To begin this thread here is a copy of my letter published in CEN this week (it was written in response to Dave W's letter the week before and he and I have been conversing privately over email, however I thought what we were discussing would be worth being discussed here, so here it is:

Dear Editor

I find the undisguised attack on Open Evangelicals by David Williams (letter 18 May) disheartening, if unsurprising.  He firstly accuses Colin Craston of muddled thinking, although does not explain why Colin's thinking is 'muddled'.  It seems that he simply disagrees with the point that Colin is making - namely that the fundamentalist approach to Scripture is neither helpful nor theologically astute.  Colin then draws on the parallel of the Liberal Christians in the 1920s, but David  Williams unhelpfully seems to imply that the 'Liberal' denotation of that group can be paralleled with the liberal theology of today and thus makes, perhaps unwittingly, an unjustified link that Open Evangelicals today are liberal in their theology and practice.  I am an Open Evangelical, I believe the creed I say each week and I love Scripture, I have a personal relationship with Jesus and I am concerned to see people come to know and love Him - do I tick all the boxes?  As David suggests you are all free to consider whether I am an Evangelical or not.  David Williams is one of my regular conversation partners on the Fulcrum website (www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk), as such I am thoroughly saddened that he has chosen to muddy the waters in this way.

Jody Stowell

www.radical-evangelical.org.uk

As I said, Dave and I have talked privately about this, but I feel that it would be worth having other input.

I believe I am right in saying that most/many liberal evangelicals were universalists, whereas I imagine that most open evangelicals would feel that judgement is a real thing, (even if we see hell in terms of extinction rather than eternal torture, and even if we baulk at the rather cavalier way in which Richard Turnbull reckoned 95% were on their way to hell).

I wonder too if (partly as a result of the above) the liberal evangelicals lacked "bite", and so gradually fizzled out, whereas I would hope open evangelicals feel passionately committed to the work of the kingdom, including both evangelism and other aspects of mission, and hopefully therefore in the grace of God have a lot to offer to the church, and will continue to do so over a long period. George Day

Easy does it . You said "The Princeton Theologians emphasised the literal inerrancy of Scripture as the 'proof' that it was the Word of God and made empirical data the 'proof' that Scripture was inerrant. "

The Princeton theologians were inerrantists but not literalists. Hodge totally accepted geology and Warfield was a Darwinist. I dont think the Liberal evangelicals were responding to Princeton but rather accepting the rather strong biblical criticism of the day. The conservatives objected to that. In fact very few evangelicals of that period accepted inerrancy. That has come in since partly from Princeton but also the extreme forms of inerrancy which also tend to literalism.

It is also true to say that Anglican evangelicals are often more conservative than their forbears and also more literalist. I have difficulty in finding any literalists among Anglican evangelical clergy after 1855 until about 1970 except Griffiths Thomas who went literalist when he went to North America. Just in my own diocese I can name several literalist clergy and that with some hardline views causes many problems.

Michael

It would be interesting to try Graham Kings' approach regarding different groups of liberals, though I am not sure the approach transfers entirely. Liberals are quite a wide bunch. As for evangelicals, the problem is that in defining the different branches of evangelical, the most conservative will be keen to correct and oppose aspects of evangelical they feel undermines their own cause. This was surely the motivation behind Richard Turnbull's boundary marking and warning, and defining who was properly part if the correct 'in crowd'

Labels and contents shift over time. Some of the daring Broad Church people are now pretty standard to many of the liberals now; you have to see the orthodoxy by which the Trinity was understood to really ask if it is understood so easily these days - and I'm not here talking about liberals alone. My own knowledge outside the Church of England of Unitarian history shows Unitarian Christian beliefs in the late nineteenth century were more orthodox than many mainstream views today, despite the shift of language because of retained use of Trinity now. Some open evangelicals argue in a manner that are more radical in content and method than older unitarian views - with the exception that biblical unitarians said the doctrine of the Trinity is not contained in the Bible (about which many Anglicans and others now agree, but regard the Trinity as a legitimate development after the Bible).,/p>

Comparisons are important because contexts shift, and it may not be fair to compare say liberal evangelicals of 90 years ago with open evangelicals now. Nevertheless, when Steve Chalke changed his view on penal substitutionary atonement, there was surely a great yawn elsewhere, and this really is only an issue for evangelicals and hardly anyone else. Liberals arrived there a long long time ago.

There is an interesting post on AM website from Chris Sugden

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1733

entitled 'Conservative, Charismatic, Open. Really?' What do you think, Graham?

Thanks, Jeremy, for pointing out Chris Sugden's fears about defining evangelical Anglicans as 'Conservative, Open and Charismatic'. I am just off to our evening service for Pentecost, but would greatly value discussion with Chris about this. Perhaps CEEC could set up such a discussion?

It may, however, be worth Chris reading the whole of Anvil Vol 20 No 3 2003, published just before NEAC 4.

http://www.anviljournal.co.uk/Abstracts/20_3_Abstracts.htm

As well as 'Canal, River and Rapids: Contemporary Evangelicalism in the Church of England', it featured the addresses given at Islington Conversations Eclectics in April 2003 on the theme of 'Our Mission in Britain'. Vaughan Roberts gave the conservative perspective, Christina Baxter the open perspective and Mark Stibbe the charismatic perspective. 

The person who summed up the conference at the end, and whose essay is also in that edition is none other than Chris's colleague on Anglican Mainstream, Philip Giddings. He wrote:

So the hope for the day was that we would find clarity about our common identity as we together explored our common task. And so it proved.

Vaughan Roberts, Rector of St Ebbes, Oxford, told me some time ago that he has been giving out copies of the edition which he considered to be very fair. He uses the three streams in his pre-NEAC4 CEN article, 'Rallying Round the Banner' (11 Sept 2003): on the NEAC4 site, click on the link for Articles from the Press, and then 11 Sept:

http://www.neac.info/

See also Martin Davie's pre-NEAC4 CEN article on the same site dated 1 May 2003, 'The Three Challenges for Evangelicals Today'.

To add his pennyworth - an interesting blog from John Richardson on why 'Open' is not really 'open'.

http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-open-means-closed-and-conservative.html

I note the increased vehemence against people who call themselves 'Open Evangelcals' - and JR's own perception that he alone is the truth.

I think it is easy to be unfair to ultra conservative evangelicals. Many of them were brought up (as I was) on 2 major stories.

One was Francis Schaeffer's slippery slope (admit that scripture can be mistaken in one matter, and the whole edifice of the reliability of scripture falls apart). Now, I happen still to hold to scripture as perspicuous, authoritative, definitive and trustworthy and reliable in all that it affirms about the salvation story. In that respect, I'm happy with classical evangelical formulations about scripture. But then along came "inerrantism" from the other side of the pond, and screwed up the ways in which we express it. Ultracon evos have bought into that.

The other story is the "separation for the sake of truth" paradigm, played out (for example) between the IVF and SCM (where, ironically given UCCF's current stance) I would have been on the side of IVF; and between CMS and BCMS. This tends to mean that the ultracons (perhaps neocons, since arguably they are the cuckoo in the nest of evangelical Anglicanism, importing Sydney into the UK) are always looking out for the liberal enemy within. Thus UCCF diss Spring Harvest; all of them diss the evangelical bishops; Reform diss Fulcrum; etc. It's all a function of the purity myth which sees everything we disagree about as "contending for the truth", and therefore needing lines to be drawn in the sand.

Now, I do know evangelicals whose doctrinal and ethical stances I would probably describe as liberal, but I don't recognise in the vast number of evangelical Anglicans with whom I'm in contact (most of whom wouldn't go near Reform, though they would in many cases self-identify with New Wine) any change from the evangelical Anglicanism that has been a part of the Church of England since Keele. So (and I blogged the rest of this on John Richardson's blog, in response to his request for a debate) here's my two pennyworth as a theologically conservative open evangelical:

"To be honest, most of us who would call ourselves "open evangelicals" would say we thus self-describe because we're fed up with being called liberals by the ultra conservative evangelicals, and we've been prevented from calling ourselves "mainstream" because the ultra conservatives have nicked that label. But, in order to keep the debate going, here's my go at exploring what I think Open Evangelical means...


Towards a definition of "Open Evangelical"

"Open evangelical" is a term that has emerged in the context of evangelical Anglicanism in the UK. Broadly speaking it is those who see themselves as heirs of the Keele Congress of 1967, when evangelical Anglicans committed themselves to work in the mainstream of the Church of England, who would want to wear that label. "Open evangelical" is usually defined over against "conservative evangelical", although open evangelicals would claim to be conservative on scripture and radical on everything else.

What are open evangelicals in the Church of England open to ?

1. Biblical scholarship
Believing scripture to be inspired, but not wishing to wear the inerrantist label, and content to accept that theology is a positive gift to the church, and that hermeneutics are essential to the task of understanding an inspired scripture.

2. Cultural change
An unchanging gospel must be proclaimed in a variety of cultural contexts, and to be open is to be culturally aware and adaptable.

3. Other theological traditions
Open evangelicals would accept that others not owning the evangelical label are also Christians, and would want to learn from them.

4. Holistic mission
Most open evangelicals are convinced that evangelism and social action go hand in hand, and that the motivation for social and political engagement is God's activity and calling to people and churches, and not merely a means of pre-evangelism.

5. The Church of England
A majority of evangelical Anglicans would want to wear the label that way round, with "evangelical" as the adjective that defines "Anglican". This entails a commitment to the structures and ecclesiology of the Church of England.

6. The full ministry of women in the church
Open evangelicals supported the ordination of women to the priesthood (the conservatives didn't), and would argue from scripture that women can be both priests and bishops, and take their full part in the Church of England's ministry.

7. Evangelism
To be an open evangelical is to believe that every structure in the church must pass the acid test "does this further the mission of God?" There is no point in the church being there for its own sake. It is only there as sign of the Kingdom.

8. The World
Open evangelicals are basically world affirming. They believe that the role of the Church of England is to be the church for the whole country, and that to be committed to that view entails working with the grain of society rather than against it.

9. New patterns of worship, prayer, and liturgy
Experiment in the area of worship is a hallmark of open evangelical Anglicanism. They have been in the forefront of devising new liturgy, writing new songs, and encouraging new patterns of worship.

10. God
It is probably the case that open evangelicals have a view of God that sees him more as an agent of change than as a defender of the status quo... "

1. Thanks, Pete. Very perceptive comments on 'slippery slope', 'separation for the sake of truth' and open evangelicals.

2. Thanks, John (Watson) for pointing out John Richardson's instant reaction.

3. Thanks, John Richardson for your article 'Why open means closed and conservative'

http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-open-means-closed-and-conservative.html

After reading it, I am not at all convinced that Martin Luther and Thomas  Cranmer would be pleased to be named as your theological pioneers of lay presidency!

It is interesting that the reactions of both Chris Sugden (Anglican Mainstream) and of you, John (Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream) today, clearly aim at my comments on the Sunday programme this morning, concerning the three streams of evangelical Anglicanism in the C of E, but neither of you names me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/realmedia/sunday/sundayauto.ram

How can we have the necessary debate if we don't mention our names? If we do, then we need to go on to discuss together with 'rigour but without rancour'.

I have put both the articles by Chris and you, John, up on Fulcrum newswatch. Perhaps there will be links to 'Canal, River and Rapids...' on the Anglican Mainstream and Ugley sites?

4. Thanks Chris Sugden, for your article 'Conservative, charismatic and open. Really?'

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1733

Chris, since you read the Fulcrum site, how about having a discussion here? I would much prefer a face to face discussion organised, as seems appropriate given its aim to represent all evangelicals, by CEEC: but that needs time to organise and also the will of the Chair of CEEC. Could you please suggest it to Richard?

Chris, you talk about the powerful (who make differential definitions) and the powerless (who want to keep commonality). Are you really suggesting that the unnamed commentator this morning (myself) is the former and you are the latter? Maybe I have misread you.

Later you bring in the issue of race and apartheid and enforced defintions. This really does not fit, for charismatics seem to me to be happy to be called charismatics. Open evangelicals seem happy to be called thus - see adverts in the Church Press. Some conservatives seem happy to be so called: see the first paragraph of the 'about us' page of the Fellowship of Word and Spirit:

http://www.fows.org/html/about_us.htm 

Other conservative evangelicals, eg David Holloway, prefer the name 'mainstream' (see the paper mentioned below from October 2003), which is somewhat confusing. For if conservatives use the name mainstream for themselves, then does that have the same meaning in the title of your own organisation? And is not Richard, the Principal of Wycliffe, a member of your UK steering committee?

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?page_id=216

Chris, you say: 'There is a refusal to accept that there is common ground and commonality. It is a refusal to include'. Well, there really is no refusal to accept common ground with fellow evangelicals on my part. We, I believe, are all evangelicals. I stressed that in the introduction to my article:

One way of seeking to hold together our movement under stress is to attempt a preliminary exercise in some general 'mapping' that may make sense of our unity and diversity. This 'mapping' is exploratory and suggestive rather than definitive and fixed. The metaphor explored in this article is that of the movement of water in three different watercourses: canal, river and rapids. It seems to me that our evangelical Anglican identity is 'one' but that we have 'three' theological shapes within it: conservative, open and charismatic.

The advantage of the metaphor of the movement of water is fluidity. The river can flow into rapids and can feed the canal. However, we do need to avoid the disadvantages of literalism in our interpretation. As evangelicals it is perfectly possible to be in more than one course at a time and at different times. Many evangelicals are conservative on some issues (e.g. homosexuality, as manifested in the debate concerning Dr John's appointment), open on particular subjects (e.g. the importance of hermeneutics) and charismatic in certain perspectives (e.g. prayer for healing). Some are conservative and charismatic, others open and conservative, and others charismatic and open.

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2003/20030930watercourses.cfm?doc=2#intro

However, some conservative evangelicals (as seems to be the case with Richard, from the evidence of his address to the Reform Conference) do not want to grant the name of evangelical to open evangelicals. See also the letter by David Williams, an Oak Hill student, to the CEN last week, to which Jody Stowell replied this week (see the first post on this thread). From your final comment, however, you seem to be willing to grant the word 'evangelical' to 'open evangelicals': 'There is a cigarette paper of nuance between orthodox evangelicals on matters of Christian faith and practice...'

Jacques Maritain wrote a fine book on metaphysics and epistemology Distinguer pour unir (1932) on which Rowan Williams, in Grace and Necessity (2005), comments and translates as 'Distinguishing so as to unite'. Perhaps this is one way of looking at the concept of the three streams?

Chris, people who read the Church Press have heard sharp reactions against this concept before. The Church Times of 9 January 2004 reported a paper, dated October 2003 (just after NEAC4) from a meeting of 'representatives from the Church Society, the Fellowship of Word and Spirit, and Reform,' which was 'strongly critical of some of the people who attended the conference.'

Under the heading "Where do we go from here?" the second paper also says that future gatherings should not include "open folk", but "must blow out of the water the view that evangelicalism is made up of three strands: open, mainstream and charismatic. Open must be excluded."

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/newsletter09.cfm?doc=137#_edn22

'Blow out of the water' is quite a violent phrase which, somewhat ironically picks up the water metaphor of the article...

One final question: Who was the Chair of 'Fellowship of Word and Spirit' at that meeting in October 2003? Was it Simon Vibert, the current Chair?

Bank Holiday leisure gives me the opportunity to add a comment to this thread. Perhaps I am in a small minority, but I don't find the definition of evangelicals into different types particularly helpful - largely on the basis that I don't fit easily into any such set of definitions myself. Whilst thinking about how I would define myself, I remembered that not far away from where I live in the Midlands, there is a little village called No Man's Heath. Before various county boundary re-organisations, this used to be the point where the counties of Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Derbyshire and Leicestershire all met. The area around it was basically common land - formally not part of any of the manors around it, and used as common pasture by all. Sometime's as an evangelical I feel I live on No Man's Heath! There is part of me that is "conservative", part "charismatic" and part "open" - and indeed there is a little bit of catholic / orthodox thrown in to make all three parties suspicious of me. So I don't fit, and to see the boundaries between the parties being drawn ever more sharply I find frankly distressing. Eight days ago, on the Sunday after Ascension Day, the gospel reading was the wonderful prayer of Jesus' for the church from John 17 "that all of them may be one". On the various blogs I frequent, I have seen no reference at all to this over the last few days. But the importance Jesus gave to unity amongst his people can be judged from its position in scripture just before the events of the Passion. Perhaps in the present circumstances of strife within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, this saying of Jesus is just too hard for us - but evangelicals trying to define differences amongst themselves will certainly not help, using Jesus' words from that same chapter, " to let the world know that you sent me". Enough of the sermon. Peace to all

Chris Baker

I have added an initial to my nick name as there is another David on the Forum.

Graham Kings' criticism of Chris Sugden and John Richardson is somewhat unfounded as both their articles appear to have been written before the Sunday program. I found the Sunday program piece strange as it seemed to be mainly archieve material and told me more about Oak Hill than Wycliffe. I would not be surprised if from his background Richard Turnbull had a more assertive management style than the staff were used to but evanglical students need to be exposed to conservative as well as open viewpoints. His experience in evangelism, church planting and pastoral work must help fill the gap left by the departure of Michael Green. The attempts of the feminist lobby to silence rather than engage with conservative voices as expressed by Chritina Rees is to be deplored.

To extend the analogy of the watercourses we should remeber that they have the same source and end and bring living water to thirsty souls.

David 

Those who want to read than listen can look here again (it has been extended):

http://www.change.freeuk.com/learning/relthink/turnbull.html

Plus those who want to see what some of the actors in the drama look like might then want to cover their eyes.

Chris Sugden's comment on Sunday was sad - I mean his expression puts the change (led by the Council?) to Wycliffe College at risk of being considered something other than part of the academic community, whatever else it does (and it does ask whether seminaries should be part of universities), and his dismissal of other forms of Christianity as another religion as not very far from the truth is this continuation of the Bishop of Rochester's virtual two religions. That was an attack on the liberal position, but in the latest expression it seems to extend in a context of evangelicalism, spreading this dismissive brush about managerialism and worst excesses curbed. I'm tempted to do a Pete Broadbent style ten points from one (ie mine, who elses?) liberal position and indeed it would be different, but I am not worried about difference (especially as other liberals are different too).