Deep Church Rising: Rediscovering the Roots of Christian Orthodoxy

Deep Church Rising: Rediscovering the Roots of Christian Orthodoxy

by Andrew G. Walker and Robin A. Parry

I found this to be a very thought-provoking and challenging book. Walker and Parry argue the case for what they call ‘deep church’. This is similar to what C. S. Lewis described as ‘mere’ Christianity. By this they mean the basic, historic Christian faith that has been believed and practised by Christians throughout the centuries. This includes a straightforward belief in Jesus as described in the Bible – that he was conceived through the activity of the Holy Spirit, his mother was a virgin before his birth, his birth was accompanied by highly unusual events, he performed miracles, he died for us so that we can be forgiven, he rose from the dead, and he will return at some point in the future and will judge all humankind. Along with this goes an acceptance of the Bible as being inspired by God and authoritative for life and salvation. This is the Christian faith set out in the historic Christian creeds.

Walker and Parry contrast this orthodox Christianity with the liberal questioning of the fundamentals of faith which has been common currency in the wider church for a century or two. They use the term “the third schism”. The first schism was the split between the Roman Catholic Church in the West and the Eastern Orthodox Church which occurred in the eleventh century. The second schism was the split between Roman Catholics and Protestants arising from the Reformation in the sixteenth century. The third schism, they say, is the divide between those who believe in the orthodox core of the Christian faith, as expressed in the historic creeds, and those who do not. They argue for unity among all those who hold to the orthodox core of the Christian faith, whether they be evangelical Protestants, traditional Anglicans, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. This means those who, as the (fairly) new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby says of himself, “say the creed without crossing my fingers at any point.”

Walker and Parry examine the role that the church plays in interpreting the Bible. The slogan of the Reformation was “sola scriptura”. This means that each Christian is free before God to interpret the Bible as he (or she) sees fit. The result has been the fragmentation of the Protestant church so that there are now literally hundreds of Christian denominations and groups, each believing that their version of the truth is the right one. In contrast, both the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church maintain their unity because the Bible is interpreted in a particular way by those who are authorised by the Church to be teachers. We have to admit even within Evangelicalism the important role of the Bible teacher in giving an authoritative interpretation of scripture. Although in theory each believer is free to understand and interpret the Bible for themselves, and there are a wide variety of views about all sorts of things within the Evangelical world, nevertheless there is a boundary beyond which it is not acceptable to go. The question is, how do we determine what is acceptable deviation from the truth and what is not? And how do we decide who it is that determines? What has tended to happen is that when someone has been called to account by others for their deviant understandings of the Bible, they have gone off and started a new church.

The challenge to evangelicals is whether we are prepared to see as our allies those whom we have traditionally seen as our enemies – Anglo-Catholics, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox. Where do we draw the ‘battle lines’? Which issues do we regard as fundamental and which are secondary? This boils down to the question, who do I count as a fellow Christian? Who is my brother and my sister?

A good place to look for an answer is in the Evangelical Alliance’s Evangelical Relationships Commitment –

1.       We welcome as Christian brothers and sisters all who experience the grace of new birth, bringing them to that fear and knowledge of God which is expressed in a life of obedience to His word.
2.       We recognise our Christian duty of trust and mutual encouragement to all who serve Christ as Lord, not least to those who conscientiously prefer not to be identified with the same churches, alliances or councils as ourselves.
3.       We respect the diversity of culture, experience and doctrinal understanding that God grants to His people, and acknowledge that some differences over issues not essential to salvation may well remain until the end of time.

It seems clear to me that this commitment means embracing as Christian brothers and sisters many who in the past we have regarded as being ‘beyond the pale’. Those people who we have dismissed as being ‘nominal Christians’, who we have thought of as at best ‘sub-standard’ Christians, or even as not true Christians at all.

The Apostle Paul writes warmly to the church at Corinth, commending them and thanking God for the evidence of God’s life working in and through them. Nevertheless, as we see from Paul’s letters, the church was riven by divisions, tolerated immorality, promoted social elitism at the Communion table, and even included those that doubted the truth of the resurrection. At no point does Paul question the reality of their life in Christ – although he does warn them that their faith is in vain if Christ was not raised from the dead! He regards them as brothers and sisters who need encouragement and correction. I suspect that if we saw such belief and behaviour in any of our churches, we would encourage – or compel – the people concerned to leave the church.

I will finish by quoting from Genesis 4, out of context, “Where is your brother?” The answer is probably in the local parish church, the black-majority Pentecostal church, the Roman Catholic church, the Methodist church, or even the Eastern Orthodox church.