Re: P.J. Bowler book

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Sat Jan 12 2002 - 15:38:47 EST

  • Next message: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: P.J. Bowler book"

    From 1900 to 1950 Conservative Evangelicals were thin on the ground. Within
    the Church of England their strength may be indicated by out of 30m
    seminaries, 3 were conservative evangelical , 5 or 6 were liberalish
    evangelical and the rest high church (dominant) or central to modernist ( a
    close second). In fact in these decades a lot of donkey work was done
    especially on the mission field and IVF which gave a foundation for the

    Did Bowler deal with the Victoria Institute an evangelical science and
    religion group?

    I think Bowler is echoing the dominant view of church historians who often
    simply ignore evangelicals as of no consequence. Or at least they could
    until 1990 when it was clear that evangelicals form the dominant group
    within the Cof E, but have a range of opinion from mildly liberal to fairly
    conservative. My observation is that what would be seen as a conservative
    evangelical in England would be somewhat iffy and liberal across the pond.
    For example most Anglcian evangelicals would not subscribe to inerrancy and
    of the clergy probably 5% are creationist


    > Michael-
    > I simply am not familiar enough with the situation in Britain to defend
    > #3, but that is what Bowler says. However, in my attempt to be concise I
    > probably gave the impression that 3 was as important as 1,2, and 4. It
    > not. Apparently a Free Church and Anglican evangelical opposition did
    > but it's effect at the time was minimal.
    > Karl
    > ********************
    > Karl V. Evans
    > In a message dated 1/11/02 4:14:47 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
    > writes:
    > << Thanks Karl for your comments
    > You wrote;
    > Bowler deals with the
    > > reconciliation of science and religion as expressed by liberal
    > > (Modernists) and non-materialist scientists. The reconciliation is
    > crucially
    > > dependent on the thesis that both these groups shared a faith in
    > > This faith, and the 'second age' of sci/rel dialogue (we're in the
    > > survived World War I but ended for several reasons: 1) the rise of
    > fascism,
    > > 2) the Depression and related suffering, 3) evangelical voices from the
    > free
    > > churches, and 4) the rise of Barthian neo-orthodoxy with its disdain
    > > natural theology.
    > I would agree with reasons 1,2 and 4 , but 3 is wrong as in Britain the
    > resurgence of evangelicals came dominantly from Church of England
    > evangelicals of the post war generation e.g. JRWStott and also the whole
    > cluster of people including non-Anglicans as FFBRuce, Martin Lloyd Jones
    > etc.From 1900 to 1950 there was a rump of evangelicals in the Cof E whose
    > effortw bore fruit after the war. (There werent many evangelicals in the
    > Anglican Church in Wales as the Welsh Bishops did not like evangelicals
    > forced them out after Disestablishment in 1920. One of my bishops while I
    > was in Wales asked me how I could be associated with Evangelicals as I
    was a
    > scientist and didnt take the bible literally and another asked if I
    > believed Pauls Letter to Romans, that was in 1995 and 2000.The numbers of
    > evangelicals in the Church in wales is increasing mostly by attracting
    > clergy from England as wooly liberal theology doesnt attact potential
    > clergy!) There is a false perceptons that Evangelicals are largely to be
    > found in the Free Churches whereas from 1730 about half of British
    > evangelicals have been Anglican. It has to be said that only a small
    > minority Cof E evangelicals
    > tend to YEC though this does mean that 5% of Cof E clergy lean to YEC.
    > Regards
    > Michael
    > >>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 12 2002 - 17:40:45 EST