Anglican Evangelicals: Mainstream or Taliban?

By: The Revd Dr Peter Carrell
Latimer Fellowship of New Zealand
Annual General Meeting– 20 September 2005

We who call ourselves Anglican evangelicals subscribe to a set of theological commitments which shape our theological, and ethical perspectives on life in the church and in the world.

Alongside the orthodox beliefs of Christian faith enshrined in the Nicene and Apostle’s Creeds, our theological commitments as evangelicals probably include the following beliefs at their core:

the death of Jesus was the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2.2); *1
the supreme authority of Scripture on all matters of faith and practice (though such a statement cannot be found in those words in either the Book of Common Prayer or in A New Zealand Prayer Book, they are implied by Articles 6, 7, 8, 17, 20, and 21 of the Thirty-Nine Articles); *2
the necessity of each believer being in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

As far as being Anglican is concerned I must be slightly more speculative in second guessing what we value! My hunch is that as Anglican evangelicals we particularly value the following:

the reformed heritage of the Church of England, expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and in the Book of Common Prayer, both of which are formularies of our Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia;
a covenantal theology of baptism which is inclusive of our children;
an understanding of communion which is not restricted to one interpretation; *4
episcopal leadership; *5
freedom to explore dimensions of faith and practice (1) unbound by specific schools of evangelical theology (Calvinist, Lutheran, Arminian, etc), and (2) open to useful truth and insight from all Christian churches and movements. *6

The things we value as Anglicans sit pretty comfortably with other values held dear by non-evangelical Anglicans. Our evangelical theological commitments are a different story. They have always sat uncomfortably with the whole Anglican Church. For some they have recalled the Puritan party which was vanquished in the name of broad Anglicanism. For others they have been too restrictive a set of commitments for Anglicans proud of their theological freedom in comparison to Roman and Reformed counterparts. And for others the difficulties and complexities of Scripture discovered by modern scholarship have made a nonsense of claims for high let alone supreme authority for Scripture.

To be sure some of us Anglican evangelicals have been quite narrow minded and that has not endeared us to the wider church which wanted to dance in the aisles when we would not, or to wear more colourful vestments when we wanted ours black and white. Nevertheless we have found that even when Anglican evangelical theology has been attractively explained by intelligent and respected teachers such as John Stott we have not won the day and been invited into the mainstream.

However if typically our position within the Anglican Church has not been in the mainstream, we have always felt quite at home in the Anglican Church. For in this church Scripture plays a significant role in worship, the theology of the eucharistic prayer of the Book of Common Prayer is thoroughly evangelical, and we have always found fellow Anglicans delighted to know Jesus personally as their Lord and Saviour.

Further, there have been just enough evangelical Anglican bishops and Bible teachers to enable us to feel that no contradiction between being Anglican and being evangelical need exist. The roll call begins with Tyndale, Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer, and continues down through teachers such as Simeon, Ryle, Packer and Stott. And at a Latimer Fellowship AGM we might mention the names of those Kiwi Anglican evangelicals now called to glory such as Willie Orange, Roger Thompson, Harry Thomson, Francis Foulkes, and Max Wiggins.

Yet in 2005 we find ourselves in a very curious position! Let me make three observations.

First, certain developments in our church mean that we wonder if this church can continue to be our ‘home’. Some, perhaps even many evangelicals have very serious reservations about whether we can remain in this church if developments such as policy explicitly approving the ordination of openly gay and lesbian people comes closer to our shores. Yet such a possibility only arises because of the sheer breadth of theology allowable within our church. I noticed at the recent Theological Hui (organised by General Synod, 15th – 18th August, 2005 at St John’s College) that some present seemed unable to accept that it is a legitimate question to ask if there are limits to our diversity! Thoughtful evangelicals such as members of Latimer Fellowship rightly wonder whether our fellowship with our whole church is meaningful when the breadth of our church’s theology appears to include atheism (e.g. Spong’s writings), *7 universalism, and syncretism.

Secondly, in our struggle to do all we can to ensure that Anglican evangelicals can remain in the Anglican Church some of our brothers and sisters have formed an organisation called ‘Mainstream’ which is a paradoxical place for those to find themselves who have hardly ever been part of the mainstream of European Anglicanism. I do not wish to make any specific comment on the organisation known as Mainstream (i.e. Mainstream with a capital ‘M’) other than to support in general terms its published aims and objectives. But I make the observation that if Anglican evangelicals are serious about the mainstream (with a small ‘m’) of our church becoming ‘evangelical’ in its character, then we have a lot of work to do. We will only be the mainstream when we have won the hearts and minds of a majority of Anglicans to our cause, and won them in such a way that such majority lasts until the third and fourth generations. In my estimation we are a long way from that achievement. It is invidious to name names and cite specific figures in a public address, so I invite you to do the maths: how many evangelical bishops do we have? Which dioceses and hui amorangi are evangelical in the mainstream of their life? How many evangelical parishes and rohe are there in the remaining dioceses and hui amorangi? Who are the evangelical deans of our cathedrals? Archdeacons? Ministry Educators? Lecturers at St John’s College? Who are the evangelical members of General Synod? Do they represent a majority of its membership?

The sober facts are that Anglican evangelicals are nowhere near being the mainstream of our Anglican Church life in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. Yet there is an even more sobering observation to make: liberal theology has life. Again, do some maths, think back thirty years: from an evangelical perspective all was doom and gloom for liberal theology and the churches it had a hold on. Today, yes, some churches have closed, and some former stipend paying parishes have non-stipendiary ministry, but liberals are alive and well. And many of them are former evangelicals! Is it possible that Anglican evangelicals serious about being in the mainstream need to find some rapprochement with liberals and some deeper appreciation of liberal theology and the dynamics which both motivate it and make it attractive to many Anglicans?

Thirdly, though we evangelicals wonder whether we have a place in the church, some non-evangelicals believe the boot is on the other foot. The existence of Mainstream in Aotearoa New Zealand or its equivalents in countries such as England leads some to think that a well-organised strategy for taking over the church is being worked out. In Stephen Bates’ book A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality (London: I.B. Tauris, 2004) he suggests that the Church of England is being taken over by a ‘Taliban tendency with its own agenda and a strong determination to win’ (p. 222).

I find it incredible that anyone in our church might believe that Anglican evangelicals actually have the ability to take control of our church and impose our theology upon it. Anecdotally, however, I understand that some believe this to be so. Nevertheless it is worth pondering for a moment why even the faintest of connections would be made between Anglican evangelicals and the Taliban. I presume the connection is made because ‘evangelical’ is directly translated by some commentators as ‘fundamentalist’. Immediately some of us may try to respond that this is quite unfair because an evangelical view of the world may be differentiated from a fundamentalist view. Yet perhaps we should not be too hasty. As Anglican evangelicals we include a wide range of evangelicals, including some who, frankly, are accurately described as fundamentalist.

Herein lies a challenge for us. If as evangelicals we do want to distinguish ourselves from fundamentalism and thus deny the ‘Taliban tendency’ epithet then are we tackling the fundamentalists in our midst and seeking to persuade them to think more moderately? I suspect our answer is that we know how hard it is to change people’s minds once they are made up. If that is so then surely our rational assessment of the challenge we face in changing the liberal mindset of our church is that we are unlikely to win that challenge! The fact is that we may have to live with the ‘Taliban tendency’ characterization. But I hope some liberals are willing to accept it too, for among their ranks fundamentalists are also to be found!

In these curious times for Anglican evangelicals several questions arise.

1. Can we remain in fellowship across current differences in our church?

2. Is there any possible ‘common ground’ between evangelicals and non-evangelicals leading to an agreed policy on homosexuality?

3. Within our own Anglican evangelical community can we find ‘common ground’ from which we can strategise the transformation of our church?

I ask you to bear with me as I work slowly through many factors which need to be considered while attempting to answer these questions. It is well known that many Anglicans see Richard Hooker’s great contribution to Anglican life being the development of the three legged stool of Scripture, reason, and tradition as the basis of Anglican theology. But Hooker potentially does something else for Anglicans seeking to do theological work: he models for us attention to detail in the development of our theological arguments. Naturally Hooker is somewhat tedious to read because of this approach and I am willing to risk being thought tedious to listen to for the sake of the importance of the subject matter at hand.

(1) Can we remain in fellowship across current differences?

It is always possible that we cannot remain in fellowship because the history of difference in the church over the last two thousand years tells us that division has taken place on many occasions when difference in belief has arisen. Yet it is always worth doing our very best to remain in fellowship because (1) we take seriously biblical teaching on unity in the church, and (2) we also observe from church history that when division arises the story does not end and eventually Christian people try to reconcile. It seems simpler to do all we can to remain in fellowship!

First, I want to outline why I think it is foolish for us to contemplate not remaining in fellowship. I take it that some of us do contemplate this because I keep hearing evangelical talk of splitting and walking apart.

I acknowledge that some of this talk of splitting and walking apart is simply to remind liberals that our participation in the Anglican Church should not be taken for granted, and that there are limits to the difference we can live with. However such talk can fuel and reinforce in some of our minds the idea that it is only a matter of time and we will be saying good-bye! I think we should take care. Schism is a painful wound in the body of Christ.

Here are six reasons for not entertaining the thought of walking apart at this time.

1. We would walk away from the resources provided by our forbears such as the St. John’s College Trusts, and many diocesan trusts.

2. We would be a very small church. There might be no more than 30 vicars and priests-in-charge who actually walked; not all of them would take their parishes with them; there would probably be no bishop who would walk; and we would not be able to take our church facilities with us (noting that Anglican Trust Boards are notoriously conservative and hate giving away or giving up assets).

3. We would nullify our ability to promote evangelical doctrine in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, which will pay no attention to a schismatic evangelical offshoot.

4. The schismatic offshoot would contain many differences within it and have no guarantee that it would not divide further in the future. *8 These differences would include questions of leadership, *9 theological education,*10 woman in ministry,*11 sexuality, *12 and bicultural relationships. *13

5. We would not have resolved all the questions homosexuality poses. For example, questions such as: is there any place in an evangelical Anglican church for gay and lesbian Christians who faithfully love and care for a partner of the same sex? Can gay and lesbian Christians, whether celibate or not, safely declare their sexuality in our midst? *14

6. We would expose ourselves to charges of inconsistency. We have accepted the fact that divorced Christians will remarry, and that even among the clergy this will happen, and life and ministry will carry on. Yet biblical teaching on the remarriage of divorcees is scarcely in favour of such acceptance. How come we have not walked apart from the Anglican Church on this issue, but some of us are contemplating it because of acceptance of homosexuality? *15

In sum: we have more to lose than to gain from departure from our church. *16

Secondly, I want to outline how we might stay together in fellowship across a great difference in views.

Necessarily such an outline requires some preamble.

I take it as a fair assumption that there is no immediate prospect that the differences between us will melt away, particularly in respect of homosexuality. Evangelicals are not going to give up their conviction that Scripture teaches from both Old and New Testaments that homosexual sex acts are wrong.*17 Liberals are not going to give up their conviction that the status of homosexual sex acts today should be determined by experience interpreting Scripture, in particular the experience of long-term loving homosexual relationships. *18

The word ‘fellowship’ also requires some comment. Typically, and quite properly we evangelicals make a strong link between ‘truth’, ‘unity’ and ‘fellowship’. We resist notions of ‘unity at all costs’ or ‘unity is the supreme value in our church’. We argue that agreement on truth is a core requirement for unity to be a reality we experience rather than a rhetoric we speak. Consequently talk about fellowship across significant difference in belief requires some care.

By ‘fellowship’ I mean that we engage in a relationship with fellow Anglicans in which we knowingly embrace the tension between those things we have in common and those things we do not. In this relationship we are always motivated to find commonality even while we are conscious of what divides us. Such fellowship may or may not accord with some pure theological concept of fellowship defined in terms of ‘unity’ and ‘truth’, but it does accord with the actual experience of being evangelicals in the Anglican Church through many centuries.

The question of whether we evangelicals can maintain fellowship with non-evangelicals at this time of difference is not a novel challenge to our conviction that truth and unity are integral to fellowship. We have faced the question of difference before, and we have maintained fellowship within the Anglican Church while recognising difference, albeit sometimes precariously and loosely.

How then might we stay together in fellowship at this time of crisis?

1. Where there is a will there is a way: if we are willing we will find a way to remain together.

2. Draw on our experience of being a Three Tikanga church over the last 15 years, which has shown us that fellowship across great difference is possible.

3. Make relationships a priority: it is possible to relate to people who think differently providing there is some element of common ground; conversely, finding common ground can lead to relationships forming and deepening. When relationships are formed, when communication is maintained in a spirit of grace and respect then fellowship is possible. Some of us I know, all of us I hope, find and will find that many good quality relationships exist between Anglicans across great difference in a wide range of beliefs (i.e. not only on the matter of homosexuality). The recent Theological Hui in Auckland in August 2005 demonstrated that this can happen.

4. Draw on the experience of the past year: some formal diocesan conversations on homosexuality, and the recent Theological Hui of the whole church have demonstrated that many of us are able to engage in gracious and respectful conversation which has underlined both our differences and our ability to relate across those differences. We might also note that the Windsor Report, which many evangelicals find helpful, is an example of the good outcome which is possible from gracious and respectful conversation.

5. Do not dare call conspiracy that which is not conspiracy: some of us evangelicals with confident personal faith in the power of God seem paradoxically prone to the fear which nurtures conspiracy theories: the encouragement to ‘continue the conversation’ is not a conspiracy tactic designed to wear down the resistance of evangelicals; it actually arises from (a) the recognition of real difference which is not going to go away; (b) the commitment to find a way to live with difference; and (c) a genuine and conspiracy-free pastoral interest in the well-being of gay and lesbian people in the household of faith. *19

6. Think creatively: one of the ways in which Anglican evangelicals have hung in with the Anglican church is by creating organisations which nurture our beliefs and give expression to our objectives. Latimer Fellowship, NZ CMS, ARMNZ, SOMA, and Mainstream, etc., are examples of this creativity. If this current crisis is driving us to renewed concern about our place in the Anglican church, let’s draw on our tradition of creating useful organisations in order to explore possibilities for ‘new arrangements’ rather than walking apart.

If these ‘new arrangements’ require a different form of Anglican governance in order to ensure fellowship across difference let’s apply our minds to that task. In a three Tikanga church which now has three bishops resident in Auckland, the map of episcopal oversight for a diverse church is being redrawn before our eyes. Perhaps it may yet need to be further redrawn. *20

There is much more to be said. For Anglican evangelicals uncertain of the answer to the question whether we can remain in fellowship across great differences, my conviction grounded in the case outlined above is that we can remain together. If we remain together then we will be contributing to the mainstream life of our church, a continuing evangelical presence in the life streams of our church. Our ability to remain together will be enhanced if we can find ‘common ground’ on which to develop policy on the specific differences arising from the question of homosexuality.

(2) Is there any possible ‘common ground’ between evangelicals and non-evangelicals leading to an agreed policy on homosexuality?

I would characterise the current situation as a stalemate. The Windsor Report has requested a period of careful reception of its proposals and a moratorium on controversial actions. For the most part our bishops are observing this. But this situation cannot continue indefinitely. On the one hand it is anxious for evangelicals. Although this period of inaction is bearable it is unbearable not knowing what the next period will be about. On the other hand it is a difficult period for Anglican homosexuals who must wonder what kind of hospitality will be available for them in our church. At some point an initiative will be taken to end the stalemate. Could the initiative come from the Latimer Fellowship? If ever we need ‘thoughtful evangelicalism’ it is now!

At the recent Theological Hui whose theme was ‘Anglicans in Communion: Rhetoric or Reality?’ it was interesting to note the tacit consensus that we did not wish to directly engage on the issue of homosexuality itself. In many ways this was good because it enabled us to engage with the theme itself and to acknowledge that there are many differences among us, and thus keep some balance to the occasion. In my view the Hui was an occasion for hope: we discovered afresh that through talking we develop strong relationships and in strong relationships we can live with considerable differences. The fact remains, however, that the current stalemate will only be broken as we move from the excitement of discovering how we can live with difference to the realpolitik of nutting out what common ground exists between us from which some policy can be developed.

In what follows I am embarking on something of a risky experience. What I say may be quite unhelpful to evangelicals, liberals, and to Anglican homosexuals. If that is so then I will cease to attempt to find a way out of the stalemate and leave it to other minds to find the way. My attempt begins with a very important presupposition, notes six significant factors in shaping a policy, and then outlines a possible policy for consideration.

An important presupposition: evangelicals in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia are a minority group. We cannot presume that we can make a proposal in the Inter Diocesan Conference of Tikanga Pakeha or in the General Synod/te Hinota Whanui and muster the numbers from within our own ranks. *21 We are, however, a respected and sizeable minority and any united decision of our church needs to be based on common ground between evangelicals and non-evangelicals. What follows proceeds on the basis that we do not have control of key decision making bodies. Naturally this will involve some compromises we would not wish to make were the situation otherwise. Nevertheless we can have hope that a policy can be developed which is significantly weighted in a conservative direction because there is inherent conservatism within Tikanga Maori and Tikanga Polynesia, some of which has clear evangelical roots. *22

Six significant factors: first, for any policy to succeed it will need to unequivocally uphold the special place of marriage and the value of singleness. I sense that this is not simply a matter of evangelical conservatism but important to the mainstream of our church across each Tikanga.

Secondly, if the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire tells us anything it is that we mess about with the episcopacy at our peril. We are an episcopal church and the unity of such a church requires that its bishops are not sources of division. A policy will need to offer clear guidance on the episcopacy in relation to marriage and sexuality and the unity of our church. Our common ground here is that we all want our church to remain together, even as we differ in our approval or otherwise of the election of Gene Robinson.

Thirdly, if the Diocese of New Westminster validating blessings of same sex unions tells us anything it is that we Anglicans understand only too well that our liturgies enshrine our theologies. A policy we might agree to should steer us away from authorising blessings of same sex unions. To so authorise is to draw a conclusion which this church is not ready to make on a consensus basis, and in fact such consensus may never be reached. A common ground here would be agreement neither to authorise such liturgies nor to sanction those who informally use them.

Fourthly, a policy will never be agreeable if it either explicitly, and utterly bans the licensing (and ordaining) of gay and lesbian ministers, or if it clearly spells out that bishops may so license (and ordain). Further, our policy would need to be a million miles away from suggesting that the norm in our church will be unquestioning acceptance of gay and lesbian ministers, so evangelicals thereafter fear discipline against them if they do not subscribe to this norm. Common ground here would be recognition of the importance of compromising our ideals and making this compromise in a way which is discreet and conciliatory in its language.

Fifthly, it will be helpful to many Anglicans, and not just evangelicals, if a policy is developed which is clear about civil unions. It is difficult to uphold the value of marriage and also permit licensed clergy to become civil union celebrants in respect of heterosexual relationships. To explicitly permit licensed clergy to become civil union celebrants in respect of homosexual relationships is to fall into the trap of making a decision about something ahead of our ongoing conversation on sexuality being brought to a conclusion. Yet, in a policy working from common ground between evangelicals and non-evangelicals, something short of an outright ban on clergy becoming civil union celebrants is required. *23

Sixthly, a policy needs to avoid certain things which are unacceptable to most, if not all evangelicals. These things include any suggestions that this church:

wishes to deem ‘same-sex unions’ to be ‘marriages’ (the difficulty is our deep conviction that marriage is only open to male-female couples); *24
‘approves’ of homosexual relationships officially in its policies, formularies, and resolutions (the difficulty is that, since the Bible is one of the formularies of this church, such a statement would either contradict our own formularies or deny the authority of Scripture);
thinks evangelicals are temporarily misguided, and one day we will change our minds.

Taking into account the matters raised above, this is what such a policy might look like:

A POSSIBLE POLICY

Ordained and lay ministers holding a bishop’s licence

Candidates for ordination, and ordained/licensed ministers and lay licence holders are expected to be either married or single (i.e. not in a de facto relationship, not in a civil union).

Bishops

Bishops must be married or single. For the sake of the unity of the church no divergence from this standard is possible.

Note: a difference in standard for bishops compared with clergy has precedent. The Orthodox Church has a different standard for its bishops (must be single) compared with its clergy (may be married).

Marriage, Civil Unions and the Blessings of Same-sex Relationships Marriage is a monogamous, lifelong, covenantal relationship between a man and a woman; it is a gift from God which provides a holy and blessed context for a husband and a wife to encourage each other’s love for God, to develop their love for each other, to enjoy sexual intercourse, and to begin and nurture family life. *25 Licensed Anglican priests preside at marriage ceremonies as part of their ministerial duties, in accordance with long church tradition. *26

A licensed Anglican minister should not apply to become a civil union celebrant.

This church does not authorise specific prayers to be used when praying for same-sex relationships.

END OF POSSIBLE POLICY

This kind of policy has the advantage that it would safeguard us from going down the divisive North American route of ordinations to the episcopate of people living in same-sex relationships and the path of formal authorisations of blessings of same-sex couples. Yet it offers the possibility that openly gay and lesbian Anglicans are included in the ministry of the church in appropriate ways, since the only office of the church closed outright to such Anglicans is the episcopate. (The subtle difference between ‘expected to be either married or single’ for licensed clergy and lay ministers and ‘Bishops must be married or single’ means that bishops would not be completely forbidden from ordaining/licensing gay and lesbian people).

My understanding of this possible policy is that it conforms to the Windsor Report (which notably does not tackle the question of whether priests might be neither married nor single). It has the advantage of being concise, yet touches on major areas of our ecclesial life on which guidance is required. Naturally it presumes that all current teaching of our church on marriage and sexuality, that is, the canonically agreed teaching expressed within the Canon on Marriage and the Marriage Services of our prayer book, remains in place. Conversely it avoids seeking to detail an ethic for homosexual relationships, not because such an ethic is not useful or not necessary, but because it is unlikely that we could secure agreement on such an ethic. *27

Of course this possible policy is not agreeable in every aspect to evangelicals (nor for that matter to non-evangelicals). *28 For example, such a policy is not as strict as the Diocese of Nelson’s policy statement on Marriage and Sexuality (2004) which ‘requires’ its ministers to be either single or married and specifically bans its ministers from becoming civil union celebrants. *29 But would it be disagreeable to evangelicals in such a way that we would feel we must walk away from our church? The kind of policy proposed above does not require us to change our views on homosexuality but it does enable us to live in fellowship with Anglicans who have different views on homosexuality.

Further, the policy proposed above accords very closely with the actual situation prevailing in our church today: all our bishops are either married or single; heterosexual clergy are expected to be married or single; a few bishops have exercised discretion and knowingly ordained and/or licensed gay and lesbian clergy; and bishops are discouraging or even deterring their clergy from applying to become civil union celebrants.

Why might Anglican evangelicals come to the party on some such policy?

One reason is already clear from the general thrust of what I have said to this point: we have much to lose from schism, and a lot to gain from staying together. But there is another reason, perhaps even more important. At the centre of the swirling controversies over homosexuality are people. Jesus died for every single gay and lesbian person; gay and lesbian Christians are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Does the love of Christ not therefore compel us to speak of homosexuality in terms of ‘us’ and ‘we’, rather than ‘them’ and ‘they’? If we do not stay together with non-evangelicals over this issue, will there be any language on our part concerning homosexuality which is not ‘them’ and ‘they’? Can there be integrity to our claims of love for homosexual brothers and sisters if we divide because of ‘them’ rather than stay together so that all of ‘us’ might walk together in the way of Christ despite the pain of our differences?

There is possible common ground between evangelicals and non-evangelicals on policy on homosexuality. It is worth finding that common ground because people and not only principles are involved. To work for such common ground and a consequential policy would be a contribution to the mainstream life of our church.

Conversely, the kind of policy I have outlined would mean that neither liberals nor evangelicals gained the kind of ascendancy over our church which all too quickly could lead to a Taliban-like control of our church. *30

(3) Within our own Anglican evangelical community can we find ‘common ground’ from which we can strategise the transformation of our church?

I think I must be an optimist! I have talked to this point about a number of difficult matters which threaten to divide our church, all the while making the presumption that we evangelicals are going to be more or less united on whatever position we finally take on the matter. This is, of course, quite naïve of me! The history of evangelicalism in general is a history of division. If Anglican evangelicals have not completely divided because we have at least hung together as Anglicans, the fact is that there have been and are some important differences among us! Pro charismatic, anti charismatic; pragmatic, principled; liturgically minded, prayer book ignorant; Ridley College, Moore College; eternal punishment, annihilationism; and these are just some of the differences among us!

These differences from one perspective are a lovely part of being evangelical. They give us a bit of colour and provide some interesting edges to our corporate character. But from another perspective they are stumbling blocks to advancing the cause of evangelicalism. Is it time to set aside our differences?

Let me explain. As Anglican evangelicals we would love to see our church transformed evangelically. Our ambition is a majority of parishes, bishops, and dioceses committed to the Christ of the Scriptures and to teaching shaped by evangelical theology. We long for the church to be welcoming and celebrating evangelical approaches to being church, rather than being suspicious and critical of what we do. Now some aspects of such transformations can be furthered by evangelicals getting into the heart of the church’s many projects and seeking to influence them. One strategy which commends itself is that evangelicals take up some of the workload of the many committees and councils of our church. We are, currently, poorly represented in the committees, boards, and councils of our church.

Realistically, of course, such a strategy has limitations. The transformation of any Anglican church requires a second strategy which is formulated around two big wishes of evangelical Anglicans.

First, we wish there were more evangelical bishops. *31 Secondly, in Aotearoa New Zealand we wish there was a sound Anglican evangelical theological college closer at hand than Australia or England. We feel that if these two wishes were fulfilled then all would be well. Evangelical bishops would select good keen evangelicals for ministry training. The evangelical college would train them well. After ordination these evangelical ministers would develop evangelical parishes, from which people would be called to ministry.

But how are these two big wishes to be fulfilled? The question of an Anglican evangelical theological college is partly a question of resources and partly a question of supply of students. The question of supply turns partly, but not wholly, on the theological inclinations of the bishops: non-evangelical bishops are unlikely to send students to an evangelical college. Thus the primary challenge for Anglican evangelicals to meet is securing more evangelical bishops. *32

In our church this challenge is partly mathematical: any number of evangelical candidates in an episcopal election can be put up, but success will only come to the candidate acquiring a majority of votes. At some point in an episcopal election a coalition of supporters is required: voters who set aside other preferences to unite behind one candidate will have more success than those who do not unite.

It is precisely at this point in the process that evangelicals need to be able to unite, and not only among themselves, but also with sympathetic non-evangelicals. Can we find common ground among ourselves, and with others, in the quest for more evangelical bishops? By my reckoning within the next seven years six out of seven tikanga pakeha diocesan bishops will retire; and possibly three out of five hui amorangi bishops in Te Pihopatanga will be replaced. By contrast there may be just one change to the bishops in the Diocese of Polynesia in that period. How are we going to respond to this challenge?

We need to be unified and to find this unity by setting aside those things which matter less than the matter of electing an evangelical bishop. This ought to be possible because the fact is that complete theological agreement is not as important as we evangelicals make it out to be.

Consider the four gospels themselves. Although the question of the relationships between the four gospels is not yet satisfactorily resolved there is widespread agreement that some kind of relationship exists between the first three and this relationship involves at least one of the gospels improving on at least one of the other gospels by adding material, or reworking material, or deleting material. In a sense there is a respectful conversation between these gospels: there is listening, there is retelling what is heard, and there is further telling. The conversation seeks to deepen understanding of the true significance of Jesus Christ.

There is less common ground among scholars on the relationship between John’s Gospel and the first three gospels, but it is quite possible that John’s Gospel is itself a reflection on the state of the conversation recorded in the first three: John hears their conversation and adds his bit to it, reckoning that there is more to be told about Jesus’ words and deeds and the meaning of them.

When we come to read the four gospels in the 21st century we find a most interesting story being told through them.

First, we read a story with a number of fixed elements: the story is about Jesus, his parents are Mary and Joseph, he calls disciples, teaches, performs mighty deeds, dies, and rises again.

Secondly, we read a story with many flexible elements. Each gospel says something which no other gospel tells us. Some stories occur in one or two or three only of the four gospels. Only a few stories are told by all four gospels. Further, each gospel has a perspective from which it tells the story.

Thus right here in the heart of the Scripture, in the very gospels from which evangelicals draw their name, we find unity (each gospel is absolutely centred on Jesus Christ; each gospel agrees that Jesus is the Son of God; and that the most important events in his story are his death and resurrection) and we find difference in theological outlook. The gospels witness to Christian unity in the midst of theological differences.

Might this speak to us as evangelicals? That is, might we find considerable unity among ourselves amidst significant differences? Might we foster this unity towards common purposes knowing that doing so is to mirror Scripture itself: four different gospels together tell the one Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

It could be that finding, or perhaps rediscovering what we have in common as evangelicals bears fruit beyond unity in electoral colleges. Imagine a greater unity of purpose in contributing to many other aspects of church life. We might even find ourselves swimming in the mainstream!

Rev Dr Peter Carrell

Appendix

Diocese of Nelson, 2004

Statement on Marriage and Sexuality

1. Holy Scripture is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice, including marriage and sexuality. The interpretation of Holy Scripture is a matter on which dialogue occurs within the church, and to which the Tradition of the universal church of Jesus Christ and statements of church councils, including Lambeth Conferences, and our own Synod contribute; this statement being such a contribution.

2. The church is the people of God in mission to the world, as taught by Scripture, witnessing to new life in Christ made possible through Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection to life, and available to all people through repentance from sin and belief in Christ; in this mission the church desires that people experience the true grace of God and freedom in Christ which is the healing of our wounded humanity; this grace and freedom being available to all people, including people of all sexualities and whether or not they are single, married, widowed, divorced, remarried, or otherwise; and to this mission the Diocese of Nelson is committed. This statement is intended to assist rather than inhibit this mission as described above.

3. The clear intention of Scripture is that marriage is a monogamous, lifelong, covenantal relationship between a man and a woman; it is a gift from God which provides a holy and blessed context for a husband and a wife to encourage each other’s love for God, to develop their love for each other, to enjoy sexual intercourse, and to begin and nurture family life; it is not equivalent to other forms of relationships described as ‘de facto marriage’ or ‘civil union’ even though these relationships may contain elements in common with marriage as defined here; and it is not a relationship into which two people of the same gender may enter.

4. The mission of Christ’s church includes the nurture, encouragement, and instruction of single people, married couples and families in the way of Jesus Christ; and the development of faith communities as true and loving expressions of the family of God in which Christian people of all ages and stages in life, including all sexualities, recognise themselves and each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

5. As an expression of the mission of the church and of this Diocese’s commitment to marriage as defined above, ordained priests in the Diocese of Nelson are encouraged to conduct marriage services (providing such conduct is in accordance with Title G Canon 3 of Marriage and relevant civil laws which apply); but because of our commitment to marriage no licensed minister, lay or ordained, may participate in leading any service, ritual, ceremony, or blessing of a relationship which is similar to marriage such as a ‘civil union’, whether such relationship is between two people of opposite sexes or the same sex, and whether or not such relationship is legally recognized in Aotearoa New Zealand or any other country or formally recognized by the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia.

6. Singleness is an honourable way of life specifically endorsed by Jesus’ own example and by the Scriptures. The Diocese of Nelson acknowledges a continuing tension in the life of the church as it seeks to honour both marriage and singleness. (Singleness is here defined as not being in a sexual relationship with another person).

7. Honouring both marriage and singleness in today’s church involves facing sensitive pastoral questions concerning people who identify themselves as homosexual, are divorced, or divorced and remarried.

8. While acknowledging that a range of views concerning sexuality exists within God’s church at this time, the Diocese of Nelson itself maintains the view that Scripture endorses marriage between a man and a woman as the only acceptable domain for sexual relationships, and therefore does not endorse sexual relationships between people of the same gender.

9. Consistent with clause 8 above the Diocese of Nelson requires its licensed ministers, ministers with permission to officiate, and office-holders to be either single (that is, not in a sexual relationship with another person) or married; and if married to be sexually faithful to their spouse.

10. The Diocese of Nelson determines for the guidance of the Bishop of Nelson that clause 8 and 9 above interprets and further defines Title D Canon 1 Part 10.4 and 10.4.1 which read:

10.4 CHASTITY:Chastity is the right ordering of sexual relationships.
10.4.1Ministers are to be chaste. Promiscuity is incompatible with chastity.

11. The Diocese of Nelson recognises a specific challenge to its mission at this time when voices in the world and in the church are calling for a different assessment of the morality of same sex relationships than that given in this statement; it encourages ministers and congregations to work creatively and compassionately to welcome all people into our churches, especially in this context, people who identify themselves as homosexual.

12. The Diocese of Nelson expects that any licensed ministers, ministers with permission to officiate, and office holders in the Diocese will uphold the views of the Diocese as expressed in this statement, both by their example of lifestyle and in their teaching and in any public statements they should make.

Diocese of Nelson, as resolved in its Synod at Greymouth, October 2004.

Footnotes

Cf. ‘the one perfect sacrifice for the sin of the world’ offered ‘once for all on the cross’ (NZPB, p. 437). A classic evangelical crux concerns the question in 1 John 2.2 whether ‘propitiation’ (e.g. AV, ESV) rather than ‘expiation’ (e.g. RSV) is understood by ‘atoning sacrifice’ (NIV). One wonders how many evangelicals under the age of (say) 35 understand the significance of this matter for evangelicalism! Gordon Cheng, ‘The popularity of evangelicals’, in The Briefing, September 2005, Issue 324, p. 6, noting that, some 100 years ago, the centrality (or not) of the atoning death of Christ was the dividing point between the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union and the Student Christian Movement, goes on to assess the breadth of current evangelicalism thus: ‘the previously hard-edged definition of ‘evangelical’, championed by people like the Cambridge students against SCM, seems to have melted like an ice-cube in the warm sun of popular acceptance.’ The author stands with Cheng and Cambridge!
The Windsor Report, Section 53 states ‘Within Anglicanism, scripture has always been recognised as the Church’s supreme authority, and as such ought to be seen as a focus and means of unity’; Section 54 develops this understanding of the phrase ‘the authority of Scripture’: ‘a shorthand, and a potentially misleading one at that, for the longer and more complex notion of “the authority of the triune God, exercised through scripture”. For a fresh examination of the authority of Scripture see N.T. Wright (i.e. Bishop Tom Wright of Durham), Scripture and the Authority of God (London: SPCK, 2005). Wright was a member of the Commission which wrote the Windsor Report and his hand in the sections on Scripture is obvious!
I have held to this threefold summary of evangelical theology ever since hearing it from John Meadowcroft at a student lunch in St Matthew’s Vicarage, Dunedin, in the mid 1980s.
The hunch here is that while some Anglican evangelicals stick to one and one only interpretation of communion through their lifetimes, others value freedom to either change interpretation or to deepen and broaden their interpretation, and in particular to acknowledge the ‘holy mystery’ of communion as that which conveys the incomprehensible wonder of the grace of God.
Would it be unfair to characterise Anglican evangelicals as preferring to have a ‘bad’ bishop leading them than a ‘good’ moderator or superintendent?
Cf. Archbishop Peter F. Jensen, Christ’s Gospel to the Nations: the heart and mind of evangelicalism past, present and future (London: The Latimer Trust, 2003), p.14, who argues that Anglican evangelicalism is ‘loyal to the doctrines of the protestant and reformed Church, and in this its argument could certainly stand scrutiny as over against Anglo-Catholicism and liberalism’.
A considerable dimension to the writings of John Spong is antagonism to Christian ‘theism’. The god of John Spong is ‘a-theistic’ in character. The essential heresy of Spong is his claim that the true god has been misrepresented by orthodox theologians and the biblical writers. Logically this means that Spong is the recipient of a new and previously unknown revelation of the true god. In turn this means Jews and Christians for millennia have believed in a false god. The author is forced to suppose that Anglicans who consider Spong’s theology to be within the bounds of Anglican breadth do not realise the extent of its heresy.
A passing observation by John Meadowcroft in the course of a book review colourfully expresses evangelical tendency to walk apart from each other: ‘A less edifying strand that runs through their story is a fissiparous tendency to fight each other in the face of a common foe, and their readiness to excommunicate one another because of a perceived departure from the faith on some non-essential, sometimes trivial, issue’ (Latimer Focus Issue 17, September 05, p. 20)
Leadership questions such as: who would be leader? Would there be participation in an overseas Anglican network, and in which one of those on offer?
Theological education questions such as: Would there be a preferred training institution for ordinands? Would there be prejudice against certain institutions? How would training be financed?
Women in ministry: since some talk of future Anglican re-alignment speculates on the role of the Archbishop of Sydney as the putative leader of a possible international Anglican network, we cannot ignore the question of what this would mean for the ordination of women within such a network.
Sexuality questions (apart from homosexuality questions noted in Section Five above) include the status of parishioners in civil unions and de facto relationships or who are remarried divorcees (e.g. are they eligible for leadership roles or not?). In the author’s view evangelicals presume agreement among ourselves on these matters, but in fact we rarely talk about them, and there are variances among us as we wrestle with these questions in everyday parish life.
It is not at all clear to the author that Anglican evangelical talk of schism in this church is anything other than pakeha Anglican evangelicals talking!
In general terms questions of homosexuality for evangelicals are likely to be unresolved theologically for a long-time, perhaps for all time: our tendency is to approach homosexuality in moral terms (is it right or wrong for homosexuals to do this or that?); the tendency of Christian homosexuals (in the author’s estimation) is to approach homosexuality in cultural terms (we are this kind of people, with this way of conducting our relationships, and we wonder why we cannot be accommodated in the church like other cultural groups?). Thus there is a fundamental difference which leads to continual misunderstanding. One sign that different approaches operate is the invisibility of evangelical gay and lesbian people Christians publicly affirming celibacy as their preference over faithful partnerships. In the meantime practical questions of the place of homosexuals in evangelical Anglican churches require more immediate answers.
The author finds some evangelicals curiously unwilling to take this point on board, i.e. that we might be inconsistent in our application of Scripture to current sexuality questions. It is accepted, however, that some evangelicals are prepared to advance careful arguments attempting to refute the charge of inconsistency.
For some the question, ‘what would happen to clergy pensions?’ would be a not insignificant part of the reckoning of potential loss or gain!!
Malcolm Falloon, the Warden of Latimer Fellowship, exemplifies both this conviction and the biblical theology under-girding it in his article “Leviticus and Sexual Purity: Salvation, Transformation and Ethical Worship” in Latimer Focus Issue 17, September 05, pp. 12-14. It is important that evangelicals keep making the point that evangelical sexual ethics rest on ‘biblical theology’ arguments from Scripture and not mere ‘proof-texting’. The latter is easily ridiculed by lines like ‘if its OK to eat shell-fish, its OK to engage in gay sex’; the former cannot be dismissed so readily and require serious counter-engagement.
It is worth noting that even where liberals engage directly with Scripture in an attempt to secure a biblical mandate for accepting homosexuality, difference with evangelicals arises. For example, there is an increasingly popular line of argument that The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) wrestling with the acceptability of Gentile Christians models a way forward for the 21st century church working out the acceptability of practising homosexuals: new circumstances may force a redrawing of the boundary for inclusion in the Gospel (in that case, Christians are not limited to people who are also Jewish; in this case, Christians are not limited to people who are either married or single). On the face of it evangelicals might welcome such a biblical argument. There are, however, at least two flaws with this argument: (1) actions in Acts are not uniformly models for us to follow (e.g. speaking in tongues is not the only sign of baptism in the Spirit; becoming a prisoner, as Paul did, is not the only way to obtain an audience with a ruler); (2) since Paul, a thorough-going Gentile inclusivist, nevertheless invoked the same standard of sexual morality for all his readership, Jews and Gentiles, notwithstanding the acceptability of homosexuality within Gentile culture, it is implausible to argue against Paul from Acts 15.
There is a danger, in my observation, of evangelicals being unfair to Kiwi liberal Anglicans. In some of our evangelical conversations we tell ourselves that homosexuality and its acceptance is just one item on an agenda which includes the acceptance of adultery and paedophilia. Perhaps someone somewhere has such an agenda, and someone blogging on the internet has drawn attention to it. In my experience this is not the agenda of liberals in our church.
In the author’s view there are several models of (so called) ‘alternative episcopal oversight’ worth exploring. The point of question (2) addressed below is that it may not be necessary to explore such models if an agreed policy based on ‘common ground’ can be found.
Thus our situation is not that of evangelicals in the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand where they appear to have the 60% majority required in two successive General Assemblies to approve a conservative evangelical motion concerning the ordination of homosexuals; cf. Malcolm Falloon, “An Interview with The Revd Stuart Lange”, Latimer Focus Issue 17, September 05, pp. 4-5.
Voting in the Inter Diocesan Conference of Tikanga Pakeha is by dioceses with 4 ‘ayes’ and 1 abstention required to pass a motion. Since only one diocese is clearly evangelical the potential for evangelicals to pass or fail motions is limited. In General Synod/te Hinota Whanui votes by houses (bishops, clergy, laity) or by Tikanga may be called for, with any one house or Tikanga having the power to veto legislation. In practice the veto is rarely exercised but its potential shapes legislative proposals so they are likely to be acceptable to all three Tikanga.
For a helpful account of a Christian response (from an Anglican perspective) to issues raised by ‘civil unions’ see Andrew Goddard, Fulcrum response to the Civil Partnerships Act (http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2005/20050723cpa.cfm). (Civil partnerships are the UK equivalent to NZ civil unions). The author is of the view that it should be possible for people in all kinds of relationships to legally register their relationships if this assists property and inheritance matters. NZ’s civil union legislation, however, goes well beyond a simple registration process and sets up a quasi-marriage ceremony as an alternative to marriage.
See also footnote 12 above.
This paragraph to this point is taken directly from Clause 3 of the Diocese of Nelson’s Statement on Marriage and Sexuality (2004). A copy of this statement, which includes significant teaching on marriage, sexuality, and the care of single, married, divorced, and homosexual people, is available as an Appendix to this paper.
Some Anglicans view Marriage as one of seven sacraments (cf. The Thirty-Nine Articles which allow only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Given that civil marriage (i.e. contracting a marriage without reference or recourse to the church) was possible in Aotearoa New Zealand before the passing of civil union legislation, it is logical for our church to view ‘civil unions’ as the contracting of a marriage-like relationship in an a-marriage manner, and thus contradictory of expectations that priestly ministry is available to support and uphold marriage. ‘Civil unions’ between people of the same sex presided over by a priest in a church would look very ‘marriage-like’ (not least because the wording of the civil union legislation barely distinguishes between civil unions and marriages) and (in the author’s estimation) this is not something on which evangelicals would find ‘common ground’ with non-evangelicals. The proposed policy in this paper does not ban clergy becoming civil union celebrants or praying for same sex unions, but it does not encourage them or explicitly permit them to do so.
Some may raise the question, if a bishop exercises the slight freedom implied in the proposed policy to discreetly ordain a homosexual person living in a same-sex partnership, what ethical standards would the bishop apply when deciding whether to ordain or not? One lead would come from ‘Title D’, our church’s canon on ministry standards, which applies to all ministers and which requires ‘chastity’ (i.e. the ‘right ordering of sexual relationships’) and forbids ‘promiscuity’ (Title D Canon 1 Part 10.4 and10.4.1). Another lead would come from the policy itself which affirms marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. It would be unhelpful to have a licensed minister in a same sex relationship which was declared to be a ‘marriage’ since this declaration would contradict the church’s teaching on marriage. In other words, under the proposed policy a bishop would not have carte blanche to ordain/license homosexuals living in any kind of relationship. Only a faithful, loving, lifelong partnership, which is not declared to be a ‘marriage,’ is likely to meet the standards of this church in respect of the proposed policy and the church’s existing canons on marriage and ministry standards.
It is acknowledged that this paper is written from an evangelical and heterosexual perspective. To reflect on these matters from other perspectives would require the paper to become a monograph!
The author, who is licensed to the Bishop of Nelson, is entirely in agreement with each and every clause of the Diocese of Nelson’s Statement on Marriage and Sexuality (2004) (printed in an Appendix to this paper) and nothing in this paper is intended to question or dispute any aspect of that statement. The Nelson statement, however, is a policy of the Diocese of Nelson. In the happy event that the remainder of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia adopted this statement, the policy proposed in this paper above would be unnecessary. In the absence to date (one year after the publishing of this statement to the bishops of our church) of signs of such adoption taking place, it is appropriate to consider what policy our whole church might agree to.
One of the mistakes we can make in this situation is assuming that our church necessarily will follow the path of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. where liberal ascendancy seems Taliban-like in its exertion of ideological control over priests and parishes unwilling to toe the party line. This church is not ECUSA!
Our bishops are excellent in many ways, however, out of the current 18 bishops in ‘active’ ministry I can only think of 2 who might be unabashed to call themselves ‘evangelical’. A somewhat rough personal estimation of evangelical bishops among our bishops elected to office since the Second World War suggests that there have been 5 or 6 out of 56. Thus our long-term average contribution to the episcopal bench is approximately 10%. A more representative figure, in my estimation, would be 25%.
It is entirely true that ministry and mission in our church does not depend on bishops, and much evangelical good has happened irrespective of the local bishop’s theological colours. But the story of the Nelson Diocese since 1990 witnesses to the difference an evangelical diocesan bishop can make to the evangelical direction and character of a diocese.