23 April 1988 A.D. Arthur Michael Ramsey Dies—100th of 105 Archbishops of Canterbury: Peter Webster’s “Michael Ramsey and Anglican evangelicals: new article”
23 April 1988 A.D. Arthur Michael Ramsey Dies—100th of 105 Archbishops of
Canterbury: Peter Webster’s “Michael Ramsey and Anglican evangelicals: new
article”
Webster. Peter. “Michael Ramsey and Anglican
evangelicals: new article.” Webstory:
Peter Webster’s Blog. 24 Oct 2014. http://peterwebster.me/2014/10/24/michael-ramsey-and-anglican-evangelicals-new-article/.
Accessed 24 Apr 2014.
Michael Ramsey and Anglican evangelicals:
new article
The
pleasure of picking a new book up off the doormat never seems to diminish, and
so it is with this new book on Anglican evangelicalism in the twentieth
century, in which I have a chapter on Michael
Ramsey and evangelicals in the Church of England. The chapter isn’t
available Open Access anywhere, for various reasons, (although I’d be happy to
share the PDF offline) and so here’s a summary of my argument, which runs as
follows:
(i) that
although Ramsey was no evangelical, his time as archbishop was also a crucial
period of transition in evangelicals’ view of themselves and of how they should
relate to the wider church;
(ii) that
Ramsey has too often been assumed to have either indifferent or actively
hostile to evangelical concerns, mainly because of a reputation fostered by one
episode, the “fundamentalism controversy” of the mid-1950s;
(iii) that
this understanding of Ramsey was a product of a wider relationship of tension
between evangelicals and the wider church, a story which has since been told in
terms of dogged evangelical persistence in the face of calculated
marginalisation from the hierarchy;
(iv) that
despite all this, Ramsey in fact enjoyed good working relationships and indeed
friendships with many within the liberal or centrist parts of the evangelical
constituency, including men such as Max Warren;
(v) that
early contact with conservative evangelicals was tentative, but that there was
a marked change in atmosphere after the safe passage through Parliament of the
Vesture of Ministers Measure in 1964 (of which more here);
(vi) that
despite evangelical wariness of Ramsey in relation to the more ‘political’
aspects of the church, he was nonetheless viewed as clearly orthodox in his
theology; and that there were several points of sympathetic contact between
Ramsey and evangelical theology, in relation to the Cross, his concern for
evangelism, and his emphasis on personal holiness. Much of this was connected
to Ramsey’s own Congregational background;
(vii) that
there was a difference of emphasis in relation to method, in that what some
evangelicals saw as doctrinal ‘clarity’ and a willingness to contend for the
truth was to Ramsey evidence of intellectual rigidity and an unwilingness
really to engage openly with anyone holding an opposing view;
(viii) that
an examination of the Ramsey Papers shows clearly that, even if there was
mutual distrust between wings of the church, there is no evidence of deliberate
efforts by the central institutions of the Church to keep evangelicals from
positions of influence. This was the case with the appointment of bishops (a
favourite bone of contention) and membership of the Church Assembly, as well as
with the memberships of the many commissions and working groups set up to
consider difficult issues. It was also the case in relation to the failed scheme
for Anglican-Methodist unity.
The article
concludes that the persistent story in evangelical folklore of exclusion from
the corridors of power in this period cannot be grounded in fact. The continued
existence of this explanatory myth tells us as much about (some) evangelicals’
view of themselves as it does about the actual workings of the Church of
England.
Comments
Post a Comment