Evangelicals poised to take over the Church

The Telegraph ^ | August 25, 2003 | Jonathan Petre

[Mr. Mulliner]

Evangelicals poised to take over the Church

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
(Filed: 25/08/2003)

Evangelicals, dismissed as a vociferous minority by senior liberals during the Jeffrey John affair, are now poised to take over the Church of England.

A new study suggests that, if current trends continue, evangelicals will make up more than half of all Sunday church worshippers in 10 years' time, up from about a third now.

As they grow quickly, Liberals and Anglo-Catholics continue to decline, says Dr Peter Brierley, a former government statistician who heads Christian Research.

Moreover, all but a tiny proportion of the new breed of evangelicals will be theologically conservative, viewing sex outside marriage, including homosexuality, as outlawed by Scripture.

According to the new analysis, they are consolidating their grip on the Church's income, contributing a significant amount of money to church funds.

Also, half of all ordinands training to be the next generation of clergy are attending evangelical colleges.

The combined effect could be to provide the evangelical wing of the Church with an unprecedented power base as long as their numbers are reflected in the membership of the General Synod and the Church's leadership in future years.

Dr Brierley's projections are expected to alarm liberals, who have portrayed them as fringe fundamentalists whose influence is out of proportion to their numbers. His analysis indicates that, based on several national surveys by Christian Research, about 35 per cent of churchgoers in 1998 were evangelicals and that proportion could rise to half by 2010.

Of this, he estimates, just eight per cent will be "broad" or "liberal" evangelicals, who are relaxed over issues such as homosexuality. The remainder will be mainstream or charismatic hard-liners.

Another survey, detailed in this year's Religious Trends handbook, indicates that the total giving of evangelical churches is already about 40 per cent of the Church's national income.

The latest Church statistics show that for 2001 the total income of parishes was £650 million. Evangelical worshippers put an estimated £250 million of that into the collection plate.

Their financial muscle was demonstrated during the crisis over Canon Jeffrey John, the openly homosexual cleric who was forced by evangelical pressure in June to withdraw as the Bishop of Reading.

Many evangelical parishes, which include most of the largest and wealthiest in the country, were planning to withhold a significant proportion of the quotas they pay to central funds if Canon John had been consecrated.

"These figures show that mainstream evangelicals are a larger group than most others already, and they are still growing," said Dr Brierley. "If these trends continue, they could become the largest group in the Church within a decade."

His findings belie comments by liberals like the Dean of Southwark, the Very Rev Colin Slee, who said in July that Canon John had been forced to stand down by a minority who made "a noise out of all proportion to their size".

The Rev Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney, admitted that liberals could have underestimated the influence of "fundamentalist" evangelicals, and it was worrying for the future of the Church.

"The truth is that they have learned the techniques of marketing, how to sell something," he said. "It's a very simple message. But it's like selling soap powder. I think that way of simplifying and marketing is verging on idolatory - putting God into a box."

Gordon Lynch, a theologian from Birmingham University, said that Dr Brierley's analysis was too simplistic and did not allow for shades of opinion and people's changing views. He conceded, however, that socially conservative evangelicals were becoming a "considerable influence".

"They represent one of the few groups in society where people who are drawn to that kind of social conservatism can actually find a home," said Dr Lynch.

"Perhaps the Conservative Party used to provide a kind of structure for those people, but it seems to do that less and less now. So there is a danger that the Church does drift towards an increasingly conservative position."

[bimbo]

If Evangelicals are the majority who attend Services, why should those who do not attend have any say about the Church?

[lilylangtree]

Actually following the law of God with the 10 commandments and outlawing homosexuality--hopefully reformation won't stop in England. It'll spread across the planet.

[melsec]

What's the big deal here with evangelical? Is there ANY OTHER WAY? Imagine, following God's word and reading the Bible... As opposed to what - making it up myself?

LOL. I have my own term for this I have decided to call myself a Christian. LOL. Seriously it's amazing the labels that get put on us like 'hardliners' and 'fundametalists' when all we do is read God's Word and try and do what it says. I have just left my church because the hierachy are pro homosexual ministers. They have just been given the right to ordination when they are in a same sex relationship. At the same time I beleive that in the local congregations there are only about 35% who support this veiw. Having said that the Kingdom of God is not a democracy and it is about time we started bending the knee to the King.

God Bless

Mel

[Spirited]

"Many evangelical parishes, which include most of the largest and wealthiest in the country, were planning to withhold a significant proportion of the quotas they pay to central funds if Canon John had been consecrated."

I am impressed with the British (Brit=Covenant, ish=man)
Church for pressing the issue.

When Mary, at the tomb, was instructed to "go tell" others the good news (gospel) about the resurrection, the post resurrection pattern was initiated. It seems not to have differed from the Mathew 10:5, 6, & 7 instruction which grew out of the purpose for which Jesus claimed he came "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt. 15:24). The lost of the house of Israel were the 10 missing tribes which comprised the House of Israel, descendants of Joseph and of 8 of the other half brothers of Joseph.

I find no place that instructs the Church to do otherwise in any era except that at later dates the restriction against going to the gentiles(nations) (Mt. 10:5) was lifted and the instruction Mt. 10:6 to " go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" was thereby broadened.

If a major purpose of the Church does not include bearing the evangel (good news) to the still "lost sheep" and to the nations (gentiles), it is difficult to imagine for what the Church is needed.

[PFKEY]

A thought on Church Organization.

The denominational world presents a complexity in church organization. Generally, the local churches are but units in a super-organization. In some denominations, the local church cannot even select its own preacher. It has to be subservient to the "conference," "bishop" or "superintendent." When one studies those "things that are written," he soon learns that there is no Bible authority for such organizations. In Christ's church every congregation is independent of all others, subject only to the authority of Christ.

Every church of Christ is a self-governing body, free to carry on its own affairs and work under Christ and the apostles. This power of self-government is carried out through elders (who are also called "bishops" and "pastors") in every church. Note that it is not a plurality of churches under one bishop, but rather, a plurality of bishops in every church! The only organization the New Testament authorizes through which to do church work is the local congregation, under its elders, and with deacons as special helpers (Phil. 1:1).

The scope of the elders' authority is clearly indicated in I Pet. 5:2, "Tend the flock of God which is among you. exercising the oversight." The oversight of the elders begins and ends with the local congregation:" the flock ... which is among you." In no way and under no circumstances may their authority extend beyond the confines of the local church. This divine limitation upon the elders' power forever separates the churches and prohibits, any effort to tie them together under some super-organization with its accompanying influences and evils. It must be remembered that it was the violation of this principle which led to the great apostasy and the formation of the Roman hierarchy. (Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thess. 2:3-12). To ignore this truth is to substitute human wisdom for the "things which are written."

Perhaps if all churches were organized in this manner many of these controversies would cease to exsist.

[KeyWest]

Perhaps if all churches were organized in this manner many of these controversies would cease to exist.

Ah, that it were so. The only difference is you confine the trouble to the local congregation. I was an Episcopalian an appointing Priests has merit and am now a Baptist and selecting Pastors has merit. In both, in most cases, you still have a regional or national organization that oversees them, which is good and bad.

Worst is the local assembly with no outside checks, as is the case with some churches. Then you can get the Jim Jones mindset and drift dangerously from Christ into pastor worship.

Even in the time of Peter and Paul, they were like a governing body that instructed the local churches- as all the Epistles show. So a truly independent church is actually not biblical.

[f.Christian]

Good News For The Day

‘But I say to all of you: In the future, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty One.’ (Matthew 26:64)

"If the universe is moral, (and the fact that such a person as Christ existed, is strong evidence that it is), then what Jesus said about himself and the future, must come true. If morality has an infinite source, and backing, then the moral excellence of Christ will ultimately... triumph---over evil."

"I know some very agreeable people. I know some that I would call gentle giants. But their easygoing spirit is never a threat to greed and corruption. Kindness, patience, understanding, and love are not better than envy and bitterness, if they only ever exist as counterweights to their opposites. A good man who is content to coexist forever with badness, and wrong, cannot be a good man in any absolute sense."

"The goodness of Jesus is surpassing because he not only sorrowed over sin, and was outraged by it, he set himself against it, and warned his enemies that by suffering for it, he would rise above it, and eliminate it."

"If our universe is a moral one, then Jesus' values can never be viewed in any offhand way. Rather, he must be seen as a hazard to every act, motive, system, institution, or law, that is not in sympathy with him. A question that governments and their constituents ought to ask is: Are we making laws; invoking policies that clash with Christ and the direction of his Spirit? If so we are building badly. The universe itself will not back us. The future belongs to Christ-and to all who follow him."<

[Miss Marple]

Very interesting. This is exactly what the liberal/gay coalition has done in the United States. Of course, no mention is made of that, because we wouldn't want anyone in the US to catch on.

[hellinahandcart]

I think "high church" and "low church" are descriptive of different schools of thought or styles of worship in the Episcopal church. The terms have been around for a long time (and I haven't, I'm a fairly new attendee so I may be getting this wrong), but the main difference between the two seems to be the frequency of celebrating the Eucharist. "Low church" would have it, say, once a month, "High church" would have it every Sunday.

My church offers it seventeen times a week, so I suspect we're pretty "high".

[hellinahandcart]

Btw it's the gay advocates who "make a noise out of all proportion to their size", and I am sick of people who want to stand the church on its head to accomodate them. The evangelicals should make a lot more noise than they have so far. So should everyone else who doesn't believe in devising blessings for sin.

[Mr. Mulliner]

Thanks for that clarification. It makes sense to me and according to the context, it appeared that both low church and high church were speaking of the Church of England.

[AnAmericanMother]

Just another take on "high" versus "low" church from a 3rd generation Whiskeypalian . . .

The distinction is made within the "big umbrella" of the Episcopal church - not between denominations. The "big umbrella" or wide scope of church practices within the church arose from the attempts of Elizabeth I (and other sovereigns after her) to include as many of the divergent beliefs of English Christians within the scope of the official, national Established Church of England. This concept transferred itself to America with the Episcopal church.

"High" versus "Low" includes two separate issues: liturgical practices and theological beliefs. This was also true in Elizabethan England.

The highest of the high churches (a/k/a "Catholic Lite") from a liturgical point of view include everything you would see in a very traditional Catholic church. Physically, you will see a very traditional sanctuary with a Tabernacle, prominent font, kneelers, elaborate altar furniture (including cloths color keyed to the liturgical year), beautiful vestments on the priests, statues of saints, and precious communion plate. Incense and the ringing of a small bell at the elevation of the Host (during the Mass) are often seen. (Hence the nickname for a High church, "Smells and Bells".) From a theological point of view, the high church acknowledges the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, encourages frequent communication (usually offered daily or even twice daily), offers individual confession, and may have Eucharistic Adoration, Rosary recitation, and other customs generally considered Catholic. (This wing of the church arose largely out of the 19th century Oxford Movement that sought to bring Catholic practices back into the Anglican Church. It migrated to America rather recently!)

The low church in physical appearance resembles your average main line Protestant church -- also in doctrine. The sanctuary is much less elaborate, usually with a plain altar and minimal decoration. Priests (who may call themselves ministers instead) wear plain black vestments as a general rule, although they usually have a chasuble for celebrating communion it is very simple. Communion is given much less frequently - although this is really a change that came in with the revision of the Prayer Book in '79 to come more in line with Catholic practice. Even VERY high Episcopal churches used to offer communion only every fourth Sunday. (This was true at the Cathedral in Atlanta, where I was baptized, confirmed and married). Low churches tend to be very vague on doctrine, but if pressed they will acknowledge that they believe the Sacrament to be only "symbolic". Low churches may be evangelical and Scriptural in their orientation, or NOT. The question of whether an Episcopal Church is evangelical or charismatic is a separate issue from "low" or "high". I have attended low churches that were not particularly evangelical, as well as high churches that were.

That is probably more than you wanted to know. Here's a rhyme to keep them straight:

Low and lazy.
Middle and hazy.
High and crazy.

;-) . . . .speaking of course as a "nosebleed high Anglican," myself.

[Tribune7]

There is hope for the CoE afterall.

[hellinahandcart]

I just knew you could explain it better than I.

I remember asking my uncle why the Articles of Religion in the prayer book say they don't really believe in the Transubstantion, when at our eucharist the priest has always been fairly firm that we ARE partaking of the body and blood of Christ, and my uncle said "Well, that's low church..."

Our rector is "Oxford movement" as well, I never knew what that meant. I'll have to find out more about it.

[AnAmericanMother]

Here's a bunch of info on the Oxford Movement:

A good quick summary at Bartleby.com

Catholic Encyclopedia Very heavy going, but extremely detailed. If you want to know what Pusey and Newman had for breakfast at Convocation, this is your article.

If you want to read a really good and entertaining Victorian novel that will give you an excellent idea of the various divisions within the Church of England at that time, read Anthony Trollope's Barchester Towers. I'm re-reading it now and it's a wonderful book. No less a person than Nathaniel Hawthorne praised Trollope, saying that his books were like someone cutting out a huge slice of earth and putting it under glass. Trollope was relatively "high" and personally loathed Evangelical Anglicans - his portrait of the bishop's chaplain Mr. Slope in this novel is deadly. (BTW Alan Rickman played Slope in the British TV version of this story, I think it aired as The Barchester Chronicles).

In England, this controversy was all mixed up with politics. Ever since the wars with Spain and Queen Mary's imprudent marriage to King Philip of Spain, English anti-European feeling and anti-Catholic feeling have been all mixed up together. The Oxford Movement provided a good resting spot for (as the article above says) those who essentially ascribed to Catholic doctrine but couldn't stomach Evangelicals, didn't like the "broad" or "middle" or "Latatudinarian" church ("middle and hazy"), and couldn't go "over to Rome" for political reasons. There's also some class feeling going on - Trollope makes clear that no evangelical could be a "gentleman" in his estimation.

It is VERY ironic that the current tempest in the Episcopal Church has destroyed any chance for a concordat or reunion of any kind with the Catholic Church -- because even before the prayer book revision in 1979 the bishops were working towards this. Not only did the approval of Bishop Vicki and the blessing of gay "unions" go contrary to Scripture, church tradition and the instructions of the last Lambeth conference -- it also completely torpedoed plans for discussions with Rome that have been in the works for 30 years or more! How stupid is that? To throw away a quarter century of work towards rethinking "Apostolicae Curae" in order to appear trendy and with it and approve a gay bishop!

:-D

[AD from SpringBay]

The denominational world presents a complexity in church organization. Generally, the local churches are but units in a super-organization. In some denominations, the local church cannot even select its own preacher. It has to be subservient to the "conference," "bishop" or "superintendent." When one studies those "things that are written," he soon learns that there is no Bible authority for such organizations. In Christ's church every congregation is independent of all others, subject only to the authority of Christ.

Amen! Local visible assembly bump. There aren't too many that support this position, but I am among them. Interesting that it took almost 400 years after the resurrection of Christ for the universal church teaching to adequately gel.

[Matchett-PI]

"Every church of Christ is a self-governing body, free to carry on its own affairs and work under Christ and the apostles. This power of self-government is carried out through elders (who are also called "bishops" and "pastors") in every church. Note that it is not a plurality of churches under one bishop, but rather, a plurality of bishops in every church!" ~ PFKEY

Exactly. I agree with those who have described the founding of America as "the flowering of the Reformation". There are hundreds and hundreds of origional writings / primary documents, in addition to The Declaration of Independence, where America's Founding Fathers spoke against the tyranny of men in both church and state.

When one studies the history of New Testament "church government", one can readily see that the bottom-up, checks and balances, Republican form of limited government that America's Calvinist Framers gave us, is based straight out of the New Testament CHURCH GOVERNMENT example. [Acts 6:3; 1:15, 22, 23, 25; 2Cor.8:19, etc.]

Paul, Barnabus and Titus are shown as installing the elders that were chosen by the congregations [Acts 6:3-6; 14:23 and Titus 1:5].

Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Jesus' was warning his disciples against the elite class of "professional interpreters" of Scripture and tradition who loved pretentious titles and positions of influence.

Scripture indicates that church officers in the New Testament were chosen by the whole congregation, and that final governing authority in NT churches rests with the whole church.

The reasoning behind that is that [1] accountability to the congregation provides a safeguard against temptations to sin. [2] some degree of control by the entire congregation provides a safeguard against the leadership falling into doctrinal error. [3] government works best with the consent of those governed. In addition to those, there is another reason for restricting the authority of church officers [4] the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture and the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers (the regenerate).

The NT affirms that all regenerate Christians have access to God's throne in prayer and all share as members in a "royal priesthood". [1 Pet.2:9; cf. Heb. 10:19-25; 12:22-24] show that all Christians have some ability to interpret Scripture and some responsibility to seek God's wisdom in applying it to situations.

All have access directly to God in order to seek to know his will.

The NT allows for no special class of Christians who have greater access to God than others. Therefore it is right to include all believers in some of the crucial decision-making processes of the church. "In an abundance of counselors there is safety."

Paul says to the whole church congregation: "Pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom whom we may appoint to this duty." (of servant aka deacon)

The apostles had the unique authority to found and govern the early church, and they could speak and write the words of God. Many of their written words became the NT Scripture. In order to qualify as an apostle someone had to had seen Christ with his own eyes after he rose from the dead and had to have been specifically installed/appointed by Christ as an apostle.

In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the NT.

Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolute authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church.

Because of that, there is no need for any direct "succession" or "physical descent" from the apostles.

In fact it was not the Jerusalem apostles who ordained Paul and Barnabas, but people in the church at Antioch who laid hands on them and sent them out. [Acts 13:3] Ordaining is ultimately from the Lord, himself [Acts 20:28; 1Cor.12:28; Eph.4:11].

*

James Madison, who has been called "The Father of the Constitution," was clearly influenced by the Christian religion and particularly Reverend John Witherspoon's Calvinism. His views on law and government reflect his theological insights on Church and state.

http://www.sar.org/sarmag/RF3.html

[happygrl]

Most insightful.

[Guillermo]

And the horror of having the majority come up with Church policy!

Here he admits that the "Liberals" are 8%, but any change from the "liberal" line is a case of "extreme fundamentalism."

[Matchett-PI]

Thank you. It would be a real eye-opener for a lot of people if they spent some time reading the actual writings of America's Founders.

After reading them, intellectually honest people will agree that the Founders based our government on only one of the two religions. They chose the God-centered one where [1] God is sovereign and all people's rights come from him and [2] the purpose of government is to protect and defend those inalienable rights.

Our Framers rejected the man-centered religion (which would include all of its various manifestations). See their writings.