How important should it be to us that we are Anglicans? I have a confession to make. On my recent family holiday to Yamba (North Coast NSW), when it came time for church on both Sundays, I drove past the Anglican church and took my family to the Presbyterian church instead. There were two main reasons for this. First, the Anglican service on Sunday morning was at 7am (!!!) and surely had no provision for our three active small children. But secondly (and more importantly to me), we knew that the Presbyterian church would at least try to “feed” us from the Bible (having met the minister before), whereas we had no idea what we would get from an Anglican church in that region (it may, of course, be an excellent church!).
You may think that I, as a card-carrying Anglican minister, should have gone to the local Anglican church (even if it meant leaving my family at home). But how important should that particular label be? While I am certainly not ashamed of being an Anglican, to me it is not the most important label that I wear.
I take heart from being in good company here. John Stott has had an incredible ministry speaking, writing and pastoring in the Anglican church over many decades. While I may not be comfortable with absolutely everything that he has written, he must now be regarded as a superstar and deeply respected as an elder statesman in the Anglican world and more broadly. In a recent biography, he is quoted:
First and foremost, by God’s sheer mercy, I am a Christian seeking to follow Jesus Christ.
Next, I am an evangelical Christian because of my conviction that evangelical principles (especially sola scriptura [Scripture alone] and sola gratia [by grace alone]) are integral to authentic Christianity, and that to be an evangelical Christian is to be a New Testament Christian, and vice versa.
Thirdly, I am an Anglican evangelical Christian, since the Church of England is the particular historical tradition or denomination to which I belong.
But I am not an Anglican first, since denominationalism is hard to defend. It seems to me correct to call oneself an Anglican evangelical (in which evangelical is the noun and Anglican the descriptive adjective) rather than an evangelical Anglican (in which Anglican is the noun and evangelical the adjective).
In other words, after being a Christian, Stott sees himself first as an evangelical (i.e. someone committed to the Bible and the gospel of grace alone) and second as an Anglican.
This is particularly relevant to what is happening in the worldwide Anglican communion at present. Large sections of the Anglican church have abandoned the Bible and think “evangelical” is a dirty word. Evangelicals from everywhere within the Anglican church are now sticking together for support (and looking to our Sydney diocese particularly because there is such a high concentration of evangelicals here). The secular media is rubbing its collective hands together at the prospect of the break-up of the worldwide Anglican communion.
Should these events concern us? Perhaps, but not to the point of despair. The break-up of Anglicanism may make us sad but denominations can come and go. No one was ever saved by becoming an “Anglican” but God will make sure that the evangelical faith thrives because that is where salvation is found.
It’s good to be Anglican but being an EVANGELICAL is worth dying for!
Steve
Filed under: Uncategorized
