Just recently I had a disagreement with a friend about the Anglican Church. Following the latest round of public bitterness about the way forward for the CofE, I was struggling to see why evangelicals are fighting so hard to remain locked within in it alongside so many people that they disagree with so violently. In the disagreement between Lloyd-Jones and Stott, I’m with Lloyd-Jones.
First my friend said every move of God in the UK has come from within the Church of England. I think that’s hard to prove, history is never as clear cut as that. Influences flow in and out of churches from a variety of streams and places.
Secondly he accused me of a doctrine of ecclesiastical purity, whereas the Anglicans let the wheat and the chaff grow together (Mt 13:24-30). I’m not sure the parable has the church in mind as the context for the wheat and weeds but never mind. The New Testament is clear that there will be leaders that will come into the church that are not Gospel ministers (both Paul and John fight hard against these false leaders in their letters). They are amongst us and they have become leaders. But their response is not to partner with them (3 John 1:9 is one example).
On reflection though, I think one of the issues I have (aside from theological issues like baptism, priesthood, ecclesiology and several others) is that I see it as an institution, and what I want is to be a part of a movement. Tim Keller has an excellent article on the differences.
He writes,
“A movement is marked by an attractive, clear, unifying vision for the future together with a strong set of values or beliefs. The content of the vision must be compelling and clear so that others can grasp it readily….By contrast, “institutionalized” organizations are held together by rules, regulations, and procedures, not by a shared vision.”
When you see the fight over women bishops in the Church of England, you see an institution trying to hold itself together by rules and regulations.
Despite my admiration for many leaders and churches that have come from the Church of England (we run an Alpha course, I’ve been hugely blessed by Soul Survivor and some of my closest local mission partners are Church of England), I still don’t ‘get’ how this institution is a help not a hindrance to gospel mission and the witness to Christ in our country. I’m open to being enlightened.
For me, I love being part of a movement while the politics of the institution makes my skin crawl. I am motivated by the passion, prayer, generosity and sacrifice of a movement. As Keller says,
“This unifying vision is so compelling that it takes pride of place. First, the vision leads to sacrificial commitment. Individuals put the vision ahead of their own interests and comfort. They are willing to work without high compensation, power, or perks.”
The challenge is how to remain a strong movement and not become an institution as growth happens:
“A strong movement, then, occupies the difficult space between being a free-wheeling organism and a disciplined organization. A movement that refuses to take on some organizational characteristics – authority, tradition, unity of belief, and quality control — will fragment and dissipate. A movement that does not also resist the inevitable tendency toward complete institutionalization will lose its vitality and effectiveness as well.”
The thing is not the labels (although theology matters) but if there’s vision and movement in the good old Church of England for the advance of Kingdom of God, like say the New Wine Network, then praise God!
Leave a Reply