The Anglican Debacle

[Andrew Bowles]

This is in response to the document by Mark Thompson recently added to MASG.

He finishes by saying that 'it is time to act', but leaves the action unspecified. I presume he means not attending Lambeth and going to GAFCON instead, but I think there are other ways to construe his challenge.

It strikes me that the big thing about the North American church is their eschatology. While we may disagree with it, what they have is an exciting, challenging and (most importantly) realisable eschatological vision. In their view, they are bringing in the kingdom of God by ordaining practicing homosexual men as bishops and blessing same-sex unions. They may have to struggle for it against those who resist them, but they will keep fighting. And when people of every kind share communion together, overcoming every obstacle of prejudice and fear, they will be able to sit down and enjoy the fullness of the kingdom.

Gosh, I wish the preaching of the kingdom I hear at evangelical churches was half as inspiring as that! Who can honestly say that the eschatology that is preached and lived at their church is anywhere near as exciting as that of TEC? We tend to drag on from week to week reminding people again and again that their sins are forgiven and they're bound for heaven. Or variations on 'Be nicer, try harder, witness more often'. Now those things are definitely true, but it leaves the interim between here and death a bit empty from an occupational point of view. Particularly if you're not a hotshot evangelist.  

Perhaps part of the time for action is getting our own house in order with respect to, say, the gospel and what it means for the church and the world in which Christ has placed it.


Andrew

p.s. Can I register a plea for evangelicals to stop using 'biblical' as an adjective so often? It makes our writing less clear and forceful, not more.

[Matt Williams]

"Can I register a plea for evangelicals to stop using 'biblical' as an adjective so often? It makes our writing less clear and forceful, not more."

Yes, but is it unbiblical?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the big thing' about TEC being their eschatology. Do you mean that is the big difference between us (which is surely hamartiology, epistemology, grounds of authority), or that eschatology is the focus of TEC theology, or...?

In any case, I agree with you that we could do a much better job of capturing people with an eschatological vision, and inspiring them to love the kingdom of God and so live as people of heaven, casting out fear and prejudice.

But I'm not sure that making it 'realisable' (why is that 'most importantly'?) is actually our goal. Of course a realisable eschatological vision is attractive, because it makes us feel powerful - like we can 'do' something. But the eschatological vision of the kingdom is always bigger than us - bigger than all of us together. Is it incumbent upon us to realise the eschatological vision of the kingdom, or simply to reflect it and be awakened by it? I rather hoped God might take care of the broader accomplishment, because there are parts of the vision I don't think are particularly achievable for us (new heavens, anyone?)

My concern is that the TEC eschatology is far from exciting, because it reduces the kingdom of God to the church in this world and has little hope beyond that. The present church is no longer a poor reflection of the glory to come at the return of Christ and recreation of all things, it is as glorious as it gets. In other words, I think TEC have an exciting present eschatology because they didn't need to keep any eschatological language for a surpassing future. But if this earthly communion is enjoying the 'fullness of the kingdom', as you put it, I reckon that's a bit depressing, really!

But nonetheless, I agree with you that evangelicals need to get our house in order regarding the gospel. For too long we have been a "big FRIDAY little sunday" group (i.e. lots of cross and little resurrection), and our preaching of the parousia has been whittled away a lot too. I suspect the problem with our eschatology begins with too little thinking about the resurrection - but thankfully that is getting better and better addressed, I've noticed (substantially due to NT Wright bringing it to our attention).

Blessings
Matt

[Tim Patrick]

Matt Williams wrote:

But nonetheless, I agree with you that evangelicals need to get our house in order regarding the gospel. For too long we have been a "big FRIDAY little sunday" group (i.e. lots of cross and little resurrection), and our preaching of the parousia has been whittled away a lot too. I suspect the problem with our eschatology begins with too little thinking about the resurrection - but thankfully that is getting better and better addressed, I've noticed (substantially due to NT Wright bringing it to our attention).

Hey - this sounds like one of the major goals of the Ridley Evangelism class. Can you guys give any feedback as to how successful you think it was in bringing more of a that resurrection focus to our gospel and mission? (You can be honest!)

[Andrew Bowles]

Matt Williams wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'the big thing' about TEC being their eschatology. Do you mean that is the big difference between us (which is surely hamartiology, epistemology, grounds of authority), or that eschatology is the focus of TEC theology, or...?


But I'm not sure that making it 'realisable' (why is that 'most importantly'?) is actually our goal.

Regarding the 'big thing', I meant that I think it is the driving force behind the differences between us. I think theologically we move from where we're going to where we are. But I suppose you could argue that you first become convinced that there is no sin problem and therefore believe there is no need for an eschatological salvation from beyond this world. I emphasised eschatology because I think it is ignored in the debate in favour of arguments about the authority of the Bible and sexual morality, and those issues don't help us deal with the motivation that's driving the revisionism.

I agree that making eschatology realisable isn't our goal. But I think that it's 'most important' for them because how  else can you justify gross sin and heresy except if you have no hope of a future brought about by God, just one that we can bring about ourselves? If they didn't believe their vision was realisable by human effort, they might be more humble about pursuing it.

Andrew

[Luke Isham]

"Anglican" can be another overused adjective.

[Danny Saunders]

The answer is to plant new missional churches, either within existing Anglican congregations or if necessary, new churches 'affiliated' with the parent Anglican church. For more on this:  

http://www.steveaddison.net/2006/09/26/the-trouble-with-melbourne-anglicans.html#comment-2632

[Jereth]

Danny Saunders wrote:

The answer is to plant new missional churches, either within existing Anglican congregations or if necessary, new churches 'affiliated' with the parent Anglican church. For more on this:  

http://www.steveaddison.net/2006/09/26/the-trouble-with-melbourne-anglicans.html#comment-2632

I've heard ministers can lose their licenses for planting "unauthorised" churches.

[JustinD]

This is a tricky thing to manage, isn't it? Some years ago, when I was in Newcastle (and I had a perhaps... ahem... less well defined faith), we were outraged to find Sydney Anglican churches moving into Newcastle diocese to plant churches. We found it insulting and alienating. Now, with the advantage of having thought through these issues more over the intervening years, I can understand why those churches were doing this (and have even suggested similar things myself occasionally!), but this approach made them a lot of enemies. Did it hinder them in ministry? I don't know.

I guess one of the challenges of being within a denomination is to be able to use the existing structures to work for God's purpose. I think, for instance, that it is worth doing the hard work in Melbourne to get Diocesan and parish-level support for new church plants and partnerships. There are still going to be tensions and misunderstandings, but I think in the long run we want to grow both strong churches and a strong diocese.

[Danny Saunders]

I suppose that depends on whether the plant is an Anglican plant or not. If it's not an Anglican plant then it's neither "authorised" nor "unauthorised". If it's an official Anglican plant then it would need to be authorised or affiliated in some way.

[JustinD]

Yes, I think that's right. I think that it is worth the effort to plant 'authorised' churches that remain affiliated, rather than the easier (seemingly) option of planting outside of the denomination.

Thoughts from others?

[Gordon Cheng]

Andrew Bowles wrote:

This is in response to the document by Mark Thompson recently added to MASG.

He finishes by saying that 'it is time to act', but leaves the action unspecified. I presume he means not attending Lambeth and going to GAFCON instead, but I think there are other ways to construe his challenge.

Isn't the best way to construe Mark's challenge to hunt down the context in which he is speaking, and work it out from there?

[Andrew Bowles]

Perhaps I didn't use the word 'construe' in the best way. In this thread I was using Mark's article as a springboard for a theological reflection. He may have other things in mind, and I'd be happy to hear if you know what they are, if they throw light on the discussion.