You may have seen that my college, Wycliffe Hall, has been in the press again. Yesterday the college authorities settled with Elaine Storkey, admitting that she had been unfairly dismissed. Astonishingly however, that is not the end of the matter.
Storkey is now suing James Jones, the bishop of Liverpool and chair of Wycliffe's trustees, for religious discrimination! I was quite astonished when I read this:
The case has now been adjourned until June, at which point the three
members of an employment tribunal will have to decide whether Storkey's
liberal feminist brand of evangelical Anglicanism constitutes a
religion, as compared with other evangelicals running Wycliffe Hall....
Following the resolution of the unfair dismissal claim, Charles Crow, representing Storkey, turned to the remaining matter.
"Within
Christian evangelism there are two determinate strands; conservative
evangelism and an open and more liberal evangelism," he said."Those
are open and definable strands and as an open and clear proponent of
one of those strands, she [Storkey] has been discriminated against."
First, I think it's amusing that Storkey's own lawyer doesn't understand the difference between 'evangelism' and 'evangelicalism'. Given that, what understanding can he really have about the theological debate? (Either he got it wrong, or he was misquoted by the Grauniad..)
Second, what does she think she's doing? Does she really want to separate 'open' and 'conservative' evangelicalism legally? Such a result could surely have no effect but to divide further the evangelicals in this country.
Third, my friend Custard asks if there really is such a thing as 'open' or 'liberal' evanglicalism. Certainly 'liberal evanglical' is 'oxymoronic', given that evangelical theology is by nature conservative, and in part a reaction against liberal theology. The question of an 'open' evangelical is perhaps not quite the same. To be sure, some mean 'liberal' by it, but others mean 'not quite as hard-line as some of the conversatives I know, and not quite as whacky as some of the charismatics I know'. This discussion is probably for another blog post.
Finally, I am pleased that the chairman of the tribunal has shown some common sense:
Arranging a preliminary tribunal hearing for June 10 this year,
Robin Lewis, chairman of the tribunal, highlighted the difficulties
inherent in a theological dispute being thrashed out in a secular forum
and urged the two parties to reach an agreement."One part of the tribunal's regulations was not to resolve theological disputes within certain colleges at Oxford.
"It was to protect people from discrimination.
"I very much hope that the remaining hearing that has been timetabled won't be necessary. I hope that it can be resolved.
"What
I would ask the parties is how useful an adjudication might be by the
three of us, sitting in this building, on theological matters?"
Hopefully Storkey can be convinced to drop the case, which is a mis-use of the employment tribunal, potentially very damaging to the church in the UK, and ridiculously unbiblical.
design © bcg mmviii
Hey Ben. I’ve linked to you from my article, which is still getting silly numbers of hits. Oh, and don’t criticise lawyers for not knowing the difference between evangelicalism and evangelism if you can’t even get Elaine’s name right…. (check tags, don’t post this comment if you don’t want to).
Humbled, and corrected.
Whoever wrote the above article does not know what he is talking about. There are two kinds of evangelism – those who attach their theology, and those who do not. John Saxbee proved that there were two kinds of evangelism , so Elaine Storkey’s lawyer is right in his opinion, not making a false distinction between evangelism and evangelicalism which are two entirely different things.
I’m not sure I follow what you mean. Can you link to anything written by John Saxbee to explain further?
My point was that the lawyer seems to be confusing ‘evangelism’ and ‘evangelicalism’. The debate is not about how the church should conduct its evangelism, but whether Elaine Storkey’s ‘brand of evangelical Anglicanism’ (as the original article stated) is different enough to Wycliffe Hall’s ‘brand of evangelicalism’ to qualify under the religious discrimination act.
Hi Ben, good post! I do pray that God will give wisdom to the authorities and to everyone involved so that there won’t be more damage for Wycliffe Hall, the Church, and the name of Christ.
Are you currently studying at Wycliffe? I hope things are okay there. God’s peace!
Evangelism is not to be about the growth of the church primarily. It is about declaring truth Those who espouse an evangelical position have misunderstood the Gospel and what Jesus said, or the interpretation of the Greek words which are used. Instead they attach their theology to their false understanding of evangelism, which is a distortion of the Gospel and the Church.
Storkey is right and the College is wrong. But that is not a surprise, and John Saxbee is right when he claims that ‘good news’ is to be understood in things that go on in churches anyway. Read his Liberal Evangelism.
It is the evangelicals who are destroying the church, not the more liberal theologies.