Here is part of one answer from musician Matt Redmon:
During the first few days we spent in the United States [after returning from being overseas in England on 9/11], it seemed that, in all the shock and vulnerability, many people were heading to church for comfort and clarity. I was so impressed by the preachers: every place we visited, we heard messages of hope and reminders of God’s sovereignty.
But it left me wondering: What could we sing to God at a time like this? It was as if our worship songs were missing some important vocabulary””the language of tragedy and struggle, of the valley at the bottom of the mountain””which I found surprising, as the Psalms are full of lament.
Soon after the tragedy, my wife and I wrote “Blessed Be Your Name.” It’s a simple worship offering about choosing to worship and trust God no matter what the season.
Not trying to draw any great inference out of this, but Matt Redman, the Soul Survivor, New Wine, Bishop David Pytches, etc all are exemplars of what has flourished from Anglican Evangelicalism in England. Many of these people, conferences, etc are no longer tightly associated with Anglicanism at all (Matt Redman though is back at a church plant in Brighton and obviously Bishop Pytches is).
There does not seem to be any equivalent activity in US Anglicism which makes me wonder if the key portion of the phrase Anglican Evangelicalism is Evangelicalism not Anglican. Which further leads me to wonder if the emphasis in the US Anglican church was became that of Evangelism instead of “Rite I at 8 am, Rite II at 10 am, and save the Praise & Worship stuff for Alpha or 5 pm Sunday in the Undercroft” we might see similar excitement in US Anglicism. Just wondering (Kendall – realize that this might be slightly off-topic from your original post – so you can handle accordingly).
Pax et Bonum!
Steve
RE: “Many of these people, conferences, etc are no longer tightly associated with Anglicanism at all . . . ”
To me, that’s a bug, not a feature.
RE: “There does not seem to be any equivalent activity in US Anglicism . . . ”
Well, I’m not sure what that means. Obviously the ones that become “more evangelical than Anglican” are . . . less Anglican and fewer Anglicans will attend. The ones that hold on to their Anglicanism are less overtly plain-vanilla evangelical.
RE: “Which further leads me to wonder if the emphasis in the US Anglican church was became that of Evangelism instead of “Rite I at 8 am, Rite II at 10 am, and save the Praise & Worship stuff for Alpha or 5 pm Sunday in the Undercroft†we might see similar excitement in US Anglicism.”
Well, I guess there would be similar excitement amongst non-Anglicans! But how does that affect the Anglicans?
I’m an Anglican, not a plain-vanilla evangelical. The reason why I don’t go to non-Anglican evangelical churches is because . . . I’m an Anglican. If an Anglican church decides to de-emphasize its Anglicanism, that’s fine — but it’s also a church I won’t be attending.
I know there’s a market for plain-vanilla evangelicalism. I’m just not in that market. And there’s a market for Anglicanism too — smaller, of course. But I’m in the latter market. I consider myself an Anglican Christian, with certain strong evangelical values. But definitely, first, an Anglican Christian.
Thanks, Sarah. As ever, the voice of reason. Personally, I’m an Anglican Christian with certain strong Catholic values. But definitely, first, an Anglican Christian.
Redman’s reply bothers me. To be fair it’s a short answer to a complex question, but it seems to describe post-modern worship as caught up in itself. Early (and later) evangelicals did not seem to have such personal disconnect between God’s reign in a world of chaos and calamity, but then they were intimate with disasters small and large. Perhaps it is a naievete of a somewhat protected generation coming out in Redman’s piece.
I do not consider myself a leader…neither do I consider myself a follower. I am a Christian. On the ground, I teach Bible studies to a small group of mostly unchurched adults from various denominational backgrounds. My goal is to help them understand that the Bible is one book, that they are not free to pick and choose the passages that support a particular viewpoint, but that they must consider the full context and realize that the God who loves and has redeemed them has His own agenda and that it does not necessarily mesh with theirs. My second goal is to enable them to be “teachers” as God gives them opportunity.
Evangelism is very important to me, and since God has, so far, not called me to evangelize, I support The Jesus Film Project and, to a lesser extent, Voice of the Martyrs. I have encouraged my Bible class to send money to purchase Bible for a small Micronesian congregation in Guam, a CCC mission on Figi, and a small mission church on the AZ Navajo Reservation. For several years I also gave toward the support of a young couple working under “Pioneers” in Izmir, Turkey (they have since returned to the states).
My Anglican connection is with Resurrection Anglican in the Denver area. They have a “Uganda Fund” through which my husband and I can send money to support an Anglican Priest and his teacher wife in Kabale. Yesterday I had an email notifying me that the boxes of fabric and sewing tools that I readied for shipment to Uganda three years ago had finally arrived. This is God’s timing, my friend is now in a much better position to help women toward independance than she was 3 years ago when together we hatched the plan to get my surplus matched with their need.
Does this relate to 9/11? When I read Luke 13:1-9 about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices and the 18 on who the tower of Siloam fell and Jesus’ response to those events, I place myself in the position of the man who took care of the vineyard; I need to be about the business of strengthening His people, wherever they are, and helping them to see the need to repent.
Frances S Scott