Does the Church of England need evangelicals?

Interesting article by Carl Trueman.

Trueman has been on a tear since his book Strange New World came out. I think he like other academic theologians are becoming increasingly alarmed at where the popular culture is going.

In his article, he makes the same point about "established" churches that I always do: it's an extraordinarily bad idea, and always has been for the exact reasons he lays out in his essay. Where the overculture goes the "established" church goes also like a caboose on a train. And if the train goes off a cliff, the caboose obligingly goes over with it.

 

A significant quote from that article:
"LGBTQ-affirming churches are simply doing what the pro-slavery churches of the nineteenth century did: giving specious blessing to the values of the world in which they find themselves."

Agreed!

 

I would have put it rather the other way about. If actual hostility to LGBTQ individuals within the church's psyche is equivalent to a careless attitude or even endorsement of 'good ol' fashioned' slavery, (on the grounds that it was regarded as OK in Biblical times, just regulated and legislated for), a non-socially influenced church nowadays would be equivalent to a church that continued to endorse slavery while society, including LGBTQ individuals, slaves or emancipating slave owners, had 'moved on' and had become more enlightened by The less condemnatory Spirit of Christ working in the world.

However did we get here from the thread title to this though, so soon on, I wonder? Amazing!
.

 

"How we got here" is via your comment. All I did was pull a quote from the article which forms the basis of this thread!

You do realize, don't you, that before and during the civil war there were churches in the southern US whose leaders fully supported slavery and preached on behalf of its continuation? They said that owning other human beings was not sinful or morally wrong. They catered to the socioeconomic values of their congregants, just as some churches do today in regard to the immoral behaviors of certain segments of our culture.

You should also realize that you've exaggerated by changing the issue from one of approving sin to one of hostility toward sinners. That is a false argument. Churches are not doing the latter. But they are doing the former, and they should not.

 

No, he was responding to your quote from the article shared by the OP. I believe the OP was trying to make a point about established churches. Nevertheless, it seems the thread is already threatening to decay into yet another culture war debate.

 

Not attacking, dengrating or disaproving of LGBTQ's is not the same as approving sin. There is no record in scripture of Jesus Christ disapproving of LGBTQ's. He took issue with other things entirely, such as greed, avarice, treachery, hypocrisy, divorce, (Biblical Style according to Moses), and the cruel abuse of power over others. (Mostly things that capitalists applaud and employ). Plenty of condemnation of those behaviours, but no mention of the ones you seem to mention so often. I'm sure they all went on in his day as much as today, but Jesus obviously concentrated on priorities.
.

 

Yet again you have conflated two different things. No one (except you) is talking about "attacking" or "denigrating" people of any sort, but of denigrating sinful conduct. The issue is one of calling sexual misconduct "sin" just as it should be called.

It is incumbent upon a rector to recognize the problems his parishioners are having and to help them amend their lives and draw closer to the Lord, correct?

Suppose I made known to my rector that I am a kleptomaniac and that I see nothing wrong with stealing whatever I wish, because I think I was born with the proclivity to steal; furthermore, I believe that God is completely understanding and sympathetic of my situation and does not regard my stealing as sinful. Would it be okay for the rector to teach everyone in the church that stealing is not a sin when one is born a thief and that everyone needs to be tolerant of thieves like me? Would it be appropriate for the parish to put on its website that it is a "klepto-friendly church" where all thieves who attend may expect a fully welcoming attitude toward their thievery (because, hey, stealing isn't really a sin!)?

Robbery, embezzlement, petty theft... all of these are clearly taught as "sinful" in the Bible, and the Bible teaches that Christians should repent of and resist those sins. A good rector will not foster an attitude of accepting the wrongful actions of those who willfully continue to sin and deny that their actions are wrong. The thieves are welcome to attend, but a good rector's parish will not declare itself "thief-friendly" because such an action would present a wrong impression (to attendees and to the outside world) that stealing is no longer a sin. The good rector will actively teach that stealing is still wrong, even if he risks offending the thieves.

Likewise, sexual misconduct such as adultery, homosexual activity, etc. are clearly labeled "sinful" in the Bible, and the Bible teaches that Christians should resist those sins. A good rector will not create a church atmosphere of acceptance toward the wrongful actions of those who willfully continue to sin and deny that their actions are wrong. Those who openly commit sexual sins may attend, but a good rector's parish will not declare itself "adulterer-friendly" or "LGBTQ-friendly" because it presents a wrong impression (to attendees and to the outside world) that adultery and homosexual activity are no longer sinful. The good rector will actively teach that those types of sexual misconduct are still wrong, even if he risks offending the sinners.

 

Evangelicals can inherit the Church of England (article).

Something of a follow-up to the OP.

There is an element of "family drama" in the CofE contretemps right now, whatever effect this drama is having on global Anglicanism as a whole. The kids can hear Mom and Dad fighting downstairs -- the dispute may be a personal one, but it impacts everyone living in the house.

The CofE itself is a church born of compromises that satisfy almost no one: a church that is too Roman Catholic for the Puritans and too Protestant for the Roman Catholics; a church tied by royal edict to the English crown, and thus subject to the vicissitudes of royal favor and the tides of national culture. The English Civil War put the Calvinists into more-or-less permanent bad odor, and the Glorious Revolution saw the final rejection of a return to the Roman Catholic fold. The rise of the Oxford movement gave the Anglo-Catholics a leg up over the broad-church evangelical wing (at least institutionally), and the modern iteration of the CofE leadership seems to think they can give up a substantial part of their orthodox evangelical base without doing grave damage to the institution. To take this back around to the "family drama" metaphor, the CofE leadership thinks they can get a divorce from the (orthodox) evangelicals without losing the house and kids.

I'm not familiar enough with the parish-level politics of the CofE to know if this is a good strategy or not. I suspect not. The rectors, vicars, and curates are far more evenly-split on the recent "social issues" than their bishops are. I'm not sure the institutional cohesion, so strong in times past, is strong enough now to withstand the latest body-blows (particularly if, as expected, the Global Anglican world breaks communion with Canterbury). But then, maybe the Canterbury crowd thinks the church can get along without actual congregations: a church without a church, if you will. They still have lots of money and fancy buildings, and political connections aplenty. The organization may dwindle to a few dozen clerics who wear their fancy hats to state gatherings and other ceremonial activities while the cathedrals become museums and tourist attractions. To some extent this future is already here.

That being said, I don't think English evangelicals are all that interested in saving this sinking ship. There isn't much cachet associated with belonging to the CofE these days. Many orthodox evangelical priests have either grown jaded by waiting for change, or actively discouraged by the constant leftward drift of their church over the years. To adopt the social-media parlance of our times, why buy into a dying brand when you can forge a new one of your own?

 

It seems to me that the phenomenon of established churches being rather quick to adopt new cultural fads has more to do with the intersection of the state-sponsored bureaucracy of those established churches and the democratic institutions to which they are responsible. The Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867, and then the Act of 1911/12 reforming the House of Lords, went a long way toward gradually pulling up the anchor of the established church vis-a-vis the culture, by concentrating power in the Commons. On the other hand, the Church of England today, I’m told, functions quite independently with regard to personnel and internal discipline. It has been the convention since Gordon Brown’s premiership for the prime minister to accept the Church’s recommendations for episcopal appointments when making such recommendations to the Monarch. Even if established churches are more captive to social-culture forces in the short-run, it’s by no means clear that non-established churches can hermetically seal themselves off from the broader culture and avoid similar fates. Surely, the American experience would disabuse anyone of that notion.

 

In order to condemn anyone of 'sin' at least two winesses to that actual sin are required. It is actually lawlessness to issue a 'blanket' pronouncement that a specific person sitting in a pew is obviously a sinner, just because they define themselves as LGBTQ+. It would be exactly the same for as a situation where a pastor preached against the sin of avarice, fraud and theft, looking at you in the pew, suspecting without actual proof that you regularly fiddle your expense account with your employer, simply because he knows you have one. The issue of 'misconduct' generally is affected profoundly by the evidence of witnesses being available to the accuser. It is also affected by the attitude of the 'sinner' to his condition.

If you have had your sins overlooked, you should also overlook others, or be prepared for your own to be thereafter once more taken into account.
.

 

You're still treating this as if it were condemnation of some individual, when the issue is whether a church should condone or encourage a particular type of sin. No one except you is suggesting that any individuals are being condemned. This is simply a fantasy of your own imagination.

As for people who self-identify as LGBTQ+, they are self-identifying as people with a particular type of temptation to sin. "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual"... these people are announcing to everyone around them that their feelings of self and self-worth are inextricably bound to their inappropriate sexual desires. It doesn't take a genius rector to figure out that the proper, Christian response would be to teach them to recognize the wrongness of same-sex sexual activity, the harm caused by encouraging those thoughts and temptations within oneself, and the desirability of avoiding occasions to be tempted or to fall into temptation. This is not condemnation of the person, rather it is helping the person to grow in faith and to become more Christlike. If you have a problem with helping people to become more Christlike, you really do have a problem!

When a church announces publicly that they are LGBTQ-friendly, a church encourages the mistaken view that same-sex sexual activity is normal and acceptable before God. They encourage people to engage in more temptation and more sin. This is not what the church is called to do! Woe to them.

 

Surely, (by your definition of sinners), it would only be the same as a church stating it is "Sinner Friendly" as opposed to 'Sinner Hostile', 'Sinner Wary' or 'Sinner Re-Educating'.
.

 

Sunday school: the original re-education camp.

Maybe churches should just say, "we are Christians and we are friendly."

We are "fishers of men." But when you catch a fish, do you leave that fish the way it is? Or do you try to clean and preserve the fish? An uncleaned fish can stink up the whole house.

 

I keep thinking about what you said here. Are you suggesting that sexual activity between men or between women (gay sex) is not sinful?

 

No more so than embezzlement, lying to an electorate, tax evasion or adultery. Perhaps less so if it's consensual and harms no one else. (Though of course grading sin is pointless when one is measuring the effects of it upon the measure of ones 'holiness' and without 'holiness' no one will see God).
.

 

So may I assume that you would fully support churches advertising that they are "embezzler friendly" and "liar friendly" and so on?

Now there it is: the human reasoning that says, 'how can something be immoral (sinful) if no one else is harmed?' This is a substitution of man's reasoning in place of God's revelation concerning what He regards as sinful.

1Co 6-- Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you... (but no longer, apparently).
In your estimation is this the word of God, or is it just a record of Paul's opinion? If it is the written word of God, then homosexual behavior is always a sin... even when it's consensual and between two people who "love" each other.

If we allow churches to project an image of tolerance and acceptance for that type of sin, then mark my words: it won't be long before we have "pedophile-friendly" churches and "bestiality-friendly" churches. After all, the N.T. doesn't come right out and forbid them in so many words, does it? If a human and a dog love each other, who is harmed by their activities behind closed doors? Human reasoning....

 

Just for the sake of clarification, who in this thread is advocating that churches advertise themselves as “[name-the-(alleged)-sin]-friendly?” You seem to spend a lot of time and energy calling out the particular ‘sins’ you appear to be fixated on, and virtually none at all calling out ones committed by those of influence who claim to also believe what you do. That inconsistency is what is being highlighted here. No one in this thread, as far as I can tell, is advocating that churches label themselves “sin-friendly.” What any of this culture war stuff has to do with the original topic of the thread also escapes me.

 

Woe to them, indeed. Here's a photo from a TEC web page.

Of course, TEC doesn't merely encourage LGBTQ attendance. They also welcome LGBTQ people to enter leadership positions in the church. Talk about normalizing homosexuality! Those who want to flaunt their illicit sexual desires before a large group are good candidates for TEC priesthood and episcopacy.

TEC has a "Rainbow Initiative". It's not enough for TEC to help people who cross our border illegally; no, they want to especially help the LGBTQ people who cross illegally! It isn't surprising; the more LGBTQ people they can attract into TEC, the more clout the gay movement will have within the church. Instead of letting the Gospel message transform them, they want to transform the Gospel message (forget about holiness, because God is nothing but love).

I don't know if the CofE is quite so badly derailed as TEC, but unfortunately they appear to be moving in the same direction. (TEC is the spiritual equivalent of the Ohio train wreck, spewing contaminants all over the place.)

 

Only on this Forum could the Church of England be linked with the alleged (and often hyped) “crisis” on the U.S. southern border.

 

Well, that's the problem with keeping your eyes deliberately closed: you miss lots of stuff.

Homosexual activity is sinful. Full stop. There is no expression of homosexual lifestyle or behavior that is acceptable to a Christian church. If it is no worse than adultery or fornication it is certainly no better, and for a church to "bless" any such union amounts to an abandonment of plain Scriptural teaching. Churches that tolerate or even advocate for homosexual activity in their congregations are teaching a false Gospel, and thus have moved into the realm of outright heresy. It is no different than "blessing" the activity of fornicators, adulterers, thieves, drunkards, gluttons, or any other gross sin of the flesh you can name. To participate in homosexual activity is sinful enough, but to actively promote this lifestyle as Godly is a far worse sin, for then you bar the door to heaven to these people. This false teaching will bring a heavy judgement, as affirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ himself (cf. Matt. 18:6).

To single out homosexuality as some sort of special case that requires dispensation from the Church is nonsense -- theologically, doctrinally, and philosophically. You cannot be a Christian and advocate for homosexuality. Oh, you can claim to be one; but this is a lie (both to yourself and to your Christian brothers and sisters).

1 John 2:1-6:

You cannot claim to follow Christ if you do not follow his commands.