“In the end, the outcome of this debate may, more than anything else, determine the future viability of the Church of England.” So sayeth Albert Mohler.
Paul Eddy, a lay theology student from Winchester, wants to know more than if the Church of England has the courage of its convictions. He wants to know if it has any convictions to be courageous about.
Let’s set the scene a bit. A report in the Telegraph shows just how much has been ceded to Muslims in the UK :
A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a “hate crime” and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. The incident will fuel fears that “no-go areas” for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities, as the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, claimed in The Sunday Telegraph this year.
Christians have essentially relinquished these areas to Islam. What Paul Eddy, the theology student from Winchester, wants to know is whether the fear of preaching to Muslims is just your run of the mill cowardice or is it because the Church of England no longer believes that salvation comes through Christ alone. What Eddy has done in order to get an answer to his question has made the leaders of the CofE quite choleric.
By gathering signatures, Eddy has placed a motion to the General Synod requiring an up or down vote. The simple motion reads:
‘That this Synod request the House of Bishops to report to the Synod on their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in Britain’s multi-faith society, and offer examples and commendations of good practice in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and of none.’
Now you wouldn’t think that the leaders of a Christian church should have any trouble signing onto such a motion. But Eddy and the motion have been roundly denounced by many of the more progressive leaders in the Church.
Albert Mohler outlines the choice:
Bishop Lowe sets the issue clearly. He denies that the church should share the Gospel with persons of other faiths, but should instead “respect one another’s paths to God.”
This is precisely the theological compromise that motivated Paul Eddy to bring his motion in the first place. Mr. Eddy told the BBC that the Church of England has “lost its nerve” and was “not doing what the Bible says” in terms of evangelism.
His motion explicitly affirms “the uniqueness of Christ” and “the gospel of salvation through Christ alone,” and for this reason the church will be forced to face a defining issue for the integrity of the Gospel and the church.
If Bishop Lowe’s theology wins the day, as evidence suggests is already happening, the Church of England will forfeit any claim to the Gospel. The New Testament leaves absolutely no room for other “paths to God,” nor for allowing “respect” to preclude evangelism.
The Church of England is not the only church or denomination that has “lost its nerve” when it comes to the Gospel, nor is it the only church to face this test, but it will set its future course in July even if the vote on Mr. Eddy’s motion is the only vote taken.
Will the Church of England find the courage of its conviction or be convicted by their lack of courage? Time will tell.
June 3, 2008 at 2:11 pm
This is the battle of our time and they don’t even know they’re in it.
June 3, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I may get flamed for this (and if what I say is in error, please do so), but my reading of history tells me that Anglicanisim is specifically designed so as not to be able to “put up or shut up.”
Her original creed (the 29 Articles) creed was designed as a political statement more than a theological one. After the swinging pendulum swings of the rift of Henry VIII and the pendulum swinging back again under “Bloody Mary” Tudor, Anglicanisim was designed to be as latitudinal as possible, so, in the words of one history professor I heard, a person of convictions would not find themselves both a heretic AND a traitor (as Anglicanisim was a nation/state religion).
I also believe Cardinal John Henry Newman came to the same conclusion in one of his writings, which was one of the things that encouraged his crossing of the Tiber.
‘I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or hot. Since you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of my mouth.” Revelation 3:15-16
June 3, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Anon, its the “39 Articles”, and I prefer that people refer to Henry VII’s eldest daughter as “HM Queen Mary I” or even “Mary Tudor of Happy Memory”. That other epithet is a vile slur of the reformation heretics (she was never an Anglican, and went to a real Catholic Mass almost every day of her life). Other than that, you’re pretty much right.
Anyhoo, the CofE is the original “broad church” – as Fr Aiden Nichols OP noted in a paper some time ago, it embraces 3 main groups:
1. The High Anglicans – “smells and bells” folks who are almost Catholics except they have no Pope, and a decent vernacular liturgy; they spend a lot of time trying to explain that Angicanism isn’t Protestant at all and are generally pretty socially conservative;
2. The Low “Evangelical” Party – like the folks who run the Anglican “Archdiocese” of Sydney – socially conservative “bible protestants” some of whom don’t even believe in baptismal regeneration [the issue that forced Card Manning out].
3. The Latitudinarians. Think of that NH “Bishop” who’s dancing the chocolate cha-cha with his male lover… Think wimmen in Roman Collars… Think, support for abortion etc etc.
So the Anglicans try to be all things to all people. Any sect that can simultaneously accommodate all of the above groups can never really take a stand on anything.
June 3, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Worth noting, this is the one year anniversary of the death of Catholic Father Ragheed & Companions, New Martyrs of Iraq.
This is life in dhimmitude. How some of these self-hating westerners can lay down for it (scratch that!) roll out the red carpet for it(!), I just don’t know.
Father Ragheed & Companions, pray for us.
June 4, 2008 at 4:57 am
Anonymous and David, be mindful the Holy Catholic Church is replete with clergy and laymen who espouse views every bit as heretical as those crackpot Anglicans. As a newly minted Catholic (formerly a lifelong Episcopalian) I thank God every day we have a Pope and Magisterium, without which the Catholic Church would be in a race to the bottom with the Anglicans.
June 5, 2008 at 9:34 pm
The Church is slow to mobilize, and slow a response must be in order to consider the ramifications of any action. But, mobilize we must. The jihadists are living out a mindset characterized by a will to dominate the world. Our response to fascism must be a firm resolve to confront in truth the irrational forces that are contributing to the disintegration of civilization. “Deus lo vult – God wills it!” is the battle cry of those who stand up for Christ and a civilization based on love of God and neighbour. The most loving attitude one can show towards one’s enemies is to speak the truth, preach the Gospel and accept that the call to live as a disciple of Christ may mean a life of suffering. Trust in the Lord of history, trust in Jesus Christ.
July 3, 2008 at 3:18 pm
The Church of England was founded by Elizabeth as a Protestant Church, and was regarded as such by all other Protestant Churches, he original bishops were almost all Calvinists, with one Lutheran exception. The Elizabethan Settlement was not intended to be a compromise, as the Mass and the religious life were abolished, and all the existing Catholic Bishops opposed dismissed by the Queen.
July 4, 2008 at 9:05 am
Anyone who thinks that the C of E was designed to be as latitudinal as possible should study the work of Dairmaid MacCulloch, his life of Cranmer, and his talk to the Royal Historical Society on putting the English Reformation on the Map. His recent book entitled “Reformation” has also an excellent section on the subject.