The Evangelical theologians and writers of the 18th & 19th centuries whom I studied to write my book, Evangelical Theology 1833-1856, Response to Tractarianism (UK & USA, 1979, web edition at Anglican Books Revitalized) and related essays and articles, described themselves as “evangelical Churchmen”. By this they were saying two things: (a) that they shared a common zeal for the Gospel with evangelical Dissenters, Nonconformists and Scottish Presbyterians, and (b) that they were also committed to the Formularies of the Church of England, making them “Churchmen,” alongside others – high churchmen for example. They formed and supported societies which both sent missionaries abroad and also printed and distributed the Book of Common Prayer.
If you were to ask them for a way of describing the form of Christianity which they embraced, they would have said, “Reformed Catholicism.” In their mindset, the Church of England is an ancient part or national jurisdiction of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that went through a reformation of its worship, doctrine and discipline in the sixteenth century. The result of this reformation and renewal is not Roman Catholicism or Medieval Catholicism but Reformed Catholicism.
And they would point to the Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal, as the Formularies. These express the mind, form and shape of Reformed Catholicism, with its commitment to the final authority of Scripture for Faith and Morality and its deference to the biblical exposition and teaching of the early Fathers and the early Ecumenical Councils. In their response to the new phenomenon of anglo-catholicism (which is not identical to traditional high churchmanship) after 1833, the Evangelicals constantly appealed to the Scriptures, the early Fathers, the early Councils, the Formularies and what they called the “standard divines” of the Church of England (e.g., Hooker & Waterland). They believed that the anglo-catholics gave too much emphasis and credence to medieval doctrines and practices which the Church of England set aside or rejected in the sixteenth century. Finally, for them the Book of Common Prayer was “that most excellent Liturgy” (so Charles Simeon) and they used its services of Morning and Evening Prayer for evangelistic services inside and outside the churches.
Today in the Church of England there are few Evangelicals who either desire to be so called or who are appropriately called Reformed Catholics. Only in associations such as the Church Society and Reform are such persons normally to be found. Dr Roger Beckwith is a well-known theologian of this school of thought.
In the USA there are exceedingly few Reformed Catholics in the ECUSA and only a sprinkling in the Reformed Episcopal Church.
What has happened is that “evangelical churchmen” in the ECUSA, Anglican Church of Canada, and AMiA and elsewhere now tend to interpret evangelical in terms of, and in line with, the dominant mindset of popular Evangelicalism in the USA (with its definitions of the Gospel, the authority of Scripture, forms of reading and interpreting the Bible, personal relationships with Jesus, types of church growth, forms of popular services, church management, psycho-therapeutical counselling and so on) and say little about being “churchmen” of the Anglican Way, the Reformed Catholic Way. The word “evangelical” has been inflated and the word “churchmen” has been deflated. In general, they seem not to have much concern for the Formularies (and the rich tradition of doctrine related to them and their exposition) and thus (a) in worship tend to use modern Anglican services with a maximum amount of local flexibility; (b) in doctrine follow a generic evangelical theology again with local flexibility, and (c) in discipline follow the trends with regard to marriage, divorce and remarriage and to women’s ministry that are generally common in Evangelicalism (whose major mouthpiece is “Christianity Today”.
What this means is that they are not opposed to the Formularies as such but that they see them as having little or no immediate relevance to their concerns now. They use the 1979 Prayer Book as a basis for their services but are not particularly wedded to it. (Yet they will not join the Prayer Book Society of the USA and others in making a clear statement that the 1979 Book is a book of alternative services not truly “The Book of Common Prayer” as its title claims.) Certainly the modern Anglican Evangelicals use the term “orthodox” of themselves but this is a true description primarily as indicating that they are against the progressive liberals of the ECUSA. They also call the leaders of the innovations in the ECUSA by the term “revisionists” indicating that they have changed the teaching on sexuality; yet they themselves could also, from the standpoint of Reformed Catholicism, be called “revisionists” for they are committed to a form of Anglicanism that is very different from that which was in place in earlier times.
One saw this Anglican Evangelicalism at its best during the Pittsburgh Conference, “Hope and a Future” (November 10-12) of The Network, but one also saw there how very different it is from classical Evangelical Churchmanship in worship, doctrine and discipline – that is in general mindset.
The recent innovations with regard to homosexuality in the Episcopal Church have given to the Evangelicals an opportunity to rise up not only in protest within the ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada, but also to make alliances with provinces and groups abroad who are also very concerned about the sexual innovations. Yet surprisingly this “crisis” has had little or no impact on making them consider more carefully the mature of Reformed Catholicism. They have not felt the need “to dig again the wells of Abraham.”
Finally the most regrettable fact that modern Anglican Evangelicals are not “Evangelical Churchmen” has had and will have profound implications for the future of the Anglican Way in North America.
petertoon@msn.com December 2, 2005
No comments:
Post a Comment