A week and a half ago the church of England spent three hours or more in two debates looking at how it presents itself and its message to multi-faith Britain. I made time to go and listen to the first debate on "The Uniqueness of Christ in Multifaith Britain". I have listened to the debate on the second: "Staying Present and Engaging Faithfully" with multi-faith Britain.
My perspective on what was said? I am by no means alone in describing myself as engaged in interfaith work in a very multi-faith town and from the evangelical charismatic tradition of the Church of England (though unhappy with much of what Evangelical represents in many minds, definitely open evangelical if we are going to be specific, and probably best described as positively post-charismatic). I am relatively new to the work, and relatively unconnected within the structures and networks of the Anglican church, whether evangelical or interfaith work, and I am not partisan either by connection or choice. I guess up until now I have just naively been
I have lacked the time since then to think over what has been written and put down my own thoughts. I guess there are three things to look at:
- What was said in the two debates involved, and not said
- What has been said about what was said (and not said) in the debates.
- What more could be said. (In other words what I want to say!)
(a) What was said, and not said.
The Uniqueness of Christ in Multi-faith Britain.
The motion was a private members motion. A summary of the motion as passed is on the record of Synod's Wednesday pm business. It reads:
'That this Synod warmly welcome Dr Martin Davie's background paper 'The witness of Scripture, the Fathers and the historic formularies to the uniqueness of Christ' attached to GS Misc 905B and request the House of Bishops to report to the Synod on their understanding of the uniqueness of Christ in Britain's multi-faith society, and offer examples and commendations of good practice in sharing the gospel of salvation through Christ alone with people of other faiths and of none.'
The Audio of session is linked from that page. And for the next 6 days (from date of this post) it is viewable on BBC iPlayer. The following two papers were submitted in advance: A Church of England Approach to the Unique Significance of Jesus Christ (A 66 page paper prepared by Dr Martin Davie for the Theological Group of the House of Bishops) and a 6 page summary of that paper: Uniqueness of Christ in Multi-Faith Britain. Paul Eddy's background paper was not circulated in advance but I have uploaded a pdf of it.(link at end of post)
Peter Ould's blog has a good record of most of the debate: The Uniqueness of Christ. (more on Peter Ould's contribution below.) He sums up Eddy's words:
Eddy argues that we can't allow notions of social cohesion to get in the way of proclaiming Christ. We need to articulate a prophetic witness to our nation. We need an explicit statement of Christ's uniqueness from the House of Bishop. There needs to be a clear signal of where the church stands. "A strategic, highly politicised marginalisation of Christianity it the public arena", is what Eddy suggests we are facing, and we need to present Jesus as the means of salvation. "If Christ is what Christ is, he must be uttered".
The spoken support was unquestionable. The next three speakers all brought their own testimony to the floor of the debate as well as their argument. Dr Michael Nazir Ali, Bishop of Rochester and chair of the theological committee of the House of Bishops, outlined the teaching of historical Christianity on the subject(speech here). Unspoken was his background as a Muslim in Pakistan. Revd Nezlin Sterling, a black pastor of the New Testament Assembly, and an ecumenical member spoke to condemn the marginalisation of Christianity. Unspoken was the voice of a comparatively recent addition to the population of these isles defending its Christian heritage. Dr Chik
Kaw Tan, an immigrant Brit from Malaya told of his own conversion from Buddhism. The motion was passed with only a few voting against or with recorded abstentions. More on who voted, which way they voted and who didn't vote later.
Staying Present and Engaging Faithfully
was the title of a report debated by the Synod on Thursday. It was a midway report on the Presence and Engagement process commissioned by the church in 2005.
The report being debated: Staying Present and Engaging Faithfully: A Report to General Synod. The debate is recorded here: Audio of session . A report of the debate on the Church Society website wrote:
[The Bishop of Bradford] reminded Synod members of the overwhelming vote yesterday of the need to share the gospel of salvation through faith in Christ alone with all. He then challenged Synod member whether God might be calling them to do this by moving live and work in areas where there are those of many different faiths. Christians are called to relate to those of other faiths, to show love rather than hate, to make peace, to witness to Christ and to engage lovingly. The Bishop stated that we should build bridges of friendship, but bridges over which Christ can walk. The debate that followed highlighted differing views about the nature of engagement. Several speakers also spoke about the problems faced by converts from other faiths and the apparent discrimination against Christians in modern day Britain.
The Archbishop of Canterbury's contribution was significant: We have to spread the good news of what is done . He started by recounting a recent discussion at dinner where he was asked: "How can you defend the special place of the Church of England in a deeply religiously divided society?"
My first response was to say actually this is not a deeply religiously divided society in the sense that I think you mean. Behind that form of words lay, I think, a major fallacy which has a very strong stranglehold on Government in this country. Somewhere out there, that is outside the reasonable and rational and rather secular world of North London, somewhere out there Christians and Muslims have to be stopped from killing each other on the streets. And the Government has to ride in like the United States Cavalry and sort it out.
You and I know that this is not a particularly accurate perception but it is nonetheless quite deeply entrenched in Government, in parts of the media and therefore in the minds of quite a lot of people who actually know better if they just step out of their front doors. ….
Too right! Smooth the world of interfaith relations may not be, but so many times we are aware that it is not faith groups that are the problem but those who think we will kill each other given the chance. That many "will know each other, quite likely, as friends and neighbours; not as lethal adversaries" is testimony to the considerable degree of interfaith understanding and engagement taking place. But the Archbishop calls us to more. It is good to hear him in this speech quote these key words from the report:
'The mission of God shown in the unique life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ encompasses both dialogue and evangelism in a seamless whole and is the eternal source of hope for the world.'
He calls us to patience and honesty:
Patience in the sense that we seek to learn and to grow in our encounters and we recognise that that takes time. Honesty in that we don't conceal what we believe, and indeed what we pray and hope for, for the entire world, which is the convergence of all human destinies upon the unique life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The report, the speech by the proposer of the motion, and the challenge of the Archbishop are all uncompromising in their faith in the context of the challenge of multi-faith Britain. It was unanimously passed.
Two notes here: Firstly, one of the amendments that was lost sought to turn the uniqueness motion into a presence and engagement motion. While the words presented clearly represented a new motion rather than an amendment, it was a shame that there was no motion that did satisfactorily bring them together. Secondly, clearly many did not vote; a significantly greater number voted at other times that day. In particular, well under half of the Bishops did not vote. Since I was just an observer, and am not party to views I will leave that as an observation at this point.
B. What has been said about what was said (and not said) in the debates.
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent on the Times wrote in that paper: Anglicans called on to convert non-Christian believers .
She began the news report controversially with:
Anglicans were effectively mandated today by the Church of England to go out and convert Muslims and other non-Christian believers.For decades, their fellow Christians have joked about Anglicans that it is unfair to say they believe in nothing. They believe in anything.
But in a move that led one bishop to condemn in anger the "evangelistic rants", the Church of England yesterday put decades of liberal political correctness behind it. The overt embrace by the established church of the tenets of evangelistic fervour could jeopardise decades of carefully constructed dialogues with other faiths.
For Muslims, to convert to another religion is condemned as apostasy.
… The move echoes 19th-century missions to Britain's overseas colonies, with the difference being that modern-day evangelicals want to be mandated to carry out these missions on home turf.
In her Times blog: General Synod Feb 09: Day Three she focuses on a voice not heard in the debate. Stephen Lowe, Bishop of Hulme, preferred to speak from the tea room to a YouTube video recording. He explains to Ruth Gledhill why he is 'very uneasy' about Paul Eddy's synod Feb 09 motion calling on bishops to draw up guidelines on preaching the 'uniqueness of Christ in a multifaith society'.
"… I am sad rather than angry. I don't actually fundamentally disagree with what Paul Eddy is saying, but what has saddened me is the way that … a proper relationship with people of other faiths …. [what you find in] the Presence and Engagement process has been detached .. from the evangelistic motive that is behind the Eddy motion. There is an element within the synod of people who have not got experience living, working and proclaiming the gospel in a multicultural context telling the those who have got the expertise … how to do it, and that makes me very uneasy. I have no doubt that a Muslim will expect a Christian to proclaim their faith, and to expect me to proclaim my faith, but it has to be on the basis of mutual relationship, respect and understanding … "
Ruth Gledhill notes:
Where are all the liberals?' [asked cartoonist and Church Times blogger Dave Walker] as this debate descends into an evangelical love in with even unashamed liberals such as Justin Brett declaring themselves 'in need of guidance' on how to explain the uniqueness of Christ in a multi-faith society. Evangelical Bishop Pete Broadbent, who has just spoken in the debate, comments on Dave's status. 'Tee hee resistance is futile,' he says. Is it a scandal that a bishop is using Facebook while ostensibly listening to a serious synod debate on the place of Christ in the world today? Does anyone care? Or has Bp Pete left the chamber and gone to the tea room with all the liberals?
The Telegraph built its story Christianity in decline because of political correctness on the speech of Rev Nezlin Sterling.
Noting the outcome of the vote, the Christian Institute Bishops urged to back evangelism.
The speech of an ethnic Chinese former Buddhist from Malaysia, Dr Chik Kaw Tan, is recorded on the Diocese of Lichfield site: Synod hears stirring testimony from former Buddhist. His memorable words: "Do not talk to me about the happy heathen. They do not exist."
Justyn Brett in his blog The Dodgy Liberal writes: What Kind of Title is That
I made a speech in favour of the main motion and against both the amendments in which I tried to point out that there was not an Evangelical monopoly in considering that this issue was important. One of the things I said was that passing the motion unamended was as important for the Liberals in the Church as for anyone else, and as the dodgiest of dodgy Liberals I asked the Synod to pass Paul's Motion unamended. And there you have it - it's official - I am a self-confessed dodgy Liberal.
Peter Ould has noted who voted no for whatever reason here: The Uniqueness of Christ - Who Voted No? and written to them to ask why. He has so far had one reply from Simon Tillotson, who says:
I do believe in the uniqueness of Christ and that salvation only comes through him but I am prepared to believe that God can save through Christ in ways we cannot understand. I do not believe that other religions provide a means of salvation, and fall way short of the grace we have in the gospel, but I do believe that God is good and that somehow people who have only encountered their own faith tradition will be judged in light of a loving God who sent his Son Jesus to die on the cross for the sins of the world. I felt that the General Synod motion was actually contrary to good mission process as it was in my view limiting God's salvific grace and put up barriers to dialogue with other faith. …
Interesting. I suspect a lot of people who voted in favour of the motion felt this way, but felt able to nuance that answer with a "yes vote" rather than a "no". I suspect also that many who voted silently by the absence were of the same opinion.
In the Conservative Evangelical American blog, Virtue-on-Line, Adam Fielder wrote: Synod - A 'Last Chance Saloon' for Orthodox Christians
But the debate which lifted the entire mood of Synod was Paul Eddy's private member's motion addressing the uniqueness of Christ which has been hailed by some as the Church regaining its focus. What was most surprising, however, was the line of supporters seated behind the Archbishop during this debate. These included the Rev Giles Fraser (an ultra-liberal vicar who hosted Bishop Gene Robinson at his Putney church last summer, causing a media furore); the Rev Stephen Trott (prominent Anglo-Catholic) and Anthony Archer (a traditional lay evangelical). Yesterday Sugden told VOL his thoughts on this debate. "I think everybody was taken completely by surprise [by the debate]" He added: "I think the feeling in the tea room afterwards was of people, right across the churchmanship, just thrilled that we had as a Synod made a strong affirmation." He also added that the Archbishop of Canterbury himself was enthused by the outcome.
However, on reflection, it is all very well for the Church of England to affirm that it believes in the uniqueness of Christ and even, as many of the Synod members argued, that Christ is the only way to salvation. But whether the Church decides to act on this new found affirmation is another thing altogether. As the New Testament suggests, even the devils believe in Christ and who He is.
David Virtue himself noted in Virtue-on-line that: Church of England Affirms What The Episcopal Church Will Not. He is clearly shocked, and has to start by building up the shock of the reader:
That it was needed to affirm at all should raise some eyebrows, and might indicate just how bad things in the C of E had reached that the motion was needed on the table at all. But the motion did find its way (finally) onto the Synod agenda.
Again at the end:
The question is: how did the Church of England manage to get a motion (resolution) on the floor of the Synod and get it passed?
A source deep inside the Church of England told VOL that the trend of the last 15 years in which more and more clergy have come from Evangelical colleges is beginning to make itself felt in the House of Clergy of General Synod; and with that growth among Evangelical clergy has come a greater confidence on the part of Evangelical laity, to play a fuller part in the Synod. It was a transformed Synod which debated Paul Eddy's motion on the Uniqueness of Christ and Mission in England on Wednesday, and the speeches were for the most part robustly conservative. Some of the liberals sitting there were clearly shocked by what they were hearing."
There is comment in various places that the spirit of the uniqueness debate was good. That was in very direct contrast to what was expected when the debate was first called for in October 2006 when Paul Eddy submitted the motion. It achieved the requisite 100 signatures last year and was originally tabled for the July Synod. But for whatever reason it didn't make the agenda and was held back until this February. The headlines that accompanied its release in 2006 made it clear that the proposer expected a debate that would confront any woolly agendas in the churches leadership: C of E 'shies away' from converting others
The Church of England was accused yesterday of shying away from its sacred duty of trying to convert Muslims and people of other faiths to Christianity. Paul Eddy, a member of the General Synod, the Church's ruling body, said that the active recruitment of non-believers had always been a Biblical injunction on Christians. But he claimed that the bishops were deliberately down-playing evangelisation among other faiths for fear of upsetting minority groups and their role in inter-faith talks.
The Telegraph religious affairs correspondent Jonathan Petrie wrote on his post at the time: Spreading the Word : "If his motion ever reaches the floor of the Synod, expect some fireworks." That remained the expectation of many last week. But as Ruth Gledhill observed, the debate "descend[ed] into an evangelical love."
So what did I make of it, what could have been said (and what did I want to say)? Guess I will need to focus on that in a second post.
Download Eddy 01
Download Eddy 02
Download Eddy 03
Download Eddy 04
Comments