<Previous Edition | Volume 26 Number 2 2009

Read the Articles in this edition

Anvil Volume 26 Number 2 2009

Guest Editor: Peter Williams

Editorial

In this issue

It is a great privilege to be asked to guest edit this twenty-fifth anniversary issue of Anvil. Anvil has never been about navel-gazing. From the beginning it was an 'evangelical journal for theology and mission' and it is these core themes that give direction to this issue. To engage in mission we need to understand where we are and this is the question Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali pursues with all his characteristic honesty, rigour and integrity. We need to realise who we are and this Professor David Bebbington unravels with all his great depth of learning and his unrivalled historical knowledge of evangelicalism. We need to appreciate what our task in outreach is and this I have sought to do. We need to learn whatever we can from the churches of the South particularly as they have been so much more successful in outreach than their often rather decrepit, confused, sad and out-of-sorts mother. It is thus fitting that Lord Carey's contribution draws from his unique insights into the Church in Africa which he loves and admires so much and which he served so effectively through his archiepiscopate.

Anvil has always sought to remember that Our Lord's commission is 'to the ends of the earth'. What is ever more clear is that we who live in the West are no longer the centre of the axis of that earth. That is increasingly becoming true politically and financially and it is already true in terms of the Church's strength and emerging leadership. The missiologist Pierce Beaver expressed the conviction some fifty years ago that from the younger churches 'there will eventually come…the seeds of spiritual revival which will renew the vitality of the Western churches...and make Christianity a mighty force in shaping the emerging world community.' Our prayer is that this issue will play some small part in that renewal.

Evangelicalism: From one identity crisis to another

More obviously than many journals, Anvil was founded out of controversy. The particular controversy that brought it into being was related to the breadth of opinion regarded as legitimate within evangelicalism. Evangelicalism has always (or nearly always) been an uneasy coalition between three forces – those who look primarily to the Reformers and, even more so, to the Puritans for their inspiration and who tend to be 'doctrine-centred' and cerebral; those who, while they certainly look to the Reformers, are also very concerned with the contemporary church and society and who tend therefore to be more 'church-centred' and pragmatic; and those who look more to the cultivation of holiness and spiritual gifts and who tend therefore to be more 'Spirit-centred' and experiential. All of these have been and are united in their common commitment to the authority of the Bible, the centrality of the cross, the importance of an experience of conversion to Christ and the common calling to evangelism. While often particular people can be seen as typifying one emphasis or another (for example in recent history Jim Packer the first, Colin Buchanan the second and David Watson the third) many of those influenced by evangelicalism have sought to emphasize aspects of more than one in their spiritual formation. In other words they are by no means hermetically sealed.

They do, however, become polarised at times of tension and stress. The early eighties was such a time as alarm grew within the first group that evangelicalism was succumbing to compromises over the authority of Scripture and to inappropriate accommodation with the liberal-inclined establishment of the Church of England. Though Anvil was established out of that growing polarisation, its foundation drew its force and arguably reduced it. John Stott, with a generosity typical of his spirituality and his diplomacy, said that he would subscribe to both journals. At any rate it was another nine years before the next major polarising event – the founding of Reform.

Indeed, the twenty-five years since 1984 have seen a significant strengthening of evangelicalism in the context of a significant weakening of the Church of England and a significant upping of a still small, but growing and vociferous, intolerance of Christianity in society at large. The growth of evangelicalism can be seen in many places: the number of evangelicals in senior positions; the high percentage of evangelical ordinands; the enormous influence of mainly evangelical discipleship courses; the financial clout of large evangelical churches; the move of the Church of England back from its weak doctrinal convictions of the seventies and eighties to a more clear, confident and orthodox position; the rippling impact of aspects of evangelical spirituality across the church. Yet, as we go to press, evangelicalism is once again in conflict. NEAC5 in November 2008 was a desperately sad reflection not only of the size of the division but of the depth and personalising of feelings and the inability to find a compromise. In the context of this anniversary edition it is fitting to compare and contrast the two periods.

Evangelicalism then and now

There are a number of differences between today and when Anvil was born. First, the issues that currently divide are in some sense less clear-cut than in 1983. In that identity crisis the broad lineaments of the different positions were not in doubt. Today, on the one hand, there is broad agreement about the large over-arching question. Arguments that come from within evangelicalism for a shift away from traditional teaching on sexuality have not convinced any part of the evangelical coalition. On the other hand, NEAC5 made it clear that there are considerable differences over strategy and, in particular, what the relationship with GAFCON should be.

Second, the background issue today is of much greater interest to the wider church and to society than was the case in 1983-4. Then the non-evangelical and secular press were concerned because they regarded evangelicalism as important but the issues in themselves did not engage their attention. Manifestly that is not true today. The debate, its implications and ramifications, are of the greatest concern to the whole church because they have such monumental potential impact on the wider Church of England and wider Anglicanism. They are also of much wider interest to the secular world which has a continued fascination with the debate about homosexuality within the church perhaps because, as Grace Davie suggests, it may be 'one way in which society as a whole comes to terms with profound shifts in the moral climate.'

Third, the debate today is more personalised. Back in 1983 I was able to write that the founding of Anvil did 'not imply a split, nor is it hoped any spirit of animosity between the journals and their respective readers'. There is sadly a great amount of animosity today. This is both because there is much greater public interest in the outcome of the debate and because of the revolution in communication which has created an insatiable demand for, and means of accessing, instant opinion. Instant opinion needs to engage the emotions. 'Something that is interesting', Tony Blair reflected at the end of his time in office, 'is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked.' Because the debate in evangelicalism is of great interest the temptation is constantly therefore to express opinion which is immediate, compelling, quotable and, sadly, sometimes does not scruple to become personal. This exacerbates animosity which invites division.

Fourth, leadership today is more diffuse and less focused. Anvil may have been born out of an identity crisis but at the time evangelicalism still had a leader whom all respected – John Stott. As happened after Charles Simeon, its leadership has subsequently become more diffuse. That was probably inevitable. What was surprising was that what evangelicals had long asked for – greater fairness in senior positions in the church – began to be granted rather faster than most believed possible. Historians will judge whether these late Elizabethan bishops have made a greater impact than the other major example of such large-scale elevation of evangelicals – Palmerston's bishops. What is clear is that their promotion left evangelicals with a leadership void – particularly as many of the bishops were much less involved with the evangelical constituency and some distanced themselves to a place of low- or no-visibility so far as their erstwhile fellow-travellers were concerned.

One reason for this ineffectiveness of evangelical episcopal leadership within evangelicalism is the sheer weight of work and the magnitude of the demands that lies upon bishops. Another reason is that evangelicalism has always been a minority movement within the Church of England. Its psychology and raison d'etre have been, to a considerable degree, forged out of a sense of beleagueredness, what Colin Buchanan called 'a shared persecution complex'. Though this, he felt, had disappeared by the time of the Anvil crisis, it had not been replaced by a clear sense of what evangelicals should do when they became a significant minority within sight of becoming a majority. He emphasized the need for 'evangelical Anglicans...to remain in close touch with each other'. He commended the 'over-arching Anglican Evangelical Assembly' with the Church of England Evangelical Council acting as a standing committee. He was confident that these would keep evangelicals 'in touch with each other'. That was to be an unfulfilled prediction.

Evangelicalism now and in the future

Evangelicals are now a very loose grouping indeed. Bonding is mainly achieved through the churches they came from, the colleges they attended, their membership of groupings such as New Wine, Reform, Proclamation Trust or Fulcrum and their commitment to courses such as Alpha and Christianity Explored. Any and all of these are fine but they do represent sub-groups and not an over-arching loyalty. They also represent a continuation of a minority psychology. Thus, while evangelicals are stronger numerically in the Church of England than they have ever been, they have not developed into a cohesive movement, nor have they discovered a strategy and language for using their strength effectively, nor have they an agreed model for what being an evangelical bishop might mean. Lacking any great commitment to evangelicalism, as opposed to a sub-group variant of it, they can easily fall prey to the sort of debacle that was illustrated at NEAC5.

But, despite all these difficulties, evangelicalism is still a potent force. It has the sort of energy and vision that fits well with a rapidly changing culture. It has the trans-denominational links which will be increasingly important. It has the commitment to an orthodox faith based on the authority of Scripture. It has a capacity to raise resources and to relate to teenagers and young adults. It can bring the message of a saving gospel in ways that resonate with the needs of ordinary people. 'Evangelicalism', in the judgement of that wise and measured historian John Wolffe, 'has always been a divided and changing movement that has consistently fallen short of its own unrealistic aspirations, but has confounded expectations of its collapse.' Liberal society today is ever more intolerant because it has no moral basis on which to rest a credible philosophy of toleration. It expects perfection because it has abandoned any concept of sin. What evangelicalism needs is a rediscovery of the conviction that it is called above everything else to bring and to live the message of Christ's saving, redeeming, sanctifying, uniting love to imperfect people in an imperfect world.

It is such an engaged and living spirituality that evangelicalism's most respected leaders have always emphasised. 'I want to share with you where my mind has come to rest, as I approach the end of my pilgrimage on earth,' John Stott said in his moving last sermon, 'God wants his people to become like Christ. Christlikeness is the will of God for the people of God. The most effective preaching comes from those who embody the things they are saying. They are their message. Christians need to look like what they are talking about. It is people who communicate primarily, not words or ideas. Authenticity gets across. Deep down inside people, what communicates now is basically personal authenticity.' And central to that authenticity is love. Graham Kings wondered after NEAC5 what Wilberforce and the other evangelical giants of the time would have done. Their central objective would have been to understand and find common cause with their evangelical (and other) opponents. 'O whatever else we give up', Wilberforce said about a sharp theological division within evangelicalism of his day, 'let us retain love, if we would not abandon our relation to him who states Love to be the nature of existence'. 'Thus', commented John Pollock, he 'built a bridge between warring theological camps in the Church of England.' Likewise, Charles Simeon echoed the crucial role of love. 'If a man's heart be full of love he will rarely offend. He may have severe things to say, but he will say them in love.'

If evangelicalism can reflect such core spirituality then it will be able to transcend the divisions over non-essentials and between personalities that threaten to tear it apart. It will also speak with power in the wider church. If it does not, it will continue to divide and will fail to speak with the spiritual authority and influence that its numerical, organisational and financial strength indicates that it should. It will, as Richard Baxter warned long ago, have become insular - a faction which instead of offering 'love and a tender care of the universal Church', confines 'that love and respect to a party,' and, we might add, to sub-groups within a party.

Peter Williams
Guest Editor

To make sure you get this year's issues, why not subscribe to ANVIL.