|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/640
Fulcrum Subjects: Anglicanism, Church of England / Anglicanism, Evangelical Other articles by Stephen Kuhrt are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 18 comments on this article Fulcrum Newsletter July 2011Remaining at the Centre of the Church of Englandby Stephen KuhrtCo-published, with permission, with the Church of England Newspaper 21st July 2011
My involvement with Fulcrum goes back to 2003 and its launch at the fourth National Evangelical Anglican Congress at Blackpool (NEAC4). Ordained just a few months before, my hopes were that NEAC4 would follow the spirit of the earlier NEACs at Keele (1967), Nottingham (1977) and Caister (1988), particularly in their commitment to working positively within the structures of the Church of England and addressing weaknesses within the evangelical Anglican tradition. On both counts, however, the Congress was disappointing with a far more reactionary agenda being evident. Few of the fresh developments in evangelical theology that had been established over the previous decade and a half were reflected at Blackpool and the attitude displayed by its organisers towards the recently elected Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, contributed to an atmosphere that was far from the positive vision for evangelical Anglicans for which I had hoped. Both the endorsement of Anglican Mainstream and the nature of many of the addresses given at NEAC4 pointed instead to the increasingly separatist direction in which evangelical Anglicanism appeared to be heading. Having just begun my curacy, I faced the strong temptation to abandon my hopes that the structures of evangelical Anglicanism would be renewed and simply get stuck into my parish or ‘non-political’ networks. This was the path that seemed to be being taken by most other non-conservative evangelicals I knew with the energy of groups such as New Wine directed productively towards the renewal of worship and ministry within evangelical churches but less inclined to place any priority upon the renewal of the church’s political structures. There was, however, one aspect of NEAC4 that made me think again. Expressing my disappointment with the nature of the Congress, I was informed that a group was being formed with the aim of renewing ‘the evangelical centre of the Church of England’. Intrigued, I went along to its first meeting in the Galleon Bar to hear Tom Wright (who had been noticeably excluded from the platform at the Congress itself) setting out some of the exciting vision for the renewal of evangelical Anglicanism for which I had hoped. The group was Fulcrum, so named because of its desire to be a point of balance and therefore influence within both evangelical Anglicanism and the Church of England. Reaction to the formation of the group during NEAC4 ranged from enthusiasm from those coming to its increasingly well attended evening meetings to a good deal of anger from the congress organisers who had wanted NEAC4 to present a uniformly conservative face for evangelicalism. An interesting response also came from some of those who were positioned near the evangelical centre but who were nervous about the existence of a group that would present any sort of challenge to conservative evangelicalism. ‘Why do we need another group?’ was the comment of one of my friends, seemingly anxious about the waves he knew Fulcrum would cause. My response was to argue that without such a group the only voice likely to be heard from evangelicalism were those strident and unrepresentative ones some distance from where the most evangelicals were located. Signing up to join Fulcrum with some enthusiasm, I was fairly soon invited to join its leadership team as Administrator. It is now eight years since the launch of Fulcrum. Much of its impact has been through the means of its website which includes the provision of a newswatch service (with 2158 web news stories posted in 2010), an online journal providing regular articles on a variety of subjects (81 of these in 2010), an index to facilitate access to these articles and opportunities for dialogue through its discussion forums. We have also held a number of conferences on a variety of themes with speakers including Tom Wright, Rowan Williams, John Sentamu, Jane Williams, Elaine Storkey and David Ford. All of these conferences have sought to set a positive agenda for renewing the evangelical centre of the Church of England. Perhaps the most significant role that Fulcrum has had during this time, however, is that of challenging the drift towards evangelical separatism and negativity about the Church of England which formed the background to its original establishment. Two contentious issues have particularly contributed to the context of this debate – the ordination of women and the church’s response to homosexual practice. In terms of the first of these, Fulcrum is convinced of the biblical basis for the full ministry of women at every level and is therefore completely enthusiastic in its support for women bishops. We are in favour of some concessions being made for those who are opposed to this development but not at the price of creating a situation where the full ministry and authority of women bishops will be compromised. On this basis we favour a statutory code of practice rather than the establishment of legal safeguards for those opposed to women bishops. At the same time Fulcrum is concerned to make it clear that the establishment of women’s full ministry is emphatically not ‘a problem to be solved’ but a tremendously exciting opportunity for the renewal of the Church of England. The Bible supports it and the ministry and mission of the church requires it! In personal terms, I am very influenced here by witnessing the brilliant ministry of my three ordained women colleagues and the effect that they have had on the life of our parish. Preaching, evangelism, pastoral work, decision making and the whole atmosphere of services are transformed when women take their full place in ordained ministry alongside men and the establishment of women bishops will enable this to happen on a much greater scale. It will also have a transforming effect on the nature of the House of Bishops, described to me recently as sometimes unpleasantly full of testosterone! In terms of the church’s response to homosexual relationships, Fulcrum’s position is that the context for sexual relationships is life-long heterosexual marriage. Two factors are important in our approach here, however. First our belief that dialogue and discussion with those who disagree with this perspective is a crucial means of the church working towards a coherent response to this issue. This has been demonstrated in the ‘Goddard to Goddard’ online conversations through which Andrew Goddard of Fulcrum has engaged in a helpful dialogue with Giles Goddard of Inclusive Church. Second, Fulcrum is resolutely opposed to those who would use the issue of homosexuality as a means of working towards greater separatism from the Church of England. The recent launch of the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) is an example of this, and organised by the same conservative evangelicals who initiated the so-called Covenant for the Church of England in 2006, GAFCON in 2008 and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCAUK) in 2009. Each of these has attempted to form structures that will enable any evangelical with a disagreement with their bishop to appeal to their authority and then partially secede from the structures of the Church of England as a means of getting their way. Fulcrum remains convinced that this will cause chaos and work directly counter to the cause of mission and evangelism within this country. We are also convinced that issues as diverse as homosexuality, women bishops, the authorisation of church plants and ordinations must be addressed separately if they are to be handled with integrity. More positively, Fulcrum is fully committed to supporting the Covenant Process proposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury as the means by which the Anglican Communion should establish the basis by which we approach our most fundamental differences. It is both an honour and a responsibility to succeed Elaine Storkey and Francis Bridger (her predecessor) as Chair of Fulcrum. Major challenges lie ahead, not least efforts to work towards reforming the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) so that it can become more credible in its claim to represent evangelicals across the Church of England. Many local Diocesan Evangelical Unions or Fellowships have become similarly moribund, meaning that fresh ways need to be found to enable evangelicals to dialogue and work together to influence and further renew the Church of England. The evangelical bishops also need to be encouraged to take a greater amount of responsibility for renewing evangelical political structures alongside the other duties which they undertake. Further to this, however, I would like to see Fulcrum doing more over the next few years to provide people with greater access to some of the exciting biblical and theological scholarship around at the moment and, in particular, helping to relate this to the work of churches and other Christian projects ‘on the ground’. My hope is that this will particularly contribute to: - A renewed vigour for holistic mission theologically driven by a greater grasp of the challenge of Jesus and vision of the Kingdom of God - A renewed commitment to ecclesiology as the Body of Christ, including the commitment to remain together with others in the Church of England despite our differences and work through the issues upon which we disagree. - A renewed love for theology and biblical study, not merely repeating the tired and worn out mantras of the past but going back afresh to the Bible to see the things that we have missed (as well as those we have got right) and seeking to communicate this truth in fresh and down to earth ways. In addition, I am also keen for Fulcrum to become a more supportive network for those who would identify with this ethos and approach, not least in our undiluted support for holistic mission and the full ministry of women. Fulcrum is excited and optimistic about responding to the challenges that the church in this country is currently facing in terms of mission, evangelism and ministry. And it remains convinced that a crucial part of being able to respond to this challenge is a positive and confident evangelicalism remaining right at the centre of the structures of the Church of England.
Stephen Kuhrt is Vicar of Christ Church, New Malden, Chair of Fulcrum and author of the recently published Tom Wright for Everyone: Putting the Theology of N.T. Wright into practice in the local church. Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Dave Monday 1 August 2011 - 12:48am Roger, That is an interesting list, but I think it is a list of the current views of open evangelicals. The mantras of the past include: We should be people of one book. By faith alone, by grace alone, by scripture alone, through Christ alone, to God glory alone Every Christian is a witness The church is the people Its not what you get but what you give To reach every man in our generation To know Christ better and make him better known One beggar telling another beggar where to find bread that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all Believe with you heart has well as your head. Jesus is Lord of all or not Lord at all The point is not that they are wrong but that insights quickly become clinches and too easily fall from the lips. Dave Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 30 July 2011 - 04:58pm Remaining at the centre of the COfE is not a biblical goal and I would rather be out of it rather than condone anything incompatible with scripture because remaining connected to God's words (John 15) is what matters ..... (and may mean not even being in the CofE one day but that is not the case today given Lambeth 1.10 stands, despite all the non-scriptural arguments which have tried to undermine it....and the 39 articles are still in place even if not treated with integrity by too many...... so evangelicals do not have to leave the CofE.....those who made vows but have issues with their own church's teaching should consider their position if they have integrity.......) Mark - I have many times asked you for a case from scripture on other threads (and you do not respond) .... I ask you precisely BECAUSE I am willing to listen to Christ....to what his Father has revealed in scritpure through his Spirit - but not to you or anyone else if you contradict them or the scriptures God has given us....even with lame questions which assert what is clearly in scripture and understood by the church catholic for millennia is not clear.... Keeping in step with the Spirit is a biblical goal for the Christian.....keeping in step with what is compatible with scripture revealed by the Holy Spirit.....wrestling with scripture is great, Mark..... to see what God is saying - rejecting what scripture says when it does not fit with our presuppositions or deconstructing it to try and avoid its meaning is not wrestling with it but false teaching ie incompatible with scripture .... Posted by: Roger Hurding Friday 29 July 2011 - 03:31pm I am grateful to Stephen for his article and for the spirit of much of our discussion on the Forum, agreeing with Mark's comment that this 'does seem...to represent a hospitable evangelicalism where the real questions of real people can be treated seriously, and not dismissed as tangents.' Stephen mentions two areas of controversy, 'the ordination of women and the church's response to homosexual practice' and Fulcrum allows and supports the debate of such issues with great freedom. David Baker queries the meaning of 'the tired and worn out mantras of the past' in Stephen's article and I too wonder exactly what these might be. I suspect we could each offer a list of possibilities. For me, they would include; A tendency to over emphasize the prescriptive and propositional elements within scripture to the neglect of narrative, poetry, metaphor, symbol, parable and ancient wisdom; A truncated view of scripture which narrows God to the surface text with a neglect of context and the 'bigger picture' of general revelation and common grace; An 'us' and 'them' mentality which pigeon-holes others as 'revisionist', 'liberal', 'unsound' or, simply, 'non-Christian' if they do not conform to a particular set of beliefs and doctrines as defined precisely by the 'in' group; An all-embracing stress on the cognitive and behavioural (both clearly essential for Christian living) and the neglect of the affective, intuitive, psychological and experiential, where 'God is the god of all truth'; An inordinate elevation of the importance of the cross with little or no reference to the centrality of the resurrection. Posted by: David Baker Wednesday 27 July 2011 - 06:22pm I wonder what specifically are "the tired and worn out mantras of the past" that are being referred to in the article here towards the end? Posted by: Mark Bennet Sunday 24 July 2011 - 07:37am Nersen On the contrary, I don't want to avoid scripture, I want to wrestle with it. This is a forum where that should be possible, don't you think? I do not pretend to be anything other than I am, and nor do most of the others who post here. The Forum isn't Fulcrum, but it does seem to me to represent a hospitable evangelicalism where the real questions of real people can be treated seriously, and not dismissed as tangents. I have no idea whether you have read the story of the Road to Emmaus recently - it was the Gospel reading for my final service here in Great Parndon yesterday. It tells the story of companions on the road, and the mysterious third who first listens to what they have to say, their questions and confusions. Having listened, he opens up "all the scriptures", but still they do not understand. Then he breaks bread, and they get it. He accompanies them in their confusion as they are going the wrong way. Or as I put it in a recent sermon - they know the story of the cross, they don't need to be told that, indeed it is their story to tell. Only when they have told their story can the story of resurrection begin. I am engaged in pastoral ministry, which involves, very often, accompanying people on their journey. Listening is not compromise. Dave - the evangelical centre is contested, mainly because just about every evangelical group seems to define the church is such a way that they are in the centre - I agree it is a claim. It could be justified, perhaps, by the Forum as a scripturally serious meeting place for evangelicals across the spectrum, and by serious attempts to interpret evangelical positions for the wider church. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 23 July 2011 - 06:47pm Mark, anyone can comment here....even people who aren't even Anglicans, let alone Christian, seem to think their opinions are highly relevant for the CofE....forums are not Fulcrum...but official Fulcrum positions do still come from a basis of wanting to have a scriptural justification....and that's why Fulcrum has been strongly defending Lambeth 1.10 as the mind of the Communion....it has done good work (despite being a bit blind in loyalty to the ABC) Once again, you want those who don't have issues with the creeds and the 39 articles to justify their position in the CofE....just like you want those who agree with the mind of the Communion re sexual activity to answer your tangents as, for whatever reason, you seem to want to avoid what scripture says and what Lambeth 1.10 says it means.....perhaps it is those who have issues with the mind of the communion and creeds who should consider the integrity of their position in the CofE? (especially if they've made vows?) Posted by: Dave Saturday 23 July 2011 - 01:17pm Mark, I have always found the phrase evangelical center ambiguous - is this the center of evangelicalism, the CofE or the AC and si it defended aspirationaly or statistically. Graham speaks of the 3 streams, is Fulcrum a player i.e. open or is it an umpire i.e. neutral. It is the history of Fulcrum which concerns me , it was formed in opposition to the leadership of NEAC 4. and seems to criticize every initiative taken by other evangelicals. I have never been sure who represents Fulcrum so I regard the Fulcrum view as that expressed in Fulcrum Newsletters and Fulcrum Statements rather than the wider range of views in the articles or even wider range on the Forum. The conservative understanding is that they are truly Anglican because the believe the faith of the BCP and 39 Articles. The way to strengthen evangelicalism in the CofE is effective mission and church planting and this is what AMiE seeks to support, This is the work that is being done by Proclamation Trust and Crosslinks. Are we to regard Tom Wright as THE theologian of Fulcrum? His rejection of the established understanding of justification, imputed righteousness and and penal substitutionary atonement takes him away from the evangelical consensus. He may be right but his views have not yet achieved widespread acceptance. The strength of evangelicalism internationally can be seen in the Gospel Coalition. Dave Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Friday 22 July 2011 - 11:59pm Fulcrum, it seems to me, is highly institutional, thus out to protect and develop Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion - a very bureaucratic mentality, one that likes maps and pushing around the personnel in strategic positions. As for the evangelical side, it wants both worlds - the evangelical and the notion that you can arrive at it openly. I am always interested in individuals 'on the move' and just as celebrated evangelicals 'ask radical questions' about key evangelical defining doctrines (that is, tread along a well worn path), so do ordinary individuals do things like attend theological college and realise that the evangelical certainties are not so certain after all. Some of them, along with the loyalty to their wider employer, eventually ditch the evangelical label. People are on the move all the time. Posted by: Mark Bennet Friday 22 July 2011 - 09:18pm Dave So far as being at the centre is oncerned, I think you are wrong. I am not wholly signed up to Fulcrum, but I find here other Biblically serious christians who will engage on matters of substance. There are a small number of more conservative voices who don't seem to think the questions I ask out of my reading of scripture and my wrestling with the world are worth bothering with - indeed they seem to want to define the world in terms of their own questions. So I would say open and middle on that score. Also, it may have passed your notice that the conservative elements of the CEEC devised a motion (a 'following motion') designed to obtain support for their position in the Diocesan Synod debates on women bishops. Twelve dioceses have so far vored and none has passed the motion - most votes have not even been close. Stephen is particularly right in this case that the Conservative minority are marginalising themselves - the rest of us can be called names like 'revisionist' and 'liberal', and that may feel good, but it doesn't make it true. It is up to the Conservative Evangelicals to articulate (as the evangelical constituency did at Keele for example) a positive case for their involvement in the Church of England. All these separate organisations which seem to be emerging look rather ridiculous in this context, and look for all the world as if there is a plan for a separate church. Posted by: Dave Friday 22 July 2011 - 02:45pm Pluralist, Your posting has me again considering the "shape" of the CofE. I think the simplest division is on style of worship which gives us High - catholic - sacraments, broad - singing, low-evangelical- the Word read and preached, Liberal -discussion groups. Then I think we all need word and sacrament, hymns and prayers, discussion and meditation. So there is a range of healthy Anglican styles and our choice depends as much on personality as theology. Only the extremes are suspect those who abandon the sacraments etc. The next model is based on source of doctrine. Again I say we all use revelation, reason and tradition in different ways. If we did not use reason we may as well worship and read the bible in Latin. On this basis I envisage the church as a sort of orange segment shape. The vertical axis runs from tradition to scripture. The horizontal, the application of reason to this mixture. On this model, I see Fulcrum as on the edge of the evangelical movement being those who are most open to reason and tradition and in constant danger of being pulled off their Evangelical moorings. This is something quite different from the center of evangelicalism which Graham described in Canal, River and Rapids: Contemporary Evangelicalism in the Church of England Fulcrum has failed to be a point of balance between the open, the charismatic and the conservative. It has become the opposition to the conservative. There are many who are closer to the center of evangelicalism who self define as conservative or charismatic. Dave Posted by: Dave Friday 22 July 2011 - 02:43pm Pluralist, Your posting has me again considering the "shape" of the CofE. I think the simplest division is on style of worship which gives us High - catholic - sacraments, broad - singing, low-evangelical- the Word read and preached, Liberal -discussion groups. Then I think we all need word and sacrament, hymns and prayers, discussion and meditation. So there is a range of healthy Anglican styles and our choice depends as much on personality as theology. Only the extremes are suspect those who abandon the sacraments etc. The next model is based on source of doctrine. Again I say we all use revelation, reason and tradition in different ways. If we did not use reason we may as well worship and read the bible in Latin. On this basis I envisage the church as a sort of orange segment shape. The vertical axis runs from tradition to scripture. The horizontal, the application of reason to this mixture. On this model, I see Fulcrum as on the edge of the evangelical movement being those who are most open to reason and tradition and in constant danger of being pulled off their Evangelical moorings. This is something quite different from the center of evangelicalism which Graham described in Canal, River and Rapids: Contemporary Evangelicalism in the Church of England Fulcrum has failed to be a point of balance between the open, the charismatic and the conservative. It has become the opposition to the conservative. There are many who are closer to the center of evangelicalism who self define as conservative or charismatic. Dave Posted by: Deleted user 1372 Friday 22 July 2011 - 05:25am I agree with the basic argument but the thought occurs to me, increasingly, that the Anglican debate is likely to fail on a key issue. Evangelism is inseparable from the active participation of the laity taught by but not dominated by, the professionalised clergy. The modern debates about the future of evangelicalism in an Anglican context are being conducted by clergy and increasingly, bishops, as in the Covenant debate. It is not that the laity are being deliberately excluded but that the debate is increasingly focussed on clerical issues, as the article demonstrates. If there is a message from the past that is worth bearing in mind, and I take the point that we should not be tied down by other times, it is that evangelisation is, and has always been, a lay business— the apostles, and our Lord, were laymen, despite efforts to argue otherwise. It is active lay participation that really separated evangelicals from other Christians from the Reformation onwards. It is friendship, freely given, that brings people to the Saviour, and theological pilpul, liturgies and the like, while central to believers, are marginal to the unchurched. It is only when lay people can declare their faith as working in their personal lives that there is a spiritual dynamic for outreach. The laity cannot, repeat, cannot, be "empowered" by the clergy. The history of evangelism teaches the reverse to be the truth, i.e., it is the giving of the laity that empowers the clergy. There is a huge Christian church in modern China which flourished after the departure of the foreign professional religious controllers. Growth was not clergy-led as there were too few clergy or ministers to lead the amazing growth of the church in China in the 1970s. We do not have, in the modern Church, the wealthy (untaxed) philanthropists who dominated evangelical movements in the 19th century. Today's laity are for the greater part, male and female, full-time employees and parents with only limited time available for the ecclesiological visions of the clergy such as the "Missional Church." The immediate task is to liberate that limited time so that the laity can be effective in bringing others to Christ. It is only then that the teaching and nurturing ministry of the ordained Christians can really come into play. Ian Welch, Canberra, Australia Posted by: WATERANGEL Thursday 21 July 2011 - 09:14pm Thankyou Stephen For the reclarification, of the past , present, and future aspirations of the role of fulcrum in evangelicasm. Can you say when there might be another meeting of fulcrum members the last one i knew of was 2 years ago and i was on my way back from Egypt disappointed i could not attend. Posted by: WATERANGEL Thursday 21 July 2011 - 09:13pm Thankyou Stephen For the reclarification, of the past , present, and future aspirations of the role of fulcrum in evangelicasm. Can you say when there might be another meeting of fulcrum members the last one i knew of was 2 years ago and i was on my way back from Egypt disappointed i could not attend. Mind you for me to attend now since devolution we no longer have a direct service to London and it would involve an overnight stay..So i would need plenty of notice to arrange all kinds of things. Angela Posted by: Deleted user 2359 Thursday 21 July 2011 - 08:37pm In institutional terms you probably are at the centre, but it is one where a pair of scissors hovers. It used to be where there Broad Church lived, but that was at least triangular. Now the traditionalist Anglo-Catholics have gone or are broken backed. I would say that the most liberal of the C of E have either gone or become exceptionally quiet, with only a few exceptions. Don Cupitt as a standard bearer now no longer attends church, never mind no longer presides at the Eucharist. Affirming Liberalism doesn't seem to get off the ground, though some people like it retain a noise. But the boundary has shifted. In effect you now have Conservative Evangelicals and a continuum to the Open Evangelical position, to then have Affirming Catholics and the like as sort of dressed up liberals going out with Broad Church to a number of equivalent low Affirming Liberals. But the Conservative Evangelicals are out to force an issue - are you Open or are you Evangelical. It depends on their strength and what strength they are given, but the scissors hover over Open and Evangelical with the demand to be one or the other. Posted by: Rogelio Thursday 21 July 2011 - 07:42pm Thank you Stephen for the newsletter. I've personally found it very encouraging. All the best in your plans for the future of Fulcrum. May the Lord fill you with his wisdom and strength. Posted by: Dave Thursday 21 July 2011 - 07:34pm Stephen, Is Fulcrum claiming to be at the center of Evangelicalism or the center of Anglicanism? As much of your article is devoted to two issues on which there are two strongly held views and little room for compromise, what does center mean? You are on one side or the other, there is no middle or center. In view of you recent book does this "center" also mean rewriting the Bible on justification and ditching imputed righteousness, and penal substitutionary atonement? Dave 
Posted by: Jody
Thursday 21 July 2011 - 06:11pm
Dear Friends we have just published our July Newsletter 'Remaining at the Centre of the Church of England' by our incoming Chair Stephen Kuhrt. please use this thread for discussion. blessings, Jody |
LATEST
|
In June of this year I succeeded Elaine Storkey as Chair of Fulcrum. Elaine moved to become our President in succession to Tom Wright following his move to St Andrews University. As incoming chair I thought it would be helpful to explain something of the background to my involvement with Fulcrum, my reflections on the most important things that Fulcrum has achieved since its establishment in 2003 and some thoughts about both the present challenges that Fulcrum faces and its future direction.