There are two schools of thought about the way forward for evangelicals in the Church of England at the moment.
The first school of thought is what might be called the ‘into the lifeboats’ approach. This ‘boats’ view believes the CofE is lost. Those who think otherwise, it is implied, are wasting their time. People should be planning to leave – perhaps to the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) or the Free Church of England; furthermore, to put any energy into other strategies is merely to repeat the same failed actions of the last 50 years, it is argued. If we keep on with the same tactics we will merely replicate the same results.
The second school of thought is what might be called the ‘into battle’ approach. This view contends that the C of E is far from lost, and that nothing is beyond the power of God. Moreover, it holds that many of the key fights have yet to come. People should be planning to stay, rather than abandoning congregations to false teaching; furthermore, to give up fighting would make the victory of liberalism a self-fulfilling prophecy. And while evangelical strategy over the last 50 years may have been flawed, it is implied, things would have been a lot worse without it.
On one hand...
You can point to supporting evidence for both schools of thought. In terms of the suggested triumph of liberalism, you could highlight, for example, the recent bishops’ guidance on transgender issues. You could also point to the failure to appoint comple-mentarian diocesan bishops, despite promises of ‘mutual flourishing’ for conservatives.
But then again, on the other side, you could point to the fact that the doctrine and canons of the Church of England remain basically unchanged and indeed sound on essential issues. You could point to the signatures on an open letter initiated by Ian Paul, including more than 1,100 clergy, contesting the bishops’ transgender guidance. And you could argue that the CofE still has unique gospel advantages.
It seems to me that we need to be wary of being overly dogmatic about either approach, and cautious about making pronouncements which imply that we have a unique insight into the mind of God on these issues which others (who by implication are less enlightened or less spiritual than ourselves) lack.
Humility or cowardice?
As Trevin Wax wrote on the Gospel Coalition website recently: ‘Twitter and Facebook introduce us to stories that – because we think we see everything clearly – make us feel confident in the judgments and denunciations we make. Convinced of our rightness, we feel a surge of adrenalin when we confidently make pronouncements online … The online response often makes us feel affirmed in that opinion, whether it’s because we get savaged by people who oppose us (and we play the role of martyr) or because we get praised by people who agree (and we become the zealous soldier).’
At the same time, he continued: ‘The way of wisdom and humility leads us to admit our limitations. But we must not allow humility to become a cover for cowardice. It would be wrong to appeal to humility in order to avoid developing strong convictions. We should not use humility as an excuse to avoid taking stands on important issues, or as a way of excusing our apathy in coming to better and more-informed conclusions.’
Maybe we need to keep on battling while being grateful that lifeboats are there should we need them …
