Archbishop Rowan Williams and NEAC 4

When Rowan Williams was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, the reaction by mainstream evangelicals (including a large proportion of the Church of England Evangelical Council) was quite rightly negative.

He was seen by many as not standing within the full orbit of orthodox Christianity on a variety of issues, not least that of homosexual practice. What has changed such that he could be invited to an evangelical gathering such as NEAC 4? Precious little.

The decision to invite Rowan Williams to NEAC 4 is nothing short of calamitous.
The symbolism is full of significance and has not been lost on Rowan Williams or those within the 'evangelical' camp who are his supporters (including the purported 25 bishops and college principals that applied pressure on the organisers to invite him). How-ever much the organisers may wish to downplay the significance of this invitation and to play up 'evangelical unity', this will be seen as evangelicals giving his leadership validity. It will be perceived that they tacitly, if not explicitly, acknowledge that the position he holds is an acceptable one which should be tolerated as part of the breadth of the Church of England.

When push comes to shove

It will not be enough to boycott the opening meeting or 'refuse to applaud' Rowan Williams as some are now thinking of doing. For now there are two issues. Yes, there are the views of Rowan Williams and his position as a church leader. The boycott would only address this issue and then will be misread as being a personal attack.

But there is now a second issue, the standing and credibility of an organisation (CEEC/NEAC) which invites such a leader. One would hope that NEAC would refuse to invite a leader who denied the bodily resurrection of Christ or believed that in some cases paedophilia was all right, and yet they are now willing to invite someone who does not believe that God has revealed himself fully, finally and clearly in the Scriptures and who does believe that gay sex is permissible in some circumstances. This means that either NEAC would be willing to invite such a leader who did believe in paedophilia provided he was an Archbishop or that the gay issue is not such a defining issue after all.

Can we even begin to imagine a Whitefield or a Simeon supporting an 'evangelical' gathering which would invite a person with such views, however high up in the ecclesiastical establishment they may be? Hardly. Our Free Church brethren have complained often enough in the past that Anglican evangelicals, for all their talk of putting the gospel first, when push comes to shove show that commitment to the Anglican establishment takes priority.

Why the invitation?

What makes this all the worse is that Rowan Williams did not have to be invited. This is a spiritual gathering, not a legally constituted ecclesiastical one which would require the Archbishop's presence in an official capacity. Dr. David Hope, the Archbishop of York, was specifically invited to give the Establishment's blessing on the gathering. The decision to invite Rowan Williams is purely a tactical move on the part of those who put ecclesiastical policy above gospel fidelity. It also follows that it puts Anglican unity above evangelical unity. This is a most reckless and divisive decision. Those who refuse to go along with this are going to be portrayed as churlish and narrow. It also makes life more difficult for our brothers and sisters who have taken a public stand on the appointment of Rowan Williams, now the pressure will be increased upon them for the jibe they will face is : 'Why are you so hostile to Rowan Williams when the main evangelical constituency is willing to welcome him as a friend?' What do they say? They will be further marginalised.

Supporting a false teacher

It would appear that the whole event has been compromised and tainted. The hope the early organisers had of 'reclaiming' evangelicalism in a more traditional direction has already been lost by this action. The question now raised is whether one can be part of an 'evangelical' gathering which tacitly supports a false teacher? Some of the talks, however sound they may be, will have had their throats cut by this action. Who can take what is to be said seriously?

To put it crudely, whatever may be said from a mainstream evangelical position about the authority of Scripture and substitutionary atonement will be rendered vacuous because of this action, for it means that for all our talk, the Scriptures do not have any operational effect. Folk will say (with some justification) that mainstream evangelicals may cherish their doctrine, but are not willing to pay the price of putting it into effect, for how else can they believe in the holiness of God (which requires substitutionary atonement), his concern for truth and purity, and, at the same time, invite a man who believes that in some cases homosexual acts are OK? The fear is that the pass will have been sold even before the talks are given.

In reflecting on this tragic situation two readings came to mind: one by Oliver Barclay and the other by Francis Schaeffer. Let me quote at length.

Taking an unpopular stand

First, Barclay (who is speaking of the CICCU/SCM divide because of the latter's inclusive policy - the parallel with NEAC and CEEC is obvious): '[The CICCU] were going back to that because they believed it to be biblical. There are echoes in this story of Luther's assertion, "My conscience is tied to the word of God. Here I stand, I can do no other So help me God." It may seem impertinent to make the comparison. No one is suggesting that their stand was as important as that of Luther, but they were, on a very small scale, in the same tradition. They did not face personal danger. They only faced looking stupid and... appearing terribly old-fashioned and out of touch with reality. They also faced the need to disagree sharply with personal friends and others with whom they had previously worked happily in Christian fellowship and witness. They challenge us in every generation to be willing to take a strong stand for an apparently unpopular or even hopeless cause, for the sake of loyalty to God's revealed truth, to risk friendship, reputation and the glory of being part of a successful cause because of our faith in God and his gospel' (Whatever Happened to the Jesus Lane Lot?).

When big isn't beautiful

Here is Schaeffer from The Great Evangelical Disaster: 'What is the use of evangelicalism seeming to get larger and larger if sufficient numbers of those under the name evangelical no longer hold to that which makes evangelicalism evangelical? If this continues, we are not faithful to what the Bible claims for itself and we are not faithful to what Jesus Christ claims for the Scriptures.'
So what is now at issue is not simply the position of Rowan Williams, but the credibility of NEAC 4 and those who have invited him for whatever reason. Some protest must be made which goes beyond the token boycott of the Rowan Williams meeting.

Boycott or speak out?

First, people could simply refuse to support the whole gathering and stay away. That at least would show we are serious and people of conviction. Given that, according to the interview with Paul Gardner in EN, there is not going to be any 'haggling' or 'statements', the argument by some that conservative evangelicals should be out in force to make their views known doesn't wash for how will they make their views known if no space is given for discussion and disagreement? Their presence will simply reiterate the myth that we are all one and can happily coexist. This is reflected in the way the topics are going to be handled such that two or three people are lined up for each session - an open evangelical, a charismatic evangelical and a conservative evangelical - so just take your pick - it's all relative. At least if the mainline evangelical stayed away NEAC could not claim to be representing all Anglican evangelicalism. What is more, if action is not taken then this will simply give strength to the liberals who have had their way yet again, and will reinforce their view that mainstream evangelicals will always 'fall in line' so let's not worry too much about them.

Alternatively, those mainstream evangelicals who are speaking could take the opportunity to make their views known publicly from the platform, that Rowan Williams should not have been invited and that NEAC should repent of such a decision. That is the least that could be done. But will people have the courage to do this?

Every NEAC has been of historic significance. This will be no exception. The fear is that it will be a further step to-wards compromise and accommodation which has sapped evangelicalism of its strength in the past far more than any alleged 'division' between us. The hope is that mainstream evangelicals will be renewed in courage to take a stand for truth in practice and be willing to pay the price, as the early CICCU had to, and for there to be greater co-operation between evangelicals across the denominations so that the gospel will be promoted over denominational allegiance.

Melvin Tinker is the vicar of St. John's, Newland, Hull.