Is The Church Of England Biblical?
An Anglican Ecclesiology
By Colin Buchanan
Darton, Longman & Todd. 356 pages plus notes.
ISBN 0 232 52134 4
Brilliant, frustrating, erudite, short-sighted, biblical, idiosyncratic, radical, conservative - it must be Colin Buchanan's latest book. Is the Church of England biblical? is a typical Buchanan broadside, aimed to supplement a perceived lack of an ecclesiology that is authentically Anglican and evangelical.
So he provides major sections on the biblical doctrine of the church, on how far the early church should be appealed to as a model (not much, given the absurdities and scandals he carefully records), on the intentions of the reformers, on the contemporary profile of the Church of England and what is realistic for the future (at least, what is realistic to him - not many of his Episcopal colleagues will agree). Along the way there are wonderful asides, which educate, alarm and irritate by turn. Fans of lay presidency will even find a thinly-veiled hint on how to proceed to undermine the House of Bishops' report 'Eucharistic Presidency'. Bishop Colin has produced a typically masterly volume.
His conclusions are ones that need taking on board by all evangelicals, whatever our denominational loyalty. First, the ground for our continued break with Rome is the absolute supremacy of Scripture, and that supremacy must be maintained - he does not explore why the contemporary Church of England treats the Bible so lightly, he merely notes it. Second, he challenges us on the lack of seriousness that evangelicals have traditionally played towards visible unity. I think he has an important point here, although his proposed long-term vision, that Christians should automatically join their nearest congregation, sounds unrealistic in as diverse, motorised and geographically unrelated culture as our own. Third, there is a call for explicitly verbal evangelism, and fourth, a call to be eschatologically minded. 'But, believers in the Lord, we are to do it together' (p.292, COB's italics).
Radical through experience
The book's great strength is the years of study that Buchanan has given to these topics and even when one doesn't agree with his conclusions, one is better informed as a result of reading him. He is quite clearly the most radically evangelical bishop we have at the moment, and his brief essay on 'Making Episcopacy Credible' is worth reading if only because it comes from someone who has learned from hard experience. I would want to push much further, because his essay is fundamentally synodically rather than congregationally based, but he has put some questions up to be answered. His views on infant baptism and disestablishment are well known, but rarely better argued than here. And in view of the renewed discussions on Anglican/Methodist unity, his careful restating of why he opposed the 1960s scheme is vital. We Anglicans will need him in the very near future - and so will the Methodists.
I have one caveat about this rich feast. Buchanan confesses modestly that he has not read everything that there is to read, which is generous of him when he has clearly digested so much. However, he repeats the habit of others in saying that Anglican evangelicals have not made a serious contribution to ecclesiology while at the same time ignoring those studies that would qualify. So the seminal works of Knox and Robinson in the IVP Bible Dictionary (and their profound and extensive supporting theologies), the highly influential and deceptively slender books by Alan Stibbes, Philip Hughes' recently republished work on the Theology of the English Reformers (buy it!), Don Carson's volumes for the World Evangelical Fellowship which include contributions by two Anglican academics, one could go on.
All these books represent a vibrant evangelical ecclesiology, and from Knox/ Robinson onwards, they are grounded in biblical theology which sees Sinai as fundamental to the concept of church. The result is an ecclesiology which treats congregations and the links between them with great seriousness, but notes that to use the term 'church' for those links is inappropriate. Other valid biblical language exists for them.
If one examines this material with a grid that equates church with denomination, then it seems 'congregational' (in a derogatory sense, implying that no links should be allowed), and the case that 'evangelicals have a poor ecclesiology' is assured. But that is a rumour which is repeated too often, and it arises from the liberal Catholic position which places bishop, synod and communion in the centre, and arrogantly states that it (and it only) is true Anglicanism. This position must be challenged, but it is impossible to do without being attacked as 'congregationalist'. There is a wealth of Anglican evangelical material on ecclesiology, but precisely because it defies the assumptions of the defining centrality of denominational officials, it is simply not incorporated in debate whose shape is defined by liberal Catholicism.
An important omission
Neither the Church of England Evangelical Council nor the Anglican Evangelical Assembly are indexed in the book, and perhaps they slip below Buchanan's horizon because they evince an Anglican evangelical ecclesiology which is not defined episcopally (and it must also be insisted it predated Keele), and therefore seems neither Anglican nor ecclesiological. It is odd that someone with such an acute historical sense as Buchanan - and someone as willing to challenge liberal Catholicism - should miss the importance of this, because a 'denomination' is a comparatively recent phenomenon. The early church would have understood our concern over unity, but not that congregations grade their unity according to brand loyalty.
Because Buchanan is unaware of this material, he cannot notice how it would have strengthened his own position in other areas where he is formidably right. He would have pondered on a people of God assembled by God's word for his purposes (a theme from Genesis to Revelation), and via Hebrews this material becomes a profound explanation of unity, and the relationships between its visible and invisible aspects. Buchanan rightly mentions Sinai but its biblically centrality for the theology of 'assembly' eludes him.
So the title is illuminating: 'Is the Church of England biblical?' On one reading, the question is simply how far must one denomination change if it is to be obedient in what it permits and forbids? On another reading though, it is a title which makes no sense, as if Buchanan had asked: 'Is a cathedral biblical?' Cathedrals and denominations are concepts of which the New Testament knows nothing, and one has to be very careful how one phrases one's questions to elicit a truly biblical answer. 'Denomination' and 'unity' are related but not equivalent terms.
Nevertheless, you can tell I'm enthusiastic about the book, and it was written to be disagreed with. After all, Colin Buchanan may be brilliant, frustrating, erudite, short-sighted etc, but he's incapable of being boring!
Chris Green,
Emmanuel Church, Tolworth
