglicanism should know what a choral evensong is. And not even after explaining it to them did they get it. When I informed them that it was a sung service of Evening Prayer typically from the Book of Common Prayer 1662 (although you can of course do it to more modern liturgies) their reaction was "what, you mean like hymns and stuff?"!!! Most of them didn't know what the Order for Evening Prayer was, most of them couldn't imagine a service where you would actually hold a book and say/sing a set liturgy as well as hymns and a Psalm and most of them certainly couldn't imagine the type of music that you would hear there (which is not surprising if all you ever listen to is CCM and the only other form of church music you are vaguley familiar with is traditional hymns). I wasn't expecting these people to like it let alone want to do it. What I was expecting was either for them to know what it was or at least what the Order for Evening Prayer in the Anglican Prayer Book was. But most of them didn't even know that. It's pretty much the equivalent of talking to a grown adult native English speaker about Shakespeare and then getting the reply "Who's Shakespeare?". Even if Shakespeare doesn't float your boat as a writer, if you're a native English speaker you really ought to know who he is and why he's so important and probably read some of his works. You may be surprised. You may learn a thing or two and even come to appreciate him.

We actually learn by doing and saying (or singing) so much better than we do by just listening or reading and this is one of the prime reasons liturgy should be responsive and one of the prime reasons modern evangelical services -- which on the whole are stupefying, passive affairs with the congregation just sitting there listening to what the "service leader" (or "worship leader" depending on your particular dialect of evangelicalese) tells them -- are so impoverished. If you want to get people to really know ("mark, learn and inwardly digest" to use a gem of a prayer book phrase!) Scripture, then get them saying -- or better yet singing -- it (the Psalms are great in this respect). If you want people to learn good theology then get them saying or singing it in church in the form of responsive liturgy. Most Christians who have been brought up on responsive liturgy internalise it even without making a conscious effort to memorise it. And the parts of Scripture I know best are the Psalms, most of which I haven't made a conscious effort to memorise but know from having regulary sung them as a chorister in services of choral evensong. If you say (or sing) something enough times you'll learn it without trying. I did a little Anglican liturgy experiement among some of the young adults at my current (Anglican) church which is quite non-liturgical (OK, I know all church is "liturgical" in a sense, even those such as my current church which has largely abandoned traditional forms of liturgy; but I'm sure you catch my drift). Now we don't say the sursum corda in our litugy for the Lord's Supper even though it's in all or most of the authorised Anglican liturgies for the Holy Communion and it's something common (with a few variances in wording) to just about every Christian tradition. We do a fairly minimal liturgy for the Lord's Supper, usually starting with the prayer of humble access ("We do not presume ...") but skip all the stuff before that, perhaps to save time and perhaps because the powers that be don't really like formal liturgy but think the congregation should at least say something and not just sit there passively before receiving the bread and the wine. My experiment was as follows: I would go round to people after church and would say the opening line to the sursum corda (i.e. what the Minister would say in the liturgy) and see how people responded. "Lift up your hearts!" Sadly, most of them didn't have a clue what I was on about but a few people replied "We lift them up unto the Lord" (or the modern equivalent "We lift them to the Lord").

Now don't hear me wrong. I am most certainly not saying that all our services should necessarily be from the 1662 Prayer Book or that clergy should always be robed or that we should always sing old hymns or even that services alway have to follow a set liturgy etc, etc, etc. Not at all. On a personal level I quite like many of those things but I'm certainly not saying we have to do things like that. What I am saying is that there is actually much advantage in many of those things and at any rate we all need to know where we have come from and where we fit in the scheme of things which means understanding our particular Christian tradition's way of doing things and knowing when and why we deviate from that if in fact we are going to do so. When you have an entire generation of so-called Anglicans which neither knows nor cares about any of this stuff which is fairly central to Anglicanism you have a big problem on your hands. And to make matters worse, even many of our younger clergy suffer from this problem. If we're going to be Anglicans then the Book of Common Prayer -- its theology and liturgy -- needs to be in our blood, whether or not we actually use it in our Sunday services. It has been suggested elsewhere (again I have read this at the Ugley Vicar but I don't think he's the only one saying it) that Anglican ordinands should return to using the 1662 Prayer Book at chapel services during their theological training precisely because it is almost never used in parish settings any more. The 1662 Prayer Book is not just an old liturgy to be replaced by more modern forms at our whim; it is also our official doctrinal standard. So for that reason alone (and there are others as well) clergy ought to be familiar with it. And I mean really familiar (in the sense of marking, learning and inwardly digesting). In the past when everyone used the 1662 prayer book in Sunday services ordinands coming to college came with prior knowledge. They had already internalised the prayer book's liturgy through regular use and their theological education could add flesh to the bones already there. But now that we no longer use it in regular services ordinands come to collge without these bones and as a result we get a bunch of limp clergy who don't really know what they're doing or why they are doing it. It's vital that Anglican ordinands get the theology and liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer 1662 into their blood. Reading it through once as an academic textbook won't do this. You really have to use it to become familiar with it and that's the reason why it has been suggested -- and why I agree -- that ordinands return to the old 1662 book for chapel services while they are at theological college. This way, when they return back into the "real world" where services are no longer run by the old book they can still do church in a way that is true to the vision of the Prayer Book and, as the Act of Uniformity of 1558/9 put it, "as may be most for the advancement of God's glory, the edifying of His Church, and the due reverence of Christ's holy mysteries and sacraments". In most settings it probably won't be most edifying in modern times to run services in Elizabethan English. But our services should still reflect the sound theology and liturgical approach of the 1662 book and of course still be recognisable as standing within the broader "Anglican" tradition. Sadly this is something we've lost sight of and our gathered worship is all the more impoverished for it.