Reformed Churchmen

We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691154813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417814005&sr=8-1&keywords=jacobs+book+of+common+prayer. January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-English-Reformation-1489-1556/dp/1592448658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420055574&sr=8-1&keywords=A.F.+Pollard+Cranmer. February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-Jasper-Ridley/dp/0198212879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422892154&sr=8-1&keywords=jasper+ridley+cranmer&pebp=1422892151110&peasin=198212879

Showing posts with label John Stott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Stott. Show all posts

Sunday, September 15, 2013

Mr. (Dr.) Oliver Barclay Passes: 12 Sept 2013 (IVCF, IVP, CICCU, Tyndale House)


12 September 2013. Oliver Barclay passes to the Church Triumphant.


Oliver Barclay, a scion of the banking family and second General Secretary of IVF/UCCF, died at his home in Leicester yesterday, 12 September 2013, aged 94.

He was born in Kobe, Japan, on 22 February 1919, the son of Joseph Gurney Barclay (who served with what is now the Church Mission Society). His great grandfather was the MP Thomas Fowell Buxton who campaigned with William Wilberforce as part of the influential Clapham Sect.

Oliver first joined the small IVF team in 1945, having completed a doctorate in zoology.  His original hope was to teach in one of China’s newer universities, but Douglas Johnson, IVF founding General Secretary (always known as DJ), persuaded him to defer his departure by two years. As Oliver’s newly-created role as Assistant Secretary took shape, it soon became clear that the universities of Britain and Ireland would instead be his life’s work.

Oliver Barclay served for two years as a wartime President of the Cambridge Inter-Collegiate Christian Union (CICCU) and as Chairman of the students’ national IVF Executive Committee.  From his days in Trinity College, Cambridge, he formed a lifelong friendship with John Stott, also at Trinity, and two years his junior. Both men would serve as lifetime Honorary Vice-Presidents of the CICCU.

As Chair of the student national IVF Executive, Oliver was privy to DJ’s plans that the IVF should found a Centre for Biblical Research in a university town, to strengthen the roots of the church in the then very liberal Theology faculties of the universities. What would soon become Tyndale House, Cambridge (secured in 1944 and opened in 1945) had originally belonged to a member of the Barclay family. When Oliver heard it was to be sold, he conferred straight away with DJ, as he could see the strategic benefit of its location, close to Ridley Hall and the Cambridge University Library. Financial help from John Laing (later Sir John Laing of J W Laing Construction) and others made the purchase possible, and Tyndale House now hosts one of the finest libraries for biblical research in the world.

In 1953, Oliver became the first IVF Universities Secretary, supporting the IVF travelling secretaries [now UCCF staff workers] around the four nations. The liberal hold in the university theology faculties, and in the churches, created much opposition to evangelical influences among students. When news broke in 1954 of the invitation by the CICCU to the US evangelist Billy Graham to lead the 1955 triennial university mission, with John Stott as his Chief Assistant Missioner, The Times carried a lengthy correspondence on the matter. This was of such substance that it was later published (by The Times) as a separate booklet.

In 1963 the government’s Robbins Report was published, which led to massive expansion in higher education.  In 1964 Oliver Barclay succeeded Douglas Johnson as IVF General Secretary. This was the same year his first wife, Dorothy, a consultant surgeon at the Royal Free Hospital (whom he had married in 1949) died of cancer, leaving four children. The following year, Oliver married Daisy Hickey, a family friend.

Oliver Barclay steered the Inter-Varsity Fellowship through its own significant expansion to engage with the times, as new universities and colleges were founded, and as a surge of change swept through societal norms.  In 1974, under Dr Barclay’s leadership, the IVF office was relocated from Bedford Square in central London to De Montfort Street, Leicester, and in 1975 the movement’s name was changed to the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF) to reflect the growing work in the polytechnics and colleges of education. Its publishing wing, by then known as Inter-Varsity Press (IVP) was the UK’s leading evangelical publishing house.

Richard Cunningham, UCCF Director writes: ‘Oliver was an able academic, author, mentor and leader, and a great friend to so many. And Daisy’s welcome and care of generations of staff was legendary.  Oliver always kept a loving eye on UCCF and when I began as the inexperienced leader of the work he had nurtured for so many years, I greatly looked forward to my termly meal with him and the wise letter that always followed.’

Oliver Barclay urged clear-thinking evangelical graduates to consider two major directions: to pursue an academic career; or if ordained to apply for vacant churches in university towns.  Gradually the tide of liberalism began to turn. Oliver was succeeded in 1980 by Robin Wells then a scientific Advisor to the South African Government, whom Oliver had first met while Robin was a doctoral student at Imperial College.  This was just as a second stage of growth in tertiary education was beginning. Under Robin Wells from the mid-late 1980s the regional teams would be formed, opening the way for the appointment, under Bob Horn’s leadership, of the first relay workers.

In retirement, Dr Barclay continued to serve on the IVP long-range planning group, and was instrumental in the founding of the UCCF Research Council to oversee the work of Tyndale House in Cambridge and the new Whitefield Institute in Oxford. He was co-founder in 1989 of the journal Science and Christian Belief, joint organ of the Victoria Institute and of Christians in Science, formerly the Research Scientists Christian Fellowship, which traced its roots back to a small group of research scientists Oliver had first drawn together in his student days.

Oliver served on the Executive Committee of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES) from 1959-1983, and as its chair from 1971-79. He served as an Honorary Vice-President from 1983-91, and was always particularly thrilled to see its pioneering work pass into the hands of national leaders. This global movement now has presence in over 150 nations.

Oliver Barclay wrote several books including Evangelicalism in Britain 1935-1995 (IVP, 1997) to which he brought a unique perspective. For some titles he adopted the pseudonym A N Triton. In the 1980s he edited a book series entitled When Christians Disagree himself contributing to the volume on Pacifism and War. Here he showed how, now more informed than in his student years when he espoused the pacifist convictions of his Quaker forebears, he had moved to adopt the Just War theory.

He had no formal theological training but developed in himself – and cultivated in his staff – the ability to ‘think theologically’. He read through Calvin’s Institutes each year and prayed daily for a deeper understanding of the meaning of the death of Christ. He never lost sight of his dual task, to strengthen a witness to Christ both in the student world and among faculty. He followed news of UCCF missions closely until recent months, and remained as convinced as he had been in his early days that  ministry in the university world was the most strategic way to build a thoughtful acceptance of biblical truth.

We thank God for Oliver Barclay’s tenacity and far-sightedness, his shrewd judgment and his passion for the gospel; and we commend his widow Daisy and his four children to your prayers.

News of the Thanksgiving Service will be announced.

Friday, August 16, 2013

(Video) Memorial Service for Mr. (Rev. Dr.) Stott: St Paul's, London (12 Jan 2012)

1. Canon Mark Oakley
2. Right Reverend Michael Baughen
3. Frances Whitehead (John's PA)



ASIA - Most Reverend John Chew AFRICA - Reverend Robert Aboagye-Menseh LATIN AMERICA - Ruth Padilla-DeBorst



Sermon by Right Reverend Timothy Dudley-Smith



Mark Greene (Executive Director, London Institute for Contemporary Christianity)



1. John Sentamu (Archbishop of York)
2. Richard Chartres (Bishop of London)
3. Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury)

Memoriam (5 Aug 2011): Dr. James Packer Preaches John Stott's Memorial Service

22 July 1926-Present
Mr. (Rev. Dr.) James Innes Packer
Anglican Theologian
Author and Professor
 
Mr. (Rev. Dr.) John Robert Walmsley Stott (27 April 1921 – 27 July 2011)


The Rev. Dr. James Innes Packer Preaches the Memorial Service, 5 Aug 2011, in Vancouver for the Rev. Dr. John Stott, Due for Burial 8 Aug 2011 from All Souls, London
This sermon was preached as a memorial service for the late Rev. Dr. John R. W. Stott (April 27, 1921 - July 27, 2011).  The Rev. Canon Dr. James I. Packer preached. 
A scholarly Anglican, Dr. Packer, who knew Dr. Stott for years, offered his sage insights.  
As an aside, a digression, even the New York Times eulogized Dr. Stott as an honorable Evangelical Anglican rather than an “Evangelical Blowhard” [read: American evangelical]  See. http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2011/07/nyts-kristoff-on-rev-mr-john-stott.html
Part 1 of 3 from Dr. Packer’s sermon:
The biblical text: Hebrews 13:7-8.  Over 3 parts, the sermon is almost 34 minutes. 
The youtube post is dated 5 Aug 2011.  It was posted by the Anglican Network Church of the Good Shepherd, Vancouver, BC, Canada.  This parish is in the Anglican Network in Canada, a split-off from the liberal Anglican Church of Canada.  
Two quick take-ways from Part 1.
A side note, in the Anglican tradition, Dr. Packer is vested as an Anglican in cassock, surplice and stole with a clerical collar…standard vestments for centuries. As such, we are reminded of our Anglican heritage.  Architecturally, the pulpit is to the left, again, a consciousness of our great past when order and decency was prescribed for worship and music.  Dr. Packer speaks with careful measure and thought—no enthusiasm.  No crudity or enthusiasms like American blowhards. We are thankful for deliberative, cautious and  common sense exposition.  While insignificant to most, given American enthusiasm, these minor side notes represent long bridges to the wider matters of Anglicanism with deep taproots deep in history and common sense.
On a different and superior note than the above, important as it is, Dr. Packer offers a worthy exegetical and expository on the biblical text…a commendable interplay between the biblical text and Dr. Stott’s life.  May this style and approach never be forgotten.  Faithful Anglican Churchmen are a Bible-people. Our thoughts are registered at:  http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2011/08/getting-oriented-to-bible-reading-and.html. Some excellent comments are offered by Dr. Packer on the intransigency of liberalism, pride and obstinacy of unbelief in the mainline churches.  We are long acquainted with it.  In context, as Dr. Packer informs us, Dr. Stott stood as a faithful witness in the liberal Anglican context.  As such, Dr. Stott reminded us of our great Bible heritage.  An Anglican heritage…of standing in theological storms like Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Rogers, Bilney, Coverdale and others. 
Dr. Stott advocated for serious worship that was not sloppy or casual.  Little might Dr. Stott have known in modern America with the moderns.  Dr. Stott lived a life of quiet discipline.  Dr. Stott was constant in Bible study, prayer, self-discipline, love, patience, and the extension of encouragement to others.  Dr. Stott spent 25 years in the pastorate at All Souls, Langham, resulting in well-trained parishioners as well as salutary influences in the Church of England.  We are not sure to what degree Dr. Stott advocated old Prayer Book Churchmanship, but this is an aside. 
Dr. Packer calls Dr. Stott an “unconsecrated Bishop” with world-wide influence in the Anglican communion as well as the wider, non-Confessional,  Revivalist and non-liturgical evangelical world [Ed. “American” sense of evangelical, e.g. Billy Graham, Anabaptists, Christianity Today] .
Dr. Stott influenced, by turns, GAFCON 2008, an international gathering of Anglican Bishops, and the coming to life of Confessional Anglicanism.  The fruits of GAFCON remain to be seen.  We do notice an uptick of interest in the Protestant and Reformation Articles, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.  Dr. Stott had an “enlarged vision of the Church.”  Dr. Packer calls auditors to “pick up the torch” and “carry on” what John began.  We concur. 
1.      We list some resources on the Rev. Dr. John Stott (1921-2011) whose recent passing has invoked numerous comments.   (Put in Memorial service URL here after that’s posted) 
2.      50th Anniversary of John Stott's “Basic Christianity” is explored at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzoWx534yGE   
Takeways: 
a.      “Basic Christianity” began as an evangelistic set of lectures at Cambridge University, his alma mater.  The book is quite basic.  So basic, for this scribe, that it was quickly read and dismissed.  After all, Dad gave me Hodge’s 3-volume Systematic Theology and Berkhof’s Systematic Theology at age 18, gently commending 10 pages per day with 10 chapters from the OT and 10 chapters from the NT for daily reading, atop my science major in university. 
b.     Dr. Stott published 50 volumes with Inter-varsity Press.
c.      True to Anglican Churchmanship, Dr. Stott wore a “dog collar,” or, the Anglican collar.  We understand that in his later ministry, he merely wore a suit, no collar and no vestments.
d.     Dr. Stott and Dr. Packer influenced evangelicalism.
e.      The “Brits,” like Dr. Stott and Dr. Packer, advocated careful thinking. 
3.      John Stott on "When I Feel Most Alive” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDPqw-LAuaU&feature=related
a.      Take-aways:
b.     “I feel most alive in worship.” 
c.      Dr. Stott speaks “Prayer Book language” from the Holy Communion, a language that informed his worship.
d.     “THEREFORE with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious Name; evermore praising thee, and saying,
e.      “HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, Lord God of, hosts, Heaven and earth are full of thy glory:  Glory be to thee, O Lord Most High. Amen.” 
f.       Given the widespread worship disorders, we wish that Dr. Stott might have been known for advocacy of old school Prayer Book worship, doctrine, and piety…pointing to better ways for the in-disciplined and indecorous elements in evangelical enthusiasm.   
4.      The London Institute for Contemporary Christian is site with a wealth of information on Dr. Stott—with an introduction, tribute, biography, “remembrance book,” resources, and “John Stott Memorial Website” (hosted by Langham Partnership). http://www.licc.org.uk/tribute 
5.      Dr. Stott’s funeral will be held at All Souls Church in Langham Place on 8 Aug 2011 at 1215 P.M..  http://www.allsouls.org/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=273577 




Sunday, March 18, 2012

History, Vision and Values: All Souls, Langham Place, London


Three issues.

First, a brief  history of All Souls Anglican Church, Langham Place, in downtown London.  It is taken from their website at: http://www.allsouls.org/Groups/132679/All_Souls_site/Discovering/Our_History/Our_History.aspx. 

Second, we post their statement of “Vision and Values” of All Souls at: http://www.allsouls.org/Groups/132678/All_Souls_site/Discovering/Vision_and_Values/Vision_and_Values.aspx. 

Third, as a concluding aside, we doubt that All Souls has used the 1662 Book of Common Prayer for quite some time.  We are not sure why.  But, assuredly, it’s a modern innovation.

Now, for the “History.”

Welcome to All Souls, the only surviving church built by the renowned regency architect, John Nash. It is one of the “Waterloo Churches” built to express the nation’s thanksgiving to God for victory over Napoleon in 1815, and was erected in 1822-24.

John Nash & All Souls

In the early 19th century, new churches were needed to serve the rapidly growing population of St. Marylebone. John Nash was working on his Regent Street scheme (leading from Piccadilly Circus to Regents Park), and the site for All Souls fitted in splendidly, iving scope for a landmark building to close the vista from Oxford Circus and swing his new road round to join the existing Portland Place. All Souls is built of Bath stone and is simply an ornate, but ordinary, galleried hall, or a wide nave with no transepts. It is entered through a rotunda surrounded by a portico with Ionic columns, whose capitals are made of artificial Coade stone. The winged cherubs’ heads are unusual and based on a design by Michelangelo. The unique spire consists of 17 concave sides encircled by Corinthian columns. Originally, a stone balustrade ran all round the roof, but after part fell onto the pavement early in the 20th century, most was removed and only the part on the rotunda remains today. There is no east window; instead, the interior is dominated by the painting ‘Ecce Homo’ (‘Behold the Man’), which depicts Jesus Christ during his trial before Pontius Pilate (as related in John 18:28-40). It was painted by Richard Westall (later drawing master to the young Princess Victoria) and probably presented to All Souls by King George IV. Nash was responsible for the church’s interior, though most of his designs were lost, apart from the mahogany case housing the central body of the gallery organ. Over the years, the instrument has been replaced and re-modeled and the case extended, fitted with new gilded front pipes. Nash’s design was greeted in some quarters with derision. The combination of Gothic spire and classical rotunda was criticized, and the distinctive tower and spire was castigated in the House of Commons as “a mass of deformity”, “resembling an extinguisher on a flat candlestick”. The infamous cartoonist George Cruikshank, even depicted Nash impaled on his spire (see the above).

All Souls was completed in 1824 and consecrated on 25 November. It seated 1500 people in high boxed pews and there was just one service each Sunday. No doubt in part because of the up and coming nature of Marylebone, the church rapidly became fashionable, and full.

Crown Connections

All Souls has always had strong connections to the Crown and these remain today. The Prince Regent (as he then was) first bought the land on which the church was built, selected his favourite architect to build West Side of Langham Place by Thomas Shepherd (1828)

Second, here are the “Vision and Values” of All Souls, Langham Place, London. 

Vision and Values
Our vision
Growing an international community to reach a multicultural society for
Christ.
Our aims

·                     Come together to learn to live Christ across our scattered networks
·                     Send out to serve and speak Christ along our different networks
·                     Send on to witness and work for Christ in new networks

All Souls Church is:

·                     a  Church of England Church and we hold orthodox Anglican beliefs subscribing to the historical creeds which speak of our belief in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as well as the 39 Articles with their reminders of the great Reformation principles of 'Christ Alone, Scripture Alone, Faith Alone.'
(You can find links to the texts of the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed and the 39 Articles at www.anglicansonline.org/basics/what_believe.html)
·                     a member of the Evangelical Alliance and we subscribe to their Basis of Faith (www.eauk.org/about/basis-of-faith.cfm).


Saturday, March 17, 2012

Carl Truman: Review of Alister Chapman's John Stott

http://www.reformation21.org/articles/the-glorious-fault-of-angels-and-of-gods-ungodly-reflections-on-alister-chapmans.php

The Glorious Fault of Angels and of Gods: Ungodly Reflections on Alister Chapman's John Stott

Article by March 2012
 
 
 
While for me, J I Packer and Dr Lloyd-Jones are the most important British evangelicals of the last hundred years, there is no doubt that, in terms of world impact, it is John Stott who looms largest for the current generation. His life shaped so much of modern world evangelicalism: the Lausanne movement; the current interest in social justice; and the understanding of the church's mission as involving both word and action as non-negotiable partners. For good or for ill, he is a key figure.

For this reason, Alister Chapman's relatively slim but carefully constructed biographical study, Godly Ambition; John Stott and the Evangelical Movement (Oxford University Press, 2011) is an important contribution to the growing literature on recent British evangelicalism. That it comes on the heels of the collection of scholarly essays on Martyn Lloyd-Jones gives hope that perhaps we are witnessing the start of serious, critical but respectful discussion of the immediate British evangelical past. For the general historian, Chapman's book is also an encouraging example of a particular approach to historical narrative.

Chapman has done sterling service in the past in placing self-understanding back at the centre of historical narrative, and with it the significance of religious belief. Others involved in such a project include Brad Gregory, the Notre Dame historian whose new book on the Reformation I will be reflecting upon next month. This approach is an excellent corrective both to hardcore Annales and materialist approaches to history and to postmodern excesses in the historical field. It is, however, not without its own contentious aspects, as will be more apparent when I address the Gregory volume.

In dealing with Stott, Chapman sets him clearly within the context of English society from the 1930s. As such, Stott is part of the larger English narrative of recent times - and what times they have been. By Stott's birth in the aftermath of the Great War, the class system was starting to change (for the soap opera fans out there, think Downton Abbey). The Second World War effectively guaranteed the demise of the British Empire, something made so very public in the Suez crisis. The impact of post-imperialism on a nation which no longer knew where it stood in the world can scarcely be overestimated. Then came the Swinging Sixties, the industrial turmoil of the seventies, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Thatcher decade, the crisis of conservative politics and the reign of New Labour. On the world stage, the Cold War came and went; militant Islam put paid to naïve secularization theories and also pointed to Europe, not America, being exceptional at least in the matter of the decline of organized religion. Throughout it all, Stott sought to minister in ways that recognized the cultural conditions.

Chapman is surely right to place class at the heart of the story. Stott was born and remained a man of privilege. He was taught almost from birth that leadership was both a class right and a paternalist responsibility. In this, he contrasts with Packer and Lloyd-Jones. Packer found his way into Oxbridge via the state school system. He enjoyed no innate class privilege. To such as Packer, the Establishment is something we can share a corridor with at university but to which we can never really belong. Lloyd-Jones was a Welshman with all of the general dislike of the English (as a people, not necessarily as individuals) which that implies and an especial suspicion of the Anglican Church (a sentiment with which English non-conformists can also sympathize).

On Chapman's reading, this desire/need/duty to lead was a (perhaps, humanly speaking, the) major dynamic in Stott's ministry. We might say that the great dilemma of his life was how a patrician could lead in an increasingly democratized and secularized environment. In fact, there is a sense in which much of his story - at least his UK story -is one of failure, or at least of a failure to live up to his own expectations. He was never really able to transcend the class divide in the parish of All Souls, Langham Place. He never really came to terms with the collapse in church attendance in Britain from the fifties onwards. Much as the Anglican Church in the sixties was clearly a theological disaster, he could never leave her - and one suspects his reasons were not simply because she was 'the best boat to fish from' (sic) but also because of the ties that bound him to the Establishment and (as Chapman hints) the desire for a bishopric that was always tantalizingly just out of reach. Stott at times reminded me of Orson Welles: they both in a sense lived their lives backwards. If Welles' greatest achievement was Citizen Kane, followed by forty years of occasionally great near-misses and much mediocrity, so Stott's career began with a number of remarkable university missions whose success was never really matched by any subsequent English venture. It was a mercy that he avoided the Anglican equivalent of those ghastly and embarrassing sherry commercials.

In this narrative, his move to the world stage was not therefore a natural extension of his ministry in England but rather a rejection of it, as he came to the realization that England would provide only a day of small things. If he wanted to lead, he would have to find others who would follow and the Anglo-Saxons at home proved increasingly indifferent to what he had to say. In this context, the growing social concern, while undoubtedly genuine, hints both at the desire to find a broader constituency than the gospel of the 1950s campus missions would provide for him and at that guilt which the unmerited privileges of a wealthy background often bring in their wake to those of sensitive conscience. As a character such as Paul Foot expressed his public school guilt through the idiom of Marxism, perhaps Stott expressed his through an evangelical paternalism which drew increasingly on the political idioms of the Left.

Three things in particular intrigued me with respect to Chapman's Stott. First, I cannot help but wonder about the move of Packer to Regent College in 1979. Coming at the end of a decade of doctrinal disaster for Anglicanism, the move seems more than just the result of a good offer of employment. Packer had fallen out with the non-conformist wing of British evangelicalism through his disagreement with Lloyd-Jones on evangelical union and then his ecumenical alliance with Anglo-Catholics such as E L Mascall. Yet Stott's Anglicanism was scarcely more conducive to Packer: Stott's suspicion of systematic theology, his increasing interest in social activism, his closer links to the Anglican Establishment and his personal ambition all suggest that he would not have been particularly enamoured of Packer's vision for the church. I once heard a leading Anglican evangelical theologian say that Packer went to Canada because there was nowhere in Britain where he could turn. Reading between the lines of Chapman's book, I find such a view quite plausible.

Second, Stott's parachurch career is emblematic of the potential pitfalls such organizations often bring with them (though they are not exclusive to the parachurch). Parachurch organizations frequently need powerful personalities to start them up and to lead them, to give that all-important vision; but as such powerful personalities make their organizations attractive, so other individuals come to join the club. Success thus brings with it its own problems: the big cheese of the early days, the one who brought the organization into being, suddenly finds that his is not the only voice, that his opinions can be challenged, and that other visions start to compete for the future. Stott's answer at each step of his career seems to have been to declare 'Be reasonable: do it my way. After all, I am John Stott. Remind me again: who on earth are you?' That is how it went within Anglican evangelicalism; and most notoriously it is how it went with the Lausanne movement. He was not the first leader to handle criticism in such a way and he certainly was not the last. There are lessons here for our current parachurch religious culture in the USA which is arguably more enamoured today with the idea of the big celebrity leader than at any point in the recent past. Aspiring critics of the new establishment take note and count the cost before putting hand to plough, or finger to keyboard.

This brings me to my final point: Chapman tries to put this as delicately as he can but it is clear from his narrative that Stott was very ambitious. One might even say he was ruthlessly ambitious at times. Chapman indicates that Stott saw a tension here: godly ambition is of course good ambition; but sinful human nature means that such is also at the same time ungodly. This is where the historian too faces a dilemma: to place an historical agent's own self-understanding at the centre of the narrative is good and proper. For example, how could one write a biography of, say, Winston Churchill without giving a central place to the fact he was a self-conscious politician? But when it comes to ambition, the problem of self-deception is real and pressing. Post-structuralist history, taking its cue from Nietzsche, Freud and Marx, raised spotting self-deception to an art form. In the process, it made self-understanding a meaningless category, at best a pious mask for the agent's hidden, darker and even unconscious motives and intentions.

In a strange, almost counter-intuitive way, the Christian who understands depravity must stand shoulder to shoulder with these Masters of Suspicion. Thus, Chapman does a great job of demonstrating that Stott was ambitious; but it would have been interesting, both in terms of the narrative and for the insights it would have given into historical method, to have had a little more exploration of the ungodliness of this godly ambition. This book is no hagiography but I doubt that a little more time spent on his ungodly ambition would have reduced Stott: after all, as Alexander Pope tells us, ambition is the glorious fault of angels and of gods.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Dr. Carl Truman on John Stott, American Propensity to Celeb Culture, and Failure of Critical Analysis

http://www.reformation21.org/articles/where-has-critical-appreciation-gone.php.  An excellent article by Dr. Carl Truman, Westminster east. Sage, wise, thoughtful, recalibrative and necessary.

Where has critical appreciation gone?

Article by November 2011
The death of John Stott has led to a veritable flood of accolades and uncritical adulation over the last few months. A recent example was the memorial service for him at Wheaton College which raised a number of questions in my mind. One was the issue of what Stott himself would have thought of it. I never met him but he seems to have been a modest and unassuming man by all accounts; it was thus probably a relief to him not to have to be there and listen to the hyperbolic claims being made for him and his ministry by others. We can presumably assume that one who did not live for the praise of men during his lifetime is probably not too bothered about it afterwards either.
The second question, or perhaps better, observation, was why the art of critical appreciation seems to have disappeared from the culture of the modern world, especially the modern evangelical (for want of a better term) world.

Even as I write, I have just been passed an article from USA Today in which Stott is described as one of the Christian church's `most universally beloved figures.' Only an American could have written that. Back home in Britain, Stott was a more ambiguous figure, great man though he undoubtedly was. Like all great men, his faults were as dramatic as his virtues, from his conscientious objection to war service in World War II to aspects of his theology to his ecclesiastical strategy.

Death is, of course, the great atonement. I have commented before on how you only have to die these days in order to have all of your sins, both great and small, cast as far from you as the east is from the West. The late Ted Kennedy is a good example. So is Michael Jackson. Jackson, in fact, is an even more dramatic example of how death - particularly death in absurd circumstances at a comparatively early age - not only washes away one's sins in the public eye but also lifts one's modest talent to the level of that of the Olympian gods.

Watching Gene Kelly in the wonderful film An American in Paris recently, I commented to my wife that Kelly could dance, he could really dance. In comparison, Michael Jackson was able to do what? Walk backwards with a certain amount of style? There is no comparison; yet Jackson is a god; Kelly is all but forgotten.

To return to Stott, the problems with him were threefold: his protology; his eschatology; and his ecclesiology. I do not want to dwell on any of these things here; and I would also agree with any who might say that it would be somewhat distasteful to mention these at a memorial service; but to present him as a normative ideal for Christians would seem to involve quite a selective reading of his life and theology, as indeed it would for the life of anyone else being presented as such. As one friend once said to me: if you see that someone is wrong about the beginning and the end, you might want to think twice about what they say about the middle as well. Yet I have looked in vain in the various laudatory obituaries and appreciations for any hint that there may have been any significant theological drawbacks with John Stott.

The problem with that fact is twofold: first, it fosters a nostalgic view of the past which can itself hinder action in the present, on the grounds that `we will not see his/her like again'; and second it precludes any truly critical appreciation of a man's legacy. As to the first point, the title of the article on my desk says it all; `Will evangelicals ever fill John Stott's shoes?' Again, only an American - or at least, somebody totally unfamiliar with the British scene - could have written such a headline. More unfortunate still, however, is the signal it sends: a unique giant has gone who can never be replaced and the church is changed, changed utterly, and that for the worse.

Actually, of course, God has a remarkably strong track record of replacing giants: the deaths of Stephen, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Simeon, Spurgeon, and Lloyd-Jones do not seem to have stalled the spread of the gospel in any significant way. So why pretend otherwise, and in a manner designed only to cause despondency of the `we can never measure up' variety rather than that of `let us seize the initiative and move forward'?

As to the second, critical appreciation seems to be a lost art these days. My suspicion is that this derives from the rather effeminate nature of modern culture where we regard any criticism as deeply personal and a fundamental attack on character. Add to this the American cultural proclivity of investing unreasonably huge amounts of hope and expectation in single individuals and you have a powerful sedative which will dull the senses to matters of real concern.

Stott was assuredly a force for good in personal evangelism, in his thinking about preaching and in the way he inspired a generation of men to go in to the ministry. Few if any of us can boast his record in these areas. But there was another side to the story. On ecclesiology, he was arguably an utter disaster and he must take his fair share of the blame for weakening the overall strength of the English church. He put his Anglicanism before his evangelicalism and thereby led his followers up a dead end from which they have only recently returned.  

Protology and eschatology were not strong points either.

These were mistakes from which future generations might profitably learn.

But the Stott who was `the Pope-like figure of the [evangelical] movement [who] was a unifying voice who put Christianity's best foot forward' (to quote USA Today) is a Stott from whose mistakes we cannot learn for the simple reason that we are not even being informed of the existence of such. It is striking in the accounts of the Wheaton service that nobody seems to have expressed how much they learned from his errors of judgment and theology. Perhaps that would not have been not appropriate for such an occasion, but we must surely hope that the ethos of the memorial service does not become the default mode for his reception in the wider Christian world. He was a great man with a great mind; and he made some great mistakes, from which the rest of us can learn - but only if we first acknowledge that they are in fact mistakes.

It is surely ironic that Christianity, a religion committed to the notions of universal sinfulness and of undeserved salvation only in Christ, apparently has such difficulty with the idea that our heroes are flawed. Yes, we all pay lip-service to the idea; but it seems to make no practical difference.

The problem with such failure to engage in critical appreciation is evident all around: we seem incapable of learning from those whom we cannot shoe-horn into our own parties. Think of Bonhoeffer and C S Lewis: their makeover as evangelicals, a label which both men would presumably have repudiated, actually does them little service. And who could forget Richard John Neuhaus being named as one of the most influential evangelical leaders in America by Time magazine? If we can only learn from those we first remake in our own image, then we can never really learn from that which is different. Indeed, learning becomes little more than the reinforcement or clarification of what we know or believe already.

That Stott was important and influential is beyond dispute; but we should not sentimentalise him because of that or ignore his faults or, worst of all, so praise him that those very faults might ultimately be baptized as virtues and continue to do damage long after his departure to glory. Our brains must be kept switched on; we must give credit where credit is due; but we must also remember that sometimes we learn most from great men when we look at the great mistakes they made.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

"John Stott's New Evangelicalism" in The English Churchman

http://www.cofec.org/sermons/7825

John Stott’s New Evangelicalism and the Assault of Islam
 The article appeared August 12th in "English Churchman"


“For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” 1 Corinthians 14:8.


While there is no doubt that Rev Dr John Stott achieved a tremendous amount during his long career at All Souls, Langham Place, London, the tribute given by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams reveals much, “Without ever compromising his firm evangelical faith, he showed himself willing to challenge some of the ways in which that faith had become conventional or inward-looking. . . It is not too much to say that he helped change the face of evangelicalism internationally . . .”

In a future edition we will, if the Lord wills, critically examine some of these changes. Here however we shall consider just one. We seek to show just one of the very serious consequences of John Stott’s changes of policy. Rather than being like 19th Century Bishop JC Ryle, leading an evangelical army into spiritual warfare against the liberal and ritualist hierarchy of the Church of England, John Stott took the unprecedented step of calling evangelicals to work alongside these non-evangelicals. This represented the beginning of what has become known as New Evangelicalism. There are certain Bible verses that have an application far wider than their context. One such is: “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Corinthians 14:8).

With its heady mix of liberal, ritual, ecstatic and evangelical the Church of England gives such an uncertain sound. Consequently, while some congregations have grown, the Church of England attendance has fallen by more than 50% in the 30 years since 1980.



Churches today are desperately trying to attract the young by including as many childfriendly activities as possible. Some of these methods, such as the use of pop music, are frankly puerile. The replacement of reverence with informality is rooted in heresy if not outright blasphemy. One regrettable change is evident in prayers which drop any reference to the mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ, simply fizzling out at the end, perhaps with a muffled Amen as an afterthought. Such prayers may even be eloquent but they are more acceptable to unbelievers than to Christians. Surely it cannot be that ministers are ashamed that prayer can only be offered in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and not by the world at large?



Such trends have taken away the serious tone of the church as, without good examples to follow, the badly taught youth of one generation become the leaders of the next. And we have not yet mentioned the devastating fruits of the liberal hierarchy of the Church of England! First let us make a comparison with Islam.



In stark contrast to a sloppy church British Muslims are on a mission. Despite Government efforts to ‘integrate’ them they are certainly not hearing a trumpet with an uncertain sound from their mosques! A recent edition of Channel 4's Dispatches demonstrated that British-born Islamic youth are generally much more Islamically zealous or radical than their parents. There has been no dumbing down of seriousness in the mosques and yet the young Muslims love it! While British Christians, young and old, complain about the difficultly of understanding “Thee” in our Authorised Version Bible, British Muslims are busily learning the Koran in Arabic. They may not understand it and, as was shown by another Dispatches programme, they may be beaten and kicked into doing it, but once they have learnt it they do not complain but are proud.



Of course we rightly find the idea of kicking our children abhorrent, but what has gone wrong with the church in comparison? Is it just that Christian parents do not teach their children the faith? One friend recently expressed it simply like this, things started going wrong when church leaders stopped believing the truth, the Bible. Bishops and clergymen at their ordination have solemnly vowed to hold to a biblical understanding of Christianity, the 39 Articles of Religion, and to do so vigorously, “to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s word”. Some may have done so ignorantly but many must have deliberately and wickedly broken these vows and embraced false teaching. No doubt they were never converted in the proper evangelical sense. Maybe, as some like William Haslam and Samuel Walker of Cornwall testified when they were converted while already clergymen, they only went into the ministry for an easy life, a large house and a pension. Others entered the ministry to spread their own unbiblical ideas of love by trying to be nice and to make the world a better place without understanding the need for themselves and their followers to first receive the grace of God through faith in Christ. While some swore falsely or ignorantly when they made their vows, others were once sincere but have since backslidden and fallen from the faith. They should have become social workers or politicians, but never clergymen. They should certainly now resign. Yet the Church of England refuses to administer proper discipline.



The plague has now spread. Bishops used to keep their liberal unbelief private but since the terrible confession of atheism, “Honest to God”by the Bishop of Woolwich, John A.T. Robinson in 1963, they now rather boast of it. This provides a license for the whole nation to be atheists. “If a Bishop can be an atheist what hold can the church have upon me?” they cry as they metaphorically burn their Bibles. This struck a chord with us. When the things preached by the church are seen by onlookers to be uncertain, the moral high ground is taken away from the church and it has lost its authority and the power to preach. Without peaching it has no Gospel to offer and is, more or less, irrelevant.



A nation that used to believe that there was a God to whom we must give an account is now not even sure about that. It is all the more tragic because while all peoples of the world have some concept of having to please God, Britain also had a good grasp of the Gospel, the means of securing the love of that God without which it is impossible to please Him. Now, through the unbelief of its leading clergymen, it does not know where to turn. It certainly will not turn to an uncertain church.



“For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Corinthians 14:8).



Those of us seeking to preach the Gospel to the lost are now fighting an even tougher uphill battle as we do not even have the consensus of public opinion in our favour with a common sense morality and fear of God to support us. In fact we are thought to be part of the problem. Of course it is not so. The Biblical churches are the only ones with the answer but our nation has believed a lie and is in a very dangerous position with the multi-faith confusion caused by acceptance of contradicting and false ideologies such as atheism, Islam and sodomy, all competing to be the leading ideology.



Christianity in the UK has lost its “default” position because the clergy have defaulted on their duty to contend for the faith. It is all the more tragic because this apostasy has not come through oppression but by simple faithlessness. It is an even greater tragedy as it is a fall from such a privileged status with that Gospel preaching duty constituted by law in the Established Church of England as part of the fabric of our land under God. How are the mighty fallen!



While some evangelical churches are large and may be growing, the overall picture is gloomy. Through wickedness at the top of the Church of England, outsiders now have all the excuses they need to avoid the claims of the Bible and to follow Mohammed or Buddha instead. Despite their rising influence the tragedy is that the Mosques and atheists do NOT have the truth but have believed a lie. Mohammed was NOT a prophet and neither was Darwin. Muslims may have better morality than godless Britain on some points, but they are not themselves acceptable to God. They are lost, like many of the Jews of St Paul’s day, “For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Romans 10:3,4).



The seeming superiority of Islam over an unbelieving Established Church is just one more reason why we believe it is so important to separate from the mixed churches run by unbelieving clergymen. It is a most urgent matter that the Church of England is purged of unbelieving ministers. If evangelicals in the Church of England are only trying to do that by stealth it is not good enough. It is a scandal and should be vociferously protested and fought as being such.



This is where we strongly disagree with otherwise godly men such as the late Rev Dr John R.W. Stott who died on 27th July. Stott said prior to the first National Evangelical Anglican Congress (NEAC) which met at Keele in April 1967: “. . . We (evangelicals) have acquired a reputation for narrow partisanship and obstructionism . . . We have no one but ourselves to blame. We need to repent and change.”



Ten years later in 1977 at the second NEAC at Nottingham, Stott openly expressed his belief: "The visible unity of all professing Christians should be our goal…and evangelicals should join others in the Church of England in working towards full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.”



It is this unbiblical unity with unbelieving leaders that has wreaked havoc in the church and nation. That some evangelical churches have grown through their child friendly and user friendly services can never compensate for the general trend of unbelief that has brought about the loss of authority.



Yet there is still a remnant and God’s grace is not limited by man’s sins. Neither is it limited by a seemingly small number of men in God’s service. We must look as foolish as David against Goliath! God is able to save by few or by many. Let us not be weary soldiers of our Lord Jesus Christ. We only have a short time until we are home.



“Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear” (Isaiah 59:1)