Is Evangelical Anglicanism Dead?

During my initial ordination interview for postulants, I was foolish enough to tell the absolute truth about my beliefs. Without hesitation, I proclaimed my evangelical leanings and my primary assessor was not at all pleased. "A dying movement!" he snarled. With these words-or so I thought-my hopes for "Holy Orders" were destroyed along with ordination in the Anglican (1) Communion.

My assessor's snide comment raises important questions, in spite of his ill-informed prejudices. Is evangelicalism dying or dead? More specifically, is it dying or dead within Anglicanism? This last question is most difficult to answer because with this other questions must be asked. Who can legitimately lay claim to Anglicanism? What constitutes evangelicalism? How shall fidelity to evangelical Anglicanism be assessed? These are hard and painful questions within our Communion.

Who can legitimately lay claim to being genuinely Anglican: the sixteenth-century reformers; those who embrace Hooker's foundational principles; the Catholic party of Andrewes, Laud, and Ferrar; the Methodists; the Oxford Movement; the Common Cause Network of conservatives; the "progressives" of our current crisis? What really is Anglicanism in the midst of so many competing (and, sometimes, complementary) theologies? A rather broad but functional definition may be required in the midst of such diversity:

Anglicans are genuine Christians who have inherited the priorities, principles, and practices of the English Reformation and have embraced the primacy of Holy Scripture as the final arbiter of faith and practice, the priority of the Book of Common Prayer as expressed through its Sacraments, Rites, and Ceremonies, and who understand the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion as being far more than Historic Documents. (2)

The recent Global Anglican Fellowship Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem makes similar assertions, albeit in far more detail. (3) This definition is broad enough to allow for diversity while specific enough to maintain orthodoxy.

The definition of "evangelical" may be as elusive, if not more so, than Anglican. Various attempts have been made, including one by this author where the definition is entirely determined by a detailed examination of the word from its biblical origin through to its twentieth-century understanding. For the purpose of this article, however, Bishop J. C. Ryle's understanding and interpretation might be most useful. He emphasizes five elements of evangelical belief:

• "The absolute supremacy" of the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, the only test of truth, the only rule of controversy;
• The corruption of human nature by sin;
• The centrality of the Atonement of Christ;
• [An] experimental [i.e., experiential] knowledge of Christ crucified…to be applied by the inward work of the Holy Spirit; and
• The requirement of a serious holy life. (4)

As both an evangelical and an Anglican, it is expected that Bishop Ryle will have some helpful insights. Moreover, the spoken and unspoken inferences to the solas cannot be missed.

How shall fidelity to evangelical Anglicanism be assessed? It must be determined by the history that formed it and by the very documents that have come to define and defend it. With our Bible, the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), and the Articles of Religion (AOR) as "givens," each of Ryle's points must be briefly examined.

Article VI of the AOR refers to "the sufficiency of Holy Scripture for salvation." This was the untarnished perspective of the sixteenth-century English reformers. As such, Anglicans, specifically evangelical Anglicans, cannot (as one canon told me) believe anything they want. There is structure and substance to orthodox Anglican belief. This structure and substance are found in Holy Scripture and in our BCP-of which about 75 percent is almost entirely Scripture. Many members of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have abandoned the centrality of Scripture. Many believe and behave as they wish, as long as they (in their own estimation) do not offend either the feeling of unity or some ill-defined sense of love. They sacrifice orthodoxy on the questionable altar of catholicity. For these people, it is far better to abandon orthodoxy than it is to abandon "fellowship." Anglicans, true Anglicans, are not Unitarians with robes, rituals, and a prayer book. Unfortunately, many people in ECUSA with whom I have become familiar really resemble Unitarians more than orthodox Anglicans.

Another nonnegotiable for evangelical Anglicans is that human beings have been corrupted by the Fall. This concept follows the best of Calvin's theology (as well as the Bible!) and is stated in Article IX of the AOR, "Of Original or Birth Sin," which according to the Article places every person under "God's wrath and damnation."

In today's world, these sound like harsh words. Harsh or not, they are also honest words. As both a priest (presbyter) and as a professional counselor, I can without hesitation state that these are important words for people to hear. Sin and death are real.

Unfortunately, except for those who are orthodox Anglicans, the concept of sin has been lost. Although Anglicans of all stripes continue to confess their sins in corporate worship, many have little understanding of what sin is. This does not apply only to the gay issue, but also to a multitude of other attitudes and actions that are conveniently ignored. By abandoning biblical belief, many have abandoned moral behaviors.

Bishop Ryle now turns to the critical issue of the atonement of Christ. In short, from what has been stated above, if you have a problem (sin) you need a solution (salvation) through the appropriate means (Christ the only Savior). I am not convinced that many members of the ECUSA actually believe this and, if they do, it is a salvation that grossly misrepresents Scripture. It is, in fact, more Pelagian than Christian. Moreover, among the ECUSA members with whom I am largely familiar, there is a many-paths-to-God orientation. In stark contrast to this, Article XI of the AOR says that "[w]e are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by Faith." The article, quite appropriately, goes on to emphasize that this "is a wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort." If the ECUSA has relegated the AOR to the dust bin of "historic documents," as they by and large have, who is left to say "Amen"?

Evangelical Anglicans will also have an experiential knowledge of Christ as applied by the inward working of the Holy Spirit. Evangelical Anglicans are intensely interested in having a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ and not in the outward trappings of religion. As a committed Anglican Christian, one who is also secondarily committed to our Anglican ethos, polity, and practices, I must admit that we do have a few trappings of religion. These are, of themselves, not bad. They provide a unique structure by which we have come to understand, interpret, and communicate the substance of the Christian faith. But these are, while important to us, secondary and subservient to the message-the Good News. We need to know, and we seek to preach, Christ: incarnated, crucified, dead, buried, resurrected, and ascended. We need this message. We need this reality-a reality rooted in revelation. We need God now, now, and now! Being baptized alone does not "cut" it. Neither does going to church or being a leader within the church structure. We need the substance of Christ. Again, as before, I am not at all convinced that the majority of those in the ECUSA really appreciate this. As the concept and reality of sin has been minimized, so has the need for the relationship with Christ the Living Savior.

Bishop Ryle's final reference is to holy living. I am consistently amazed at two issues plaguing modern Christendom: biblical illiteracy and the lack of interest in God's call for us to live a holy life. Our society, as well as many American Episcopalians (ECUSA/TEC), has little knowledge about the Bible: its social import, implications, stories, teaching, expectations, and demands. Theological discussions are often fought on the basis of what is "felt" or upon the perceived social needs of the "marginalized" and "oppressed," instead of what God has said. At the best of times, many Anglicans have a "sing-song" approach to theology and worship. In our churches, this has led to substandard, sub-Christian moral expectations. Again, Bible and behaviors go together. As the ECUSA/TEC has largely abandoned the Bible's historic interpretation, it has also lowered its moral standards. And, to be honest, those of us who claim to be evangelical Anglicans are not entirely without fault. Our standards have also been compromised.

Is evangelical Anglicanism dead? It depends upon whom you ask and where you go. In North America, except for a strong remnant in the ECUSA (Common Cause Partners in particular) and the "Anglican Continuum," we may be swiftly approaching death. The foundations that Ryle has outlined have all but been abandoned by mainstream Episcopalians. Even those of us who embrace Christian orthodoxy, however, must be careful to "maintain the traditions once received." Serious questions must be asked among orthodox Anglicans, first and foremost about our approach to Holy Scripture. Moreover, a denomination of such diversity, an appropriate diversity when Anglicanism functions properly, must honestly ask whether in principle and practice we are committed to the Reformed emphasis: sola Scriptura, sola Christus, sola fide, sola gratia. In The Protestant Face of Anglicanism (Eerdmans, 1998), the Very Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl persuasively argues for a distinctly Reformed perspective. In many ways, I would agree with him. Nevertheless, can we genuinely at this time in our history be considered a denomination in dynamic continuity with the sixteenth-century Reformation?

On the other hand, Anglicans of the global south (with their American partners) are in the midst of a revival. (5) Recent efforts by GAFCON in Jerusalem this past July herald a fresh and vital movement of the Holy Spirit within historic Anglicanism to restore us to our biblical and historic roots. This, in large part, has a great deal to do with the high view they have of Holy Scripture. (6) It is my hope and prayer that, with Christians from every denomination, we may continue to live up to our heritage, our hope, and the high calling of him who has both equipped and empowered us.