Anglicanism – Peter Adam

Reforming and renewing Anglicanism: a way forward

The Ridley College Anglican Institute Lecture

September 2022

Peter Adam

Reformation and renewal: identity

God’s people have always needed reformation and renewal. In the Old Testament, the giving of the Law was not enough: every prophet called God’s people to reformation and renewal of belief, life, worship, loyalty, and service.

God judges his people when they reject his words; and has mercy on them according to his words.

The LORD, the God of their ancestors, sent word to them through his messengers again and again, because he had pity on his people and on his dwelling place. But they mocked God’s messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy … In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah, the LORD moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and also to put it in writing [2 Chronicles 36:15,16,22].

God’s words through their mouths had his power to achieve that reformation and renewal.

As the rain and the snow
   come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
   without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
   so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
   It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
   and achieve the purpose for which I sent it [Isaiah 55:10,11].

God blesses those who delight in his words.

  These are the ones I look on with favour:
   those who are humble and contrite in spirit,
   and who tremble at my word [Isaiah 65:2].

Blessed is the one … whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
   and who meditates on his law day and night. [Psalm 1:1,2].

So too in the New Testament, it is Christ’s words which form, reform, and renew his church. Jesus said to his disciples,

‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’; and ‘You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you’ [John 8:31,32, 15:3].

Jesus prayed to his Father:

For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me [John 17:8].

And Jesus said in the context of the judgement of people who did ministry in his name:

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash. [Matthew 7:24-27].

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. [Matthew 28:19,20].

Christ criticised those who ignored the Old Testament, and so to the Sadducees he said

‘You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God’ [Matt 22:29].

Christ criticised those who set aside or nullified the word of God by their own traditions.

You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honour your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down [Mark 7:9-13].

Christ criticised his own disciples who were slow to believe the Old Testament,

‘How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself [Luke 24:25-27].

Every New Testament letter is an apostolic call for reformation and renewal of belief, life, worship, loyalty, ministry and service. This is seen most dramatically in Paul’s often misused words in 2 Corinthians.

We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. As God’s co-workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain. [2 Corinthains 4:20-5:1].

Paul calls the church at Corinth to be reconciled once again to God by receiving and acting on his words.

Christ makes the same appeal in the letters to the churches in Revelation

Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. [Revelation 2:5].

Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God. Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. [Revelation 3:2,3].

Jude offers a similar warning

I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. [Jude 3,4].

Throughout the Bible, God’s people are called to trust and obey his words in his covenants, through his prophets and wise teachers, through his Son, and through his apostles. When God’s people fail to do so, and fall into sin, judgement, and trouble, God calls them to repent, to reform, and to be renewed. His words both invite repentance, reformation and renewal, and also enable it. ‘Semper reformanda’, ‘always being reformed’ is not only a Reformation ideal, but also a Biblical imperative. It expresses our Anglican conviction that the Bible is ‘the ultimate rule and standard of faith’.^[1]

Here is the challenge for churches, as well as individuals:

[W]e have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all … Make every effort … to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. [Hebrews 10:10, 12:14].

We believe in ‘one holy Church’: but the pursuit of holiness is constantly costly. We believe in ‘one apostolic church’, but being reformed by New Testament apostolic words is constantly costly.

Archbishop Michael Ramsey wrote of the constant need for the Anglican Church to relearn the gospel and test itself by the standards of the Reformation.

The full recovery of the doctrine of the Church is bound up with the return of the Gospel of God. Catholicism, created by the Gospel, finds its power in terms of the Gospel alone. Neither the massive polity of the Church, nor its devotional life, nor its traditions in order and worship can in themselves serve to define Catholicism; for all these things have their meaning in the Gospel, wherein the true definition of Catholicism is found.^{^[2]}

And again:

‘The Word of God’, ‘sola fide’, ‘sola gratia’, ‘soli Deo gloria’ … are Catholicism’s own themes, and out of them it was born. But they are themes learnt and re-learnt in humiliation, and Catholicism always stands before the church door at Wittenberg to read the truth by which she is created and by which also she is judged.^{^[3]}

It is from ‘The word of God’ that we learn what is the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. We rightly pray for the church: ‘[W]here it is corrupt, purge it, where it is in error, direct it, when anything is amiss, reform it’.^[4]

Reformation and renewal: life and mission

We also need constant reformation and renewal because we have to live and serve, to mission and evangelise in our contemporary world. This imperative is more demanding than ever, because the rate of social and cultural change gets faster and faster, and because our world is increasingly multi-cultural. We are increasingly multi-cultural not only in terms of ethnicity because of migration, but because in the Western world, there are more and more sub-cultures determined by age, occupation or profession, poverty or wealth, and by location. Contrast the sub-cultures of a well-paid lawyer and a welfare-class mother; a traditional elderly Anglican with a street beggar; an inner-city trendy with a country farmer; a middle-class engineer with an indigenous person living in a remote community.

Even among teenagers there are many different sub-cultures. I heard of one 13 year old who needed new trainers: he tried on 30 pairs, but rejected all of them because they were not the same brand as his friends. People are increasingly shaped not by their individual opinions, but by the sub-culture in which they find their identity. While our society aims to be more inclusive, more tolerant, sub-cultures are in fact becoming more intolerant. As I say to every ordinand I meet: ‘You must prepare yourself to do cross-cultural ministry, and you need as much awareness of your own culture, and ability to be culturally aware of others, as any missionary going overseas.’

Jesus famously distinguished between being ‘of the world’, and being sent ‘into the world’ [John 17:15,18]. We must not be ‘of the world’, but we must be sent ‘into the world’. Perhaps our greatest danger is being ‘of the world’, and not going ‘into the world’!

So we need to re-think our modes of thinking, relating, loving, caring, understanding, speaking. We need to re-think our structures, our styles of worship, our modes of communication, our public personas and presentations, and the shape of our doctrines. I do not mean that we should abandon ‘the faith once for all delivered to the saints’, the Bible, the Creeds, or our valuable traditions and be shaped entirely by contemporary opinion. But we should not attempt to retain patterns which worked well in the past, but have now lost their punch!

This cultural reformation and renewal is found within the Bible itself, as God’s people move from being nomads to living in their own land, as they cope with exile and return, and as live the context of different civilisations: the Ancient Near East, the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman; and in different eras of salvation history. The need for contemporary cultural reformation and renewal is found in the continuing work of Bible translation, which requires awareness not only of language, but also of culture.

A brief overview of reformation and renewal

Here we recognise two complementary modes of ministry. I have exaggerated the distinction to make a point. ‘Modalities’ are churches in the local form, and ‘Sodalities’ are structures for particular purposes.^[5]

In the New Testament, the ‘modalities’ were the local churches in particular places, with ‘elders/overseers’ [Titus 1:5-7], under the broad supervision of the church in Jerusalem [Acts 15, Galatians 2:1-10. The ‘Sodalities, ministries with a particular purpose, included Peter’s mission to the Jews and Paul’s mission to the Gentiles [Galatians 2:7.8]. Another New Testament ‘Sodality’ was Paul’s collection from the Gentiles churches for the poor Christians in Jerusalem [1 Corinthians 16:1-4, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9].

One significant difference between the two is that Modalities are in particular places, and welcome everyone who comes, gifted or not. Sodalities have a particular purpose, and so select people who are fit for that purpose. They are sometimes distinguished by the idea that Modalities are not engaged in mission, and Sodalities are engaged in mission. This is unhelpful, because local churches should be engaged in mission, and some Sodalities, such as Paul’s collection for the poor in Jerusalem is best described as fellowship, not mission.

Modalities	Sodalities
Churches in particular places, often linked together in denominations, or associations, with leaders with responsibilities in those larger structures.	Independent grass-roots focused ministries, later called ‘Voluntary Societies’ or Independent missions or ministries.
Local churches and Bishops	The Desert Fathers. Monks and nuns. The reformation of monasteries by John Cassian.
Bishops in the Mediterranean world. In the West of the Empire there was little evangelism beyond the Empire, In the West of the Empire, the Bible only in the Vulgate [Latin] translation.	In the East of the Empire there were both monastic missions beyond the Empire [notably the Slavonic mission to Ukraine] and Bible translation into indigenous languages.

In England:

Three Bishops at the Council of Arles 314.	Monasteries as bases for travelling evangelists.
With the arrival of Augustine [597], the establishment of Dioceses, and Diocesan Bishops; and then Parishes under Theodore in the 680s.	Monasteries of monks and nuns, with travelling evangelists in England and on the Continent, including, such as Boniface in Germany, and notable women missionaries included Leofgyth and Eadburg.
1000s	The arrival of the European Preaching Orders, e.g. the Dominicans, and the Franciscans, travelling evangelists, often preaching in the open air.
1500s The Reformation ‘from above’ led by King and Bishops	The Reformation ‘from below’, led by priests and lay men and women.
The reformation and renewal by the translated Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, the renewal of ordained ministry, the renewal of training for ordained ministry, and the renewal of diocese and parishes	The closure of the monasteries, and removal of the Preaching Orders. The growth of universities and university colleges. Puritan Lectureships in Parishes, privately funded.^[6]
1600s	The growth of ‘Voluntary Societies’ within England, for growth in godliness, for the propagation of Christianity in England and overseas.^[7]
1700s	The Evangelical revival working within the Church of England, and the Methodist movement evangelising outside the Church of England.
1800s Some active Bishops founding new parishes within their dioceses to provide for growth in population.^[8]	The Reform Bills passed by Parliament to reform the Church of England and Ireland. The Oxford movement. The growth of missionary societies, such as the Church Missionary Society and the Universities Mission to Central Africa, and interdenominational societies, such as the London Missionary Society.^[9] Some Diocesan Theological Colleges. Independent Anglican Theological Colleges.
1800s and 1900s	The planting and growth of Anglican churches around the world, led and enabled by the voluntary Missionary Societies.
The ‘Lambeth Conference’ begun by the AB of Canterbury to bring together Bishops of Dioceses around the world.	The Charismatic movement.
2000s	Gafcon, the first internationally initiated Anglican voluntary society.

Of course it is possible to function within a Modality, such as the Anglican Church, and also to work through Sodalities, such as Theological and Bible College, Missionary Societies, and movements for reformation and renewal. These Sodalities can be Anglican, or interdenominational.

As a famous example of the influence of a parish minister, who had influence well beyond his parish, both in the Church of England and in overseas mission, take Charles Simeon, Vicar of Holy Trinity Cambridge from 1783-1836. He worked within the Church of England Modality, and worked for its transformation. In the words of the historian Macaulay, ‘As to Simeon, if you knew what his authority and influence were, and how they extended from Cambridge to the most remote corners of England, you would allow that his real sway in the church was far greater than that of any Primate’. ^[10] Simeon also ministered through ‘Sodalities’, helping to found the Church Missionary Society, and the Society for the Conversion of the Jews. He also set up a Trust to hold the Patronage [right to appoint the minister] of a number of parishes in England.

Some observations.

1. We need both modes for Anglicanism to flourish. Dioceses and parishes provide the ministry of word and sacraments for congregations, and should also ensure evangelism within each parish area. Independent ministries provide specialist ministries, such as caring for the poor and social justice, Schools, University Colleges, Kindergartens, Theological Colleges, Training Programs, and Missionary Societies, such as the Church Missionary Society, and Bush Church Aid.

2. Parishes welcome anyone who wants to belong, and have to exercise a general ministry. Independent Voluntary Societies such as Monasteries, Preaching Orders, Missionary Societies restrict both their workers to suitable people, and have particular focusses of ministry. So they often present a higher standard of ministry and ministry expertise than can be found in Parishes. Parishes rightly express Christ’s welcome to all: voluntary societies focus on gifts that Christ gives for the benefit of all,

3. Diocese and parishes can fail to exercise effective ministry and become self-focussed. So can Independent ministries. Monasteries needed continuous reform: some became too wealthy, because Christian absorbed the belief that it was more virtuous to give to the ‘holy poor’, that to others who were poor.^[11]

4. The Reformation in England strengthened Dioceses and Parishes. The closing of monasteries and the removal of the Preaching Orders left a significant gap, which was later filled by Independent ministries such as Voluntary Societies, and the Methodist travelling evangelists.

5. Prior to the Reformation in England, Monasteries had provided education for monks. Those called ‘Secular Clergy’ who were not monks but were Rectors or Curates of Parishes, had little training for ministry other than learning sufficient Latin to read services and the scriptures. So monasteries and monks were regarded as superior to ‘Secular clergy’ because they had made more spiritual sacrifices and so were more holy, and because they were better educated. And the Preaching Orders were regarded as making up for the deficiencies of the parish and diocesan system, and the inadequacy of the parish ministers. One of the effects of the Reformation, subsequent to King Henry’s abolition of Monasteries and Preaching Orders, was to raise the expectation for parish ministry, and as training for ministry moved from monasteries to universities, and because of the revival of the study of the Bible and Biblical languages, the quality of parish ministry increased dramatically.

6. A.G. Dickens comments on the Puritan preachers: ‘their preaching ability and their numbers had no equivalent in pre-Reformation or mid-Tudor England.’^{^[12]} They were also better trained: in the Diocese of Worcester the percentage of clergy who were University graduates grew from 19% in 1560, to 84% in 1640.^{^[13]} In 1624, Joseph Hall claimed that the English clergy were ‘the wonder of the world’, Stupor Mundi Clerus Britannus, ‘so many learned divines, so many eloquent preachers’.^{^[14]}

7. Since the Reformation, movements for reformation and renewal have not come from Archbishops and Bishops, but from below, from associations of people and Voluntary Societies: these have included the Evangelical Revival, and the Oxford Movement. Generally it takes about 50 years after the start of the movement that an Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed who is a product of the movement.^[15] But these appointments do not initiate the reform or renewal, they respond to it, and validate it.

8. A national church with Dioceses and Parishes has difficulty engaging in God’s global mission, as did the Christianised Roman Empire.^[16] Sometimes it only provides ministry for members of the country who are living elsewhere for trade. Sometimes it results in forced conversions when new territories are captured. Similarly, congregationalist churches also find it difficult to engage in world mission on their own. As William Carey explained, we need Missionary Societies to enable world mission. See his An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, of 1792.

9. The lack of awareness of the validity and significance of independent movements or Voluntary Societies sometimes leads Anglican Bishops to be threatened by any movement which is not initiated by them or controlled by them. They think they are preserving Catholic order. However the Roman Catholic Church itself is a mixture of Episcopal authority and the authority of their Independent Voluntary Societies, such as the Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, the Order of Mercy, the Sisters of Charity, and the Josephites, who play significant roles in education and health.

10. The Church of England itself had no plan to engage in God’s global mission. It was Independent Voluntary Societies which worked to evangelise the world, and which produced the world-wide Anglican Communion. It is ironic that contemporary Anglicans who did not believe that people of other religions should be converted to Christ enjoy belonging to an Anglican Communion produced by conversions.

11. In the 20^th Century, Anglican Churches have flourished in the 2/3rds world, while in the Western world, they have shrunk. We need to praise God for the success of Anglican evangelism world-wide, even while we lament its decline in the West.

12. The conversion of indigenous people, and the translation of the Bible into their language, gives them freedom to interpret the Bible, and to critique those who converted them, as we saw at the recent Lambeth Conference. So at the Lambeth Conference 2022, we saw Bishops from outside England disagreeing with the AB of Canterbury about the interpretation of the Bible, and nature and limits of Anglicanism.

In the words of Laura Rademaker, writing of indigenous Australians,

For Christian people, the translation of the Bible placed them on more equal footing with the missionary, as they, too, could be interpreters of the sacred text.^[17]

13. Here in Australia, while we established Dioceses to cover the nation, outback ministry would not have flourished without Voluntary Societies, such as the Bush Brotherhoods, CMS missionaries, and the Bush Church Aid society.

14. The life and ministry of our Diocese of Melbourne and its parishes is enhanced by the following Independent Voluntary Societies: Trinity College and its Theological School, Ridley College, Church Schools, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Anglicare, the Church Missionary Society, Bush Church Aid, the Mother’s Union, The Mission to Seafarers, Hospital and University Chaplains, CEBS, CEMS, etc.

Reformation and renewal in Melbourne: a personal account

I was ordained in 1970, am grateful to Archbishop Woods for ordaining me. Apart from 9 years in England, I have served in the Diocese of Melbourne, and am so thankful to God for the ministry this has enabled me to do.

How have I worked for reformation and renewal in the Diocese of Melbourne? Please forgive this personal section. It is partly because I have reached my anecdotage, but also because I thought it would be useful to provide a contemporary example of an attempt to promote reformation and renewal.

I describe this under five headings: prayer, practical ministry, propagation of minsters, positive engagement and politics, and investing in productive Sodalities

Prayer.

I have prayed for my ministry, and the ministries in which I have participated. I have prayed to the Lord of the harvest that he would raise up workers for his harvest in and through the Diocese of Melbourne, for Australia, and for God’s global mission around the world.

I have prayed for the Diocese, the Archbishop and Bishop, the Diocesan Council, the Synod, and for individual parishes and ministries, and for clergy.

I have prayed that God in his mercy would continue to reform and renew the Diocese of Melbourne in Biblical truth and Gospel clarity, ministry, and mission

Practical ministry.

In my parish ministry, I have worked to provide:

Biblical preaching and teaching, which addresses believers and unbelievers, conveys the whole counsel of God, teaches and transforms people, and equips them to read the Bible and teach and encourage others also.
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as Gospel sacraments which proclaim Christ, his atoning death and resurrection, and are effective means of grace to his people.
Prayer which includes praise, worship, repentance, lament and trust for people’s personal needs, the life of the church, the world, and God’s global Gospel mission.
Mutual pastoral care, prayer, and encouragement, and particular pastoral care in special situations. [With ‘pastoral’ having a wider meaning than individual crisis care.]
Opportunities for lay ministries, and training for those ministries.
Evangelism by the church as a body, by individuals, in events, and in services.
Raising up gospel workers by encouraging people and challenging them to consider ordination, other ministries in Australia and overseas.
Promoting participation in God’s global gospel plan by prayer, giving, and going.

In my time at Ridley I tried to model and commend expository preaching of books of the Bible; to continue a focus on training people for ordained Anglican ministry; and to encourage students to prepare for ministry, not just exams.

I have supported the following Anglican Voluntary Societies: CMS, Ridley College, the New Cranmer Society, and, reluctantly but committedly, Gafcon.

I have also supported interdenominational ministries, such as The Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students and The Gospel Coalition Australia, partly to encourage Anglican participation in them. I ran the interdenominational Timothy Institute here in Melbourne, to train ministers from all denominations to preach. In my overseas ministry I have worked with The Proclamation Trust in the UK, and with the Langham Partnership in running preaching conferences in Sri Lanka.

Propagation.

As I have already shown, I have prayed that God would raise up gospel workers for his harvest, including in the Diocese of Melbourne. I have had many conversations with those who might consider trained ministry, given them opportunities for ministry and trained them for that ministry. I have enabled them to learn of the many good possibilities for long-term ministry, including in the Diocese. I tried to prepare them for ministry in a mixed Diocese, and warned them not to try to reduplicate St Jude’s! I have shepherded them through the ordination process, and continued to support them and pray for them. It is the ministry of future clergy by which gospel ministry will grow, and permeate through the Diocese, parish by parish.

In addition, in my time at St Jude’s we sent off people to other parishes to boost their ministries: St Matthew’s Prahran and St Augustine’s Moreland [and after my time, St James’ Old Cathedral, which led to the foundation of the City on a Hill network].

Positive engagement with the Diocese and political action.

I tried to contribute to the life and ministry of the Diocese, by serving as a member of the Liturgical Committee, a Parish Consultant, as Archdeacon for Parish Development, for two periods of time on the Diocesan Council, on the Archbishop Election Board, and the Cathedral Chapter. I was always unashamed to be a Reformed Evangelical, and assumed that I had as much right to be present and to be heard as any other Anglican. I was not threatened by other viewpoints, and tried to interact and correct with courtesy.

I have tried to engage positively and generously. I am so aware that a parishioner who says, ‘I disapprove of what is happening in this church, so I am not going to attend services and have stopped my giving’ is unlikely to achieve any positive change. A similar attitude in clergy or laity towards the Diocese is not likely to succeed.

I also decided that I would put the best interpretation on the opinions and actions of others, rather than the worst, because I was aware of how much I resented those who put the worst interpretations on my opinions or actions. I tried to win the middle ground in debates, rather than polarising the conversation. I tried to retain a positive attitude, even on the worst days! And having a sense of humour helped in personal relationships and in speaking at Synod.

My doctrine of ubiquitous sin meant that I was never surprised to find sin in the church, as I am never surprised to find sin in myself. I have always kept in mind that even the churches planted by St Paul fell into deep sins in the first generation! There are characteristic Anglican sins, as every denomination and church organisation has its own characteristic sins. I am also aware that while reformers are aware of the sins of the church or institution they are trying to reform, they also need to be wary of the characteristic sins of reformers! I tried to engage with faith in Christ, the Lord, Saviour, and builder of his church, with love for all the saints, and with firm hope in God.

Among the several Tickets for Synod elections, the former Evangelical ticket had been closed down by David Penman at St Andrew’s Hall and Alan Nichols at the Mission of St James and St John. So when I came to St Jude’s in 1982, I began work with Neil Bach, Tom Morgan, Ian Hore-Lay, and Tony Greenwood to revive it. This later morphed into the New Cranmer Society, of which I am still a member.

I worked in the Diocese as well as in St Jude’s and at Ridley, because I wanted to promote gospel ministry in Melbourne, and then from Melbourne to the world. As I hope you have seen, my work included Prayer, Practice, Propagation, and Positive engagement and politics. All four are needed, and any one by itself will be less effective.

My aim was to be truly Biblical, to be truly Catholic, truly Reformed, truly Anglican, and truly Anglican. I do not regard those as mutually exclusive descriptions: instead, I see them as mutually interpretative, and mutually enriching. And, of course, as a follower of the Lord Jesus, and a loyal Anglican, the Scriptures are my ‘ultimate rule and standard of faith’.

I am pleased to say that I can affirm with a clear conscience and without hesitation these words from the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, which every licensed Anglican minister is required to affirm on oath.

CHAPTER I. – FUNDAMENTAL DECLARATIONS

1. The Anglican Church of Australia, being a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, holds the Christian Faith as professed by the Church of Christ from primitive times and in particular as set forth in the creeds known as the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed.

2. This Church receives all the canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as being the ultimate rule and standard of faith given by inspiration of God and containing all things necessary for salvation.

3. This Church will ever obey the commands of Christ, teach His doctrine, administer His sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, follow and uphold His discipline and preserve the three orders of bishops, priests and deacons in the sacred ministry.

Productive Sodalities

I have always recognised the value of the ministry of Sodalities. In my early Christian life, I was greatly encouraged by my weekly attendance at the League of Youth, a Bible study for young people run by the Church Missionary Society. I joined CMS, and began praying for our missionaries. I trained for the ministry at Ridley College. In addition to my parish ministry, I have served as a University Chaplain in Durham and Melbourne, spoken for the Proclamation Trust in the UK many times, lectured in 2 theological colleges, and been Principal of Ridley College. I continue to value my association with CMS, AFES, Langham Partnership, TGCA, and the Vocational Bible College in Sydney.

Who was I trying to reform?

Moribund evangelicals, mission-less evangelicals, Bible-lite evangelicals, or evangelicals who are still living in the 1950s; loyal Anglicans who had not learnt the central grace-filled basics of Christianity; Liberals who had dispensed with credal Christianity; and Anglo-Catholics who had de-gutted the Catholic faith. People often claim that divisions in Melbourne are over ‘churchmanship’. I think that they are over theology. I have more in common with an Anglo-Catholic than over someone with no churchmanship at all, or who does not use the Bible in ministry.

However I was very disturbed when someone told me that the Vicar of a notable Anglo-Catholic parish nearby did not believe in the resurrection. I looked up his Easter pastoral letter on the website. In it he declared that there were two possible views of Christ’s resurrection. One was that of Bishop Wright, who thought that it did happen. The other view was that of Bishop Spong, who thought that it did not happen. The Vicar then commented that he rather favoured Bishop Spong’s view, but that it didn’t really matter. De-gutted Catholicism indeed!

I have tried to frustrate attempts to reduce or remove Evangelical ministry.

Reformation and renewal of a diocese

Political reformation and renewal needs to take account of political structures.

Whereas In England and in New Zealand, the General [national] Synod is all powerful, here in Australia, each Diocese is a separate unit, though also part of a federal system, the General Synod.

In an Australian diocese like Melbourne, there are in effect three significant bodies:

The Bishop [in our case the Archbishop]: the Parishes; and the Synod.

The Bishop is elected by Synod directly [formerly indirectly by a Synod-elected committee].

The Bishop’s most significant role is that of accepting ordinands, ordaining them, and appointing clergy to parishes.

Parishes do their local ministry, pay their clergy, have some say in appointing clergy, elect members of Synod, and pay an assessment to Synod to fund the Diocese.

The Synod comprises all licensed clergy, and lay people elected by the parish.

It seems obvious to me that the best way to reform and renew a Diocese is to provide ordinands. When they are Vicars or Priests-in Charge of a Parish, they can teach and preach the gospel, to grow gospel ministry in the parish, and to elect gospel-hearted people to Synod. Then the Vicar and the parish members of Synod will participate in setting the tone for the Diocese, and electing the Bishop.

Then the Bishop can accept good candidates for ordained ministry, ordain and appoint them, and the process continues.

Anglican diocese in Australia can change their style and theology of ministry. All the dioceses in Victoria [Melbourne, Ballarat, Gippsland, Bendigo and Wangaratta] began as evangelical dioceses. Most have moved a long way from that foundation. On the other hand, the dioceses of North West Australia, Armidale, and Tasmania, did not begin with much evangelical ministry, but are now recognised as more evangelical in style. Though the first clergy in Sydney were evangelical, the first Bishop was not, though he worked well with them. Sydney is now a strongly evangelical diocese, as you may know.

So change is possible. Once a Bishop is elected, he or she can accept or reject ordinands or clergy appointments. So the election of the Bishop is of crucial importance.

Some questions

1. Have I been disloyal to the Bishop or the Diocese? No, I did not regard my plan and participation as disloyal to the Diocese. I thought that the Diocese would be strengthened by more and more vigorous evangelical ministry. [When I resigned from Ridley, Bishop Barbara Darling kindly wrote to me, thanking me for my contribution to the ‘Evangelical Wing’ of the Diocese. In fact, I had aimed to serve the Diocese, not just a group within it.] If I have been disloyal, so has everyone who had tried to bring about any change in the Diocese.

2. Have not some clergy brought about liturgical change not provided for in our prayer books? Yes, though it seems to have been tacitly accepted by our Bishops. We have learnt a useful lesson from the Oxford Movement: if you initiate changes which are against the law, eventually the law is changed to allow them. In the words attributed to Henry Newbolt, Canon of St Paul’s Cathedral London, ‘The best way to get a bad law changed is to break it.’^[18] In fact Melbourne Bishops have been remarkably accommodating to changes in liturgical practice.

3. Is not contemporary evangelical Anglicanism changing worship beyond recognition? Yes it is, and I must say I approve of some changes, and deplore others. We are sometimes captive to the spirit of our age, as other churchmanships are captive to the spirit of previous ages. However I was recently reading the letters of Sydney Smith, a 19^th Century clergyman, well known as a public intellectual, political activist, and wit. He wrote,

I have not yet discovered of what I am to die, but I rather believe I shall be burnt alive by the Puseyites. Nothing so remarkable in England as the progress of these foolish people. I have no conception of what they mean, if it be not to revive every absurd ceremony, and every antiquated folly, which the common sense of mankind has set to sleep. You will find at your return a fanatical Church of England…^[19]

You need to know that he was even more scathing about Methodists and Evangelicals!

4. Is it not the case that Gafcon, in the formation of the Diocese of the Southern Cross, has split the Anglican Church of Australia, has created an unprecedented and indefensible situation? No, it has not split the Anglican Church of Australia. It is not unprecented to have two Anglican jurisdictions in the same country. In Europe there are two Anglican jurisdictions, one is part of the Church of England, and the other is part of The Episcopal Church of North the USA. There may be political objections to the formation of another Anglican jurisdiction in Australia, but there can be no theological objection, in view of the situation in Europe.

5. How do you respond to the claim that splitting is a mark of Protestant weakness? I too deplore the multiplication of Christian denominations. After patient listening, I invite the person to ponder why they do not return to the Roman Catholic Church.

6. How do you understand what is happening to Anglicanism? One aspect of it is a conflict between those who value unity over apostolicity [that is, faithfulness to apostolic teaching], and those who value apostolicity over unity. It is Biblical truth which is the issue.

7. Do you advise people to leave or to stay? I encourage people to stay if they can, and leave if they must. I respect those who stay, and those who leave.

Jesus Christ and the reformation and renewal of the church

I love the picture of Jesus Christ in Revelation chapter 1, portrayed as the high priest tending the lampstands in the heavenly sanctuary. He is tending his churches, and he does so by speaking to them in words that the Spirit speaks to all the churches. Note his positive affirmations, as well as his call to repent, reform, and renew. To the church at Ephesus:

These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. [Revelation 2:1-3]

To the church at Laodicea:

Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. [Revelation 2:1-5].

To the church at Sardis:

Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have found your deeds unfinished in the sight of my God. Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. [Revelation 3:2,3].

As I love this gospel promise from Ephesians:

Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless [Ephesians 5:25-7].

As I love the hope expressed in this blessing.

Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen [Ephesians 3:20,21].

A Prayer.

Gracious Heavenly Father, I trust in your Son Jesus Christ as the saviour of the world, and your gospel as your power for salvation for all who believe. I trust in your Son Jesus Christ as the holy, loving, powerful and generous saviour, head, lord, and judge of his church. I trust you as the good, gracious, and wise ruler of this world, the just judge of all people, and I trust that you will bring glory to yourself in the church and in Christ Jesus. Amen.^[20]

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA, FUNDAMENTAL DECLARATIONS, 2. ↑
A. M. Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church, London, Longmans, Green, 1956, 180. ↑
A. M. Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church, London, Longmans, Green, 1956, 179
These included Nicholas Ferrar’s community at Little Gidding, 1625-46, for holiness of life. Society for the Reformation of Manners, 1691, against profanity and sexual immorality. The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1698, for charity schools, Bible and tracts, and for educational resources in England and overseas. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, 1701, was a more official organization, yet depended on lay and clergy for its energy. It was founded to provide ministry for English people overseas, and to evangelise the natives. ↑
For example, John Sumner, Bishop of Chester 1828-48, [later Archbishop of Canterbury], caused 244 new church buildings over his 20 years in his highly populated diocese, helped found the first Anglican Teacher Training College, and encouraged the widespread use of lay visitors in parishes. Nigel Scotland, The Life and work of John Bird Sumner, Leominster, Gracewing, 1995, 50, 58-60, 53-56. Similarly, Bishop Blomfield of London 1828- 56, created many new parishes and church buildings. ↑
The Church Missionary Society, founded in 1799, was intentionally an Anglican society. Charles Simeon was one of the founders, and wanted it to be ‘a corporate body [of the Church of England], with Bishops at the head’, but it was founded as a voluntary society, which lay people and clergy could join. Michael Hennel and Arthur Pollard, Charles Simeon [1759-1836]: Essays Written in Commemoration of his Bi-Centenary, London, SPCK, 1959, 179. ↑
G. O. Trevelyan, The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay, [1876] i. 68, as quoted in, Hugh Evan Hopkins, Charles Simeon of Cambridge, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1977, 118. ↑
Peter Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2012, 282. ↑
Dickens, 1967, p. 428. ↑
Dickens, 1967, p. 419. ↑
Jean-Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford: OUP, 2009), 113-14. ↑
For example the appointments of Canterbury Archbishops: John Sumner 1848, Evangelical; Edward Benson, 1883, Anglo Catholic; George Carey 1991, Charismatic; Justin Welby, 2013, Holy Trinity Brompton Charismatic. ↑
Richard Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity, Berkley, University of California Press, 1999, Chapter One, 1-33. ↑
Laura Rademaker, Found in Translation: Many meanings on a North Australian mission, University of Hawaii Press, 2018, 115. ↑
W. F. S. Pickering, Anglo-Catholicism: a study in religious ambiguity, Cambridge, James Clarke, 2008, 43. ↑
Sydney Smith, Selected Letters of Sydney Smith, ed. N.C. Smith, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1981, 201-2. ↑
Here are some of my relevant publications.

A Church “Halfly Reformed”: the Puritan Dilemma,’ republished in Lee Gatiss, ed., Pilgrims, Warriors, and Servants, London, Latimer Trust, 2010, pp. 185-216.

Gospel trials in 1662: To Stay or To Go, London, Latimer Trust, 2012.

The ‘Very Pure word of God’: The Book of Common Prayer as a Model of Biblical Liturgy, London, Latimer Trust, 2012.

Lee Gatiss and Peter Adam, Reformed foundations, Reforming future: A Vision for 21st Century Anglicans, Watford, Church Society, 2013.

‘Imagining our Anglican future’, in Lee Gatiss, ed, Positively Anglican! Building on the foundations and transforming the church, London, Church Society/Lost Coin Books, 2016, pp. 101-119.

Thomas Cranmer: Using the Bible to Evangelize the Nation, London, Latimer, 2020. ↑

The surprising election of Archbishop of Melbourne, Ric Thorpe: A reply to Dr Muriel Porter

This is a response and reply to Dr Muriel Porter, ‘The surprise election of Archbishop Ric Thorpe’.^[1]

Peter Adam

I greatly enjoyed reading Dr Muriel Porter’s article on the election of Archbishop Ric Thorpe as Archbishop of Melbourne, Australia. She placed this election in the context of significant changes in the Diocese since the 1970s, and also in the context of the Synod elections of our Archbishops since 1990. [Previously, Archbishops had been appointed by a Committee elected by Synod.]

Dr Porter notes the gradual moves the Diocese has made away from what she describes as ‘progressive’ support for the legalisation of homosexual practice and the ordination of women, to ‘conservative Evangelicals pushing a conservative theology’ [p. 1]. She also notes the possible impact that these changes in Melbourne will have in the life of the General Synod.

The new election process first used in 1990 was that of a Nomination Board of 18 people elected by Synod, with 9 clergy and 9 laity. The task of the Board was to present to the Synod names of proposed candidates, from 2 to 6 in number. The Election Synod then voted on those names to accept them as candidates, and then voted on the candidates. To be successful, a candidate had to receive more than 66 2/3rds of both clergy and lay members of Synod. In practice, it has mostly been difficult to achieve an election, the Election Synod has failed to elect at its first round of meetings, and the Nomination Board has been asked to bring another list to a later meeting of the Election Synod.

It was my privilege to serve on the same three Nomination Boards as Dr Porter: the result of these processes was the election of Keith Rayner [1990-1999], Peter Watson [2000-2005], and Philip Freier [2006-2025]. I was also a member of Synod at the election of Ric Thorpe, in 2025.

Here are some responses and reflection on Dr Porter’s article.

I agree with Dr Porter that it was curious that there were no Australian Bishops among the 4 names presented to the Election Synod in May 2025. It seemed to me that there were several suitable candidates.

It also seemed odd that the 4 names were all evangelical candidates. It could have been more helpful to have had a more varied list. I suppose that the reply of the Nomination Board would be that they had surveyed members of Synod to find out what they wanted in a new Archbishop, and they found the candidates they thought had those qualities, and could achieve those desires.

Inevitably, my perspective differs from that of Dr Porter in some matters. Let me respectfully outline some of them.

1. Dr Porter claims that in previous lists provided by a Nomination Board, the Board worked hard to include the name of an evangelical [p. 2].

My recollections differ from this claim.

In the first election of this series, in 1990, the evangelical Bishop John Reid from Sydney was included in the first list provided by the Nomination Board. Though he received a majority of votes, he did not receive the required 66 2/3rds majority. So the Board was asked to produce a second list. There was no reason why Bishop Reid could not be included on the second list, but the Board of Nominators steadfastly refused to do so.

The second list did include the name of Dr Brue Kaye, a good friend of mine. Dr Porter describes him as ‘a Sydney Evangelical’ [p.2], but I think this description is misleading. Though Bruce had been ordained in Sydney, and was then Master of New College in the University of New South Wales, he did not at that stage represent Sydney evangelical qualities and convictions. In addition, his chosen ministry was academic, rather than pastoral and parochial. The evangelicals on the Nomination Board felt unable to support his nomination. In fact we thought that the current list did not contain any candidate we could support, so at the last moment we reintroduced the name of Keith Rayner, Archbishop of Adelaide, who was at least a credal Anglican, and who was competent to do the job. He was, of course, duly elected. So I think that Dr Porter’s claim that the Board always included an evangelical name is not correct.

2. Dr Porter also quotes with approval Colin Holden’s claim that Melbourne evangelicals exhibit a less adversarial style and greater degree of tolerance than Sydney evangelicals, and that they are more like English evangelicals [p. 10].

This claim is often repeated by those who have not met the ‘more adversarial’ English evangelicals, many of whom are my friends! There is a substantial and successful group of English evangelical clergy who are immensely adversarial and intolerant, by Melbourne ‘progressive’ standards! Though in fact Melbourne is not entirely free of adversarial intolerance!

Significantly, it is vintage ‘adversarial’ Sydney evangelical clergy who have frequently been invited from Australia to do ministry in England by Church of England clergy. Both Phillip and Peter Jensen have been frequent visitors, and John Chapman has taken missions at both Cambridge and Oxford Universities. Not many Australian clergy have done that! Furthermore, David Peterson, a member of the Moore College faculty, was appointed Principal of Oak Hill, the evangelical Anglican theological college in London. There is a close connection between at least some English evangelicals and the Diocese of Sydney. Colin Holden’s claim is not correct. There are English evangelical Anglican clergy who are like Melbourne Anglican evangelicals: there are English evangelical clergy who are like Sydney Anglican evangelicals!

3. Dr Porter claims that I am largely responsible for the regrettable transformation of Melbourne she describes, and points to my policy when Principal of Ridley from 2002-2012 of accepting both egalitarian and complementarian views within the College [p. 11].

As a matter of fact, when I became Principal, there were no women on the faculty. It was my privilege to appoint the Revd Anthea McCall to the faculty.

My policy was, as Dr Porter reports, to accept and support both egalitarian and complementarian students, including Anglican ordinands. Female and male students received exactly the same quality and level of training, and I encouraged a gracious acceptance of a diversity of views, though I was then and am now a complementarian.

The policy of accepting ordinands with both egalitarian and complementarian viewpoints was the policy of the Diocese of Melbourne at that time, and continues to be the policy of the Diocese of Melbourne! So my policy was not unusually eccentric!

4. It is the task of historians to attempt to see the relationship between causes and effects.

With respect, I point out that the revival of historic evangelical theology and practice in the Diocese of Melbourne preceded my time as Principal of Ridley, and has gained more momentum since I left. I do not think that Dr Porter has plumbed the depths of the causes of this revival. Its origins are certainly older than evangelical political action over the past two decades [pp. 16,17].

5. Dr Porter criticises the Diocese of Sydney for ordaining unsuitable and ill-trained people, in order to increase its power in General Synod [p. 16].

As a general policy, I think it is best to assume positive rather than negative motivations in fellow-Christians, unless the evidence to the contrary is over-powering. In fact the Diocese of Sydney has and implements the highest standard of training required for ordination in the Anglican Church of Australia, and invests heavily in the training of candidates for ordination. Whatever the weaknesses of the Diocese of Sydney, low ordination standards is not one of them!

6. While Dr Porter focusses on how the Diocese of Melbourne has changed since the arrival of Archbishop Frank Woods in 1957, a longer historical perspective reminds us that the first and longest-serving Bishop of Melbourne, Charles Perry [Bishop from 1847 to 1875] was a convinced evangelical, an enthusiastic church planter, who founded a largely evangelical Diocese.

His was the evangelical voice among the Bishops of Australasia at their meeting in 1850. He gathered evangelical clergy to promote the growth of the gospel in Victoria, and secured an evangelical, Samuel Thornton, as the first Bishop of Ballarat. The current movement identified by Dr Porter could be described as a Diocese recovering its earliest traditions, its rich historical roots, a Renaissance movement ad fontes!

However, leaving these details aside, I suspect that the bigger issue at stake is what it means to be ‘progressive’. I observe that ‘progressive’ for some Anglicans means to be progressive in social change and conservative in liturgy.

For me a ‘progressive’ church is marked by a commitment to Trinitarian credal orthodoxy; the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only Saviour, Mediator and Lord; the substitutionary atoning death of the Lord Jesus Christ for our sins and our sinfulness; constant reformation by the Holy Scriptures; our Reformed Anglican heritage; gospel clarity, effectiveness, energy and output in the evangelism of unbelievers; the inclusion of new styles and patterns of ministry, adapted to the increasingly diverse communities and sub-cultures in Australia; commitment to God’s global gospel plan for the evangelisation of the world; increased prayerfulness; love of neighbour which includes careful research, practical assistance, advocacy, and speaking of the love of Jesus, and the salvation found in him; turning away from sin, the flesh and the devil; profound engagement with our contemporary world; an acceptance of the Bible’s teaching on God judgement, wrath, and hell; and a passion for God’s glory and gospel plan which trumps commitment to the preservation of Anglican traditions for their own sake!

This, for me, represents Anglicanism at its best, and the heart of its true Credal Catholic orthodoxy. More importantly it reflects and expresses Biblical Christianity. I will continue to pray and work for this progress in the Diocese of Melbourne, while God gives me strength and opportunity!

May the Lord Jesus in his mercy continue to build, reform, revive, and grow his churches and ministries in the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne!

1.. Porter, M. (2025). The surprising election of Archbishop Ric Thorpe. Journal of Anglican Studies.. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1740355325100739 ↑

Why I am glad to be an Anglican!

If we decide to follow the Lord Jesus, and join his church, we will need to think through how to live as a believer, and how to function as a church, and what to do in our meetings together.

One easy solution is to think what we would like to do as believers, and what we would like to be and do as Christ’s church. The danger of this approach is that the personal and church life we create will be largely shaped by the world in which we live. It will feature feel-good situations and experiences, be entertaining, and shaped by our own needs, desires, fears and hopes. It will be self-centred, not God-centred.

We could and should go to the Bible to find the answer to the questions. The Bible tells us what to do, but not always how to do it.

How should we pray? How should we meditate on God’s word? How should we baptize people? How should we provide financial support for the ministry we receive? How should local churches be structrured?

While we are defined by what the Bible tells us to do, we can find wisdom from the ways in which Christian believers over the last 2000 years have done these things. It is good to so this, because they did not suffer from some of the contemporary blind-spots and prejudices of our current world, which tend to shape and sometimes distort contemporary Christianity.

For example, can you imagine someone today giving this reply when ill? John Fletcher, vicar of Madeley in the UK from 1760-85, was ill, and a friend visited him, and said, ‘I am sorry to find you so ill.’ Fletcher replied,

Sorry, sir! Why are you sorry? It is the chastisement of my heavenly Father, and I rejoice in it. I love the rod of my God, and rejoice therein, as an expression of his love and affection towards me.^[1]

Or, from the 19^th century USA, here is an account of a prayer movement.

In September 1857, a man of prayer, Jeremiah Lanphier, started a prayer meeting in the upper room of the Dutch Reformed Church Consistory building, in Manhattan. In response to his advertisement, only six people out of the population of a million showed up. But, the following week, there were fourteen, and then twenty-three, when it was decided to meet every day for prayer. By late winter, they were filling the Dutch Reformed Church, then the Methodist Church of John Street, then Trinity Episcopal Church on Broadway at Wall Street. In February and March of 1858, every church and public hall in downtown New York was filled.

Horace Greeley, the famous editor, sent a reporter with horse and buggy racing around the prayer meetings to see how many men were praying: in one hour, he could get to only twelve meetings, but he counted 6100 men attending. Then a landslide of prayer began, which overflowed to the churches in the evenings. People began to be converted, ten thousand a week in New York City alone.^[2]

So, what are some Anglican habits which are still valuable today? Here are four habits which I value very deeply.

1. Sunday meetings as God’s people.

What are some features of Reformed Anglican identity, and what happens if we don’t follow them?

Every service includes:

At least two Bible readings, and a sermon in which the Bible is expounded and its implications explained and urged. [How wonderful to put a priority in hearing God’s words to us! How easy to reduce Bible readings!]

An exhortation to the congregation to confess their sins. [Do we ever do this?]

A prayer of confession of sins said by the congregation. [So easily forgotten.]

An assurance of God’s forgiveness of our sins through the blood of Christ. [A great and immediate proclamation of the gospel! A great reminder for all believers, and words of hope to unbelievers.]

Congregational responses to the Bible readings which express some aspects of Biblical Salvation History, using passages from the Bible, including the songs of Zechariah, Mary, and Simeon. [The Bible is more than instructions to us: it is primarily God’s verbal self-revelation. We should respond with praise and thanks to him. Romans 1:21 warns of the danger of failing to glorify God and give thanks to him.]

The congregation saying the Creed, as a final response to the Bible readings, and to praise our gracious God. [This is useful to build up believers: it also equips them to talk about God to others.]

Intercessions which follow Paul’s instructions, that,

petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth [1 Timothy 2:1-4].

[How easily our prayer-focus shrinks from praying for all people, their welfare, and their salvation, and reduces to the needs of some members of the church!]

Prepared, Bible-rich prayers. [If we only use spontaneous prayers, we are restricted by our own memory, imagination, and creativity. We use prepared, Bible-rich songs: why not also use some prepared Bible-rich prayers, to complement our spontaneous prayers?].

Furthermore, in the recent past, Church of England Anglicans, John Stott and Dick Lucas, have pioneered the recovery of expository preaching, with impact across the world with Langham Preaching, and Cornhill programs.

These are all ways in which Anglican habits are of great benefit in maturing us as we meet together on Sundays as God’s people.

2. Neglect polity [church government] at your peril!

One feature of contemporary life which is attractive to us is its anti-institutionalism. We don’t like to think about structures of governance and leadership. We tend to hold the optimistic view [despite our theology!] that Christians can do without structures of governance, leadership and management.

I see this happening in the contemporary church-planting movement. Often a church starts in an informal way, and then assumes that will work in the long-term. Actually, Paul thought that structures in church life were essential, which is why he told Titus to ‘put in order what was left unfinished, and appoint elders in every town’ [Titus 1:5].

Churches need responsible financial management, and not let the minister run the church from his own bank account! It needs a system, a procedure clear and publicly known responsibility for deciding how the money will be spent, and who is authorised to spend it. So recognised and accountable leaders are necessary, not only to oversee the finances, but also to appoint [and, if necessary, remove] any paid staff, to decide their position description, and to ensure good working conditions. Leaders are also needed to decide the priorities of the church, and the conditions of membership. These leaders need to be appointed, and the terms of their appointment decided. In all of this, there needs to be the right balance of authority and responsibility between the members of the church, the lay leaders of the church, and those appointed and employed to be ministry leaders. A church can function quite well without all this, until there is any disagreement. Then you need the structures to be already in place!!!

In addition, unless you are an absolute congregationalist, and hold that every congregation must be absolutely independent, then you need to clarify the relationship between the congregation and the Association, Network, or Denomination to which it belongs.

You don’t want the Association, Network, or Denomination to have all the power. You don’t want the ministry leader to have all the power. You don’t want the congregation to have all the power. You don’t want the lay leaders to have all the power!

I value Anglican Polity, because it provides a good balance of power and responsibility between the congregation; the lay leaders; the ministry leader; and the Bishop and denomination. I think that to have the church council elected/appointed for one year at a time is a good strategy. Providing for the annual meeting of members to elect 2/3rds of the church council, and the minister to appoint 1/3^rd is a good balance. To give the minister, or the church council, or the congregation all the power and responsibility is a disaster! One key to healthy long-term congregation life is a good balance of responsibility. I think that Anglicans are on the right track!

Tim Dyer is an Australian expert on church conflict. One of his sayings is that churches are prone to conflict, but ill-prepared to deal with it. One key is having wise and balanced polity in place. Anglican polity is a precious gift!

3. God’s global gospel plan.

Anglicans have a good record of commitment to God’s global gospel plan. Many parts of north-western Europe were evangelised by Anglicans from England. England itself was covered with church plants.

While being an established church has its disadvantages, one advantage is that a Anglican parish church has an instinctive sense of responsibility for all the people in its geographical area. At its best, this includes an evangelistic responsibility. So Anglican churches, at their best, combine a focus on the life of the church with a focus on the local community. They inherit a clear sense of responsibility for their neighbours.

The existence of ‘global Anglicanism’ is the result of energetic evangelism by Anglicans in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, North and South America, The Arctic, and the Pacific, including Australia and New Zealand.

4. Theological framework.

Since 1662, the theological Framework of what is now ‘global Anglicanism’ has been the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, and The Ordinal. The 3 major Creeds are included in the Book of Common Prayer.

This is not an up-to-date Theological Framework, but, as it happens it includes all the key themes of Reformed Theology. It includes:

The Bible as the supreme and sufficient verbal authority given by God, the Trinity, the centrality of Christ and his atoning death, God’s grace, human sinfulness, the need for repentance, the assurance of salvation, the role of the church, the call to pray, thank and praise God, and to serve God in everyday life, and the promise of Christ’s return in glory.

CS Lewis warned of the danger of ‘chronological snobbery’, of the believing that the present was always superior to the past. Of course, we must minister and serve in our contemporary world, and, in a world which is constantly and rapidly changing, that is a constant challenge and opportunity.

But we can learn from the past, as believers in former days were not blinded by the worldliness of our current age.

I was ordained in the Diocese of Melbourne in 1970. I regard this as one of the great privileges of my life, and continue to praise and thank God for it.

Of course I grieve the many sins and weaknesses of Anglican churches. However I also grieve the many sins and weaknesses of all churches, including independent churches, evangelical churches, and Reformed churches. But one day the Lord Jesus will present his church to himself as ‘a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless’ [Ephesians 5:27]. And even now he calls dead churches to life and repentance: ‘Wake up’ [Revelation 3:2].

May God give us all the humility to learn from the saints of the past, and value their heritage! And may God also give us wisdom to serve in our contemporary world with love, wisdom, faithfulness and trust in the power of Christ’s gospel.

One further thought! Of course we pray for our churches when they are in trouble. But do we pray the kind of expansive and positive prayers for our churches that Paul prayed for the church in Colossae?

For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives, so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and giving joyful thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins [Colossians 1:9-14].

We pray for unbelievers, we pray for our missionaries, we pray for our family and friends: do we pray for our churches?

J. C. Ryle, Christian Leaders of the 18^th Century, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh/Carlisle, 1997, p. 425. ↑
Natalie Nichols, ‘Concert of Prayer History’, at shadesofgrace.org accessed 3/03/2026. ↑