The revival of Evangelicalism in the Church of England began when a young John Stott invited Evangelicals under 40 years of age to get together and consider their role in the church. What came out of that was a determination to influence the church by engagement with it, including engagement with those who had little respect for them. Colin Buchanan, one of those younger Evangelicals, has written about his experience as an evangelical liturgist, and how he persisted despite being side-lined and marginalised until he eventually gained the respect that was due to him and was able to make a real difference in the Church of England’s liturgical revisions.
Could there be a similar movement among Episcopalian Evangelicals today? It could only be similar, of course, not identical, not only because the Episcopal Church is not the Church of England, but because people under 40 have different assumptions today than they did fifty years ago. But there are signs of a desire for this, here, for instance, where younger Evangelicals from several denominations, including PECUSA, have joined such a discussion on line.
There is also a group of younger Evangelicals who are mostly members of PECUSA that connect through the Mockingbird web-site. The site’s contributors are mostly graduates from TESM, and mostly those who were there when Paul Zahl was Dean, and share his particular theological emphasis, which hasn’t won unqualified support across the entire Anglican Evangelical spectrum.
What seems to me to characterise both of these groups is a desire to engage each other, but to avoid those who side-line and marginalise them. This makes them, curiously enough, more like the older generation of Evangelicals in Stott’s time, who are often described as being content to live in an evangelical ghetto, having as little to do with the structures of the church as they could. This was the approach repudiated by Stott and his generation. The dominance of Evangelicalism in today’s Church of England, in contrast to its minority status fifty years ago is undeniable; I would argue that their decision to engage the church beyond their comfort level was the result of God’s guidance, and is, under God, the direct cause of the change in the church. My prayer is that God will say the same thing to the younger Evangelicals of today, and that they will respond with the same determination.
Still an Evangelical in the Episcopal Church 
March 28, 2011 at 5:20 pm
What is it about Zahl’s theology that hasn’t won “unqualified support”? My knowledge of him is casual at best, gleaned from conversations with others and a little from his service at All Saints Chevy Chase.
March 29, 2011 at 8:03 am
I’ve heard criticism of him on the grounds that he overstates what Scripture says about Grace and understates what it says about the Law, or that he preaches justification but not sanctification. There was quite a controversy about it when he was at TESM, although I heard the criticisims even before he went there.
I have heard him preach on God’s forgiveness without ever mentioning the need for repentance.
If I remember correctly (my copy is in storage so I can’t look it up) in his book The Protestant Face of Anglicanism he described the gospel as being about something that makes us feel better about ourselves rather than bringing about an objectively real change in our relationship with God.
Stuff like that.
March 30, 2011 at 7:09 am
I heard Paul some years ago preach I think quite effectively on Rom. 5:8, “. . . while we were yet sinners,” etc., with a thoroughgoing Augustinian/Lutheran emphasis on repentance and reformation as a grace-enabled consequence (rather than precondition) of forgiveness.
March 30, 2011 at 10:20 am
He certainly is effective in the pulpit. But sometimes he forgets to mention the ‘consequence’ part, and that leads to misunderstandings.
March 30, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Back to us evangelical “young’uns,” just got my copy of the controversial “Love Wins” today. Apparently it’s enough to cause fellowship-breaking as John Piper tweeted, “Farewell, Rob Bell.” Not sure that was a wise move by Piper, but (per my inner rebel) it was enough for me want to buy the book and read it for myself.
March 31, 2011 at 6:43 am
Do let us know what you think of it.
I don’t know whether Piper regrets his much-discussed tweet, but I bet Rob Bell is happy with it—must be worth a few thousand to him in additional book sales
April 1, 2011 at 11:15 am
Interesting comments about Dr. Zahl. I think he was the first, if not one of the first, to argue that there were “two different Gospels” in TEC. Because of that, i thought he would have been on the “closed” side of the “open” vs. “closed” evangelical debate (that is, more likely to “read people out” of the Communion if there were serious differences, as in the sexual issues). The first I heard that he was not so very “closed” was from a friend who said he’d been eased out of Trinity Seminary because he was too “open.” It was a great loss to both TEC and ACNA, in my opinion, when the seminary because increasingly harsh to TEC. Does that mean that Dr. Zahl would have kept a less judgmental tone about TEC and a more open door to students from TEC that the administration which replaced him?
April 1, 2011 at 11:29 am
More directly about the direction this thread has taken, which is whether it’s more Biblical to speak of repentance as a “grace-enabled” consequence of forgiveness, or whether it’s a pre-condition: could someone apply that to human relationships? Jesus said to forgive “70 times 7.” And we are told not to judge. God the Father “desires not the death of a sinner, but rather that he return from his wickedness and live.” Perhaps Dr. Zahl was not saying repentance was unnecessary in the sermons quoted above, but that being in relationship with God leads to repentance and since that is true, it isn’t always necessary to harp on it. How we treat loved ones in this context is where my questions lie: if we forgive and continue a relationship even when they err, are we neglecting our responsibility to remind them of the necessity that they change?
April 2, 2011 at 8:00 am
Jesus said repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, Luke 24.47. I personally would rather err on the side of harping on it than forgetting to mention it. I suppose the question for this thread is what the next generation of Evangelicals will do.
April 2, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Could someone give a specific instance in which Dr. Zahl highlighted forgiveness but “forgot to mention” repentance?
April 3, 2011 at 7:44 am
I mentioned hearing a sermon by him that could be described that way, but I can’t give you any reference to it. It was available on the internet at one time, but it’s no longer on the site I think I got it from. Some of his talks are on you-tube, but his books are probably the best thing by which to judge his teaching. There’s one called 2000 Years of Amazing Grace: The Story and Meaning of the Christian Faith that ought to contain whatever he believes about repentance, but I haven’t read it.
April 3, 2011 at 8:49 am
Thanks. –How we apply the teaching to ourselves is one thing; how we apply it in our dealings with others is another, and it will be interesting to see just what he says. Maybe it just boils down to prayers for repentance (“turning away” from sin) for those we love but think are in error, with patience.
April 4, 2011 at 6:40 am
Indeed, for young evangelicals to experience revival will require they make a break with the church that seems to only want to press them toward empty conformity.