The book's blurb says:
"Drawing on the 1945 report, "Towards the Conversion of England" ... John Richardson argues in this book that nothing less than a radical revision of the Church of England's agenda is sufficient for the task of evangelizing a nation. Anglican evangelicals are called upon to set aside their divisions and their focus on their own position within the Church, and instead to develop a strategy that changes the whole denomination into an instrument for evangelism. ... his book is a plea for the transformation of the Church for the proclamation of the gospel."

And I think that Richardson delivers on this. Despite being well written and easy to follow, it probably won't be the easiest of reads for evangelicals, as he's not afraid of naming and shaming what he sees as their poor practices. For example in assuming that Dioceses and their officers can do nothing helpful. He suggests some practical ways that evangelicals can come out of their cosy enclaves, and engage with the rest of the denomination, to help encourage the good things that are going on, and to challenge them where they aren't actively bringing people to know Jesus as Saviour and Lord. He has other useful observations about the oft-dreaded 39 Articles, showing that most are a helpful reference in this task, and noting that some in our worshipping communities are only half-converted. (It would be good to see this aspect tackled at greater length.) He also provides a very interesting summary of the post-war history of British Anglican evangelicals.

I do have to take issue with some of his arguments. Firstly, his complaints about the "less-conservative 'Open' evangelicals" suffer from a lack of evidence. For example he claims several times (including p.78) that "open evangelicals seem to regard [the transformation of the whole denomination] with suspicion - as if it is improper to want the Church of England to change its attitude on evangelism and conversion." That doesn't ring true; for example, as far as I can tell the prime movers behind Fresh Expressions aren't conservative evangelicals, but more open ones, and (gasp) some non-evangelicals too.

Secondly, his argument that the Church lacks commitment to Mission because we've landed up with separate Mission Societies doesn't stack up. I suggest checking out the topics of modality and sodality (for example, ) which helps show why separate structures can be a benefit not a weakness.

And thirdly, he notes that "few Bishops seem willing to" use BMOs to enable mission to flourish locally. It's certainly not all, but is it really only "a few"?

But these comments aside, I recommend this as a challenge to all evangelicals, whether 'more' or 'less' conservative. And, perhaps most of all, to all Bishops, Archdeacons, Deans and Diocesan Officers in the Church of England, for whom this should be an overdue reminder of what they should be leading the Church to do. ( )