[Magdalen] Most "Evangelicals"...

[Sally Davies]

Very much alive in South Africa, Scott - in fact it is the predominant form
at least in the more affluent urban churches such as the one we irregularly
attend. As Roger has commented in the past with respect to the UK,
congregations of the poor and the formerly colonised tend to prefer "high
church" though with their own cultural expressions mixed in.

These churches have been deeply influenced by successive waves of the
"charismatic movement" starting with Colin Urquehart and others who wrote
in the 70's, through the so called Toronto Blessing (oh my word, don't get
me started on THAT) and up to the present day. All Souls and the Alpha
Course that began there has provided sustaining energy for many years now;
our church has just started a "brand new Alpha" with a new format that is
not monopolised by Nicky Gumbel though he has been, as usual, a moving
force behind it.

Alpha is not my favourite thing either but it has done much to bring people
into the church and change the profile from "mostly cradle Anglicans" to a
broader base.

As far as I understand the Sydney Diocese, they are not of this ilk, not
being charismatic in any sense. They are in close fellowship with a more
conservative offshoot of Anglicanism here called "The Church of England In
South Africa", which is known for strong, mainly Calvinist Biblical
teaching and for being anti-charismatic (dispensationalist). They see gifts
and miracles of the HS as having been for the early formation of the church
and being fully replaced by the "gift" of the canonical NT Scriptures.

It's ironic because that church schism began with an innovative Bishop,
Bishop Colenso of Natal, who became frustrated with the imposition of
Colonial ways on the Zulu people he served and who tried to make the Church
more welcoming and relevant to their way of life. His opponent at the time
was Bishop Grey of Cape Town.

Now they're the "conservative" ones socially and theologically. Although I
don't appreciate their theology or way of doing church much, I have met
some wonderful people who are part of that church and they held a brightly
burning light of Christ in our national darkness, when one of their
congregations, St James in Kenilworth, Cape Town, was attacked in the early
90's by terrorists who fired into the congregation at an evening service.

Both strands of Evangelical Anglicans/C of E tend to be biblical
literalists, though not always in consistent ways in the case of Anglicans
("Church of the Province of Southern Africa" that is part of the worldwide
AC unlike the C of E which is in schism for well over a century).

I don't think any church organisation in South Africa, because of our
social and political context, could ever end up as smug, rigid and
self-righteous as the Sydney Anglicans seem to be. When we were there, Val
and John helpfully pointed us to a church we could visit that is
miraculously free - also a St James. We took part in an unforgettably
beautiful though exceedingly warm Midnight Mass there, gratefully avoiding
the Cathedral!

Sally D

On 12 June 2016 at 00:13, Scott Knitter <scottknitter at gmail.com> wrote:

> I wonder if anyone here has read Church on Fire: The Story of Anglican
> Evangelicals, by Roger Steer. It's about Whitefield and some others I can't
> remember the names of. Oh...Stott, Packard, Wycliffe...
>
> Is their sort of Anglican evangelicalism still alive? Perhaps at All
> Souls', Langham Place? Are the Sydney Anglicans part of that category or
> something else?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Jun 11, 2016, at 12:28 PM, M J _Mike_ Logsdon <mjl at ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > It struck me this morning that most self-styled "Evangelicals" don't
> actually live lives of evangelism.  Their lives are more than anything
> devoted to protecting conservative ideology.
> >
> > (And by the way, isn't "Conservative" wrong?  Shouldn't it be
> "Preservative", instead?  Conservatives are trying to "preserve" what they
> consider to be the correct way of living and thinking, ie, keep it the way
> it is, no diminishing.  But to "conserve" is to ipso facto acknowledge it
> will diminish in some way, either permanently or temporarily.)
>