Yesterday, I wrote about the latest goings on in the Church of England. You can read my post here. TL:DR – The bishops have moved to introduce specific services blessing same-sex unions and conservatives are asking themselves, once again, what will they do. Spoiler alert: not much.
If you think I am being a little harsh, let me point you in the direction of the Church of England Evangelical Council statement – the group many Evangelicals in the Church of England look to for guidance – who leave us in no doubt. You can read it here but I reproduce their statement in full below.
The General Synod of the Church of England has approved the Living in Love and Faith proposals, brought forward by Bishop Martyn Snow, which will see standalone blessings for same sex couples taking place and a timetable agreed towards clergy same sex marriages.
John Dunnett, National Director, Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC), said:
“Yesterday was a milestone in that standalone services have received General Synod support and a timetable to work towards clergy same sex marriages has been endorsed.
“It is deeply disappointing that despite hearing repeatedly in speeches of the need to build trust by avoiding bad process, and CEEC’s continued advocacy of the insufficiency of delegated arrangements, Synod passed the Motion, and the Prayers of Love and Faith bus continues to move forward.
“The leaders of the Church of England seem intent on leading the church away from the biblical teaching and doctrine passed down through the centuries and shared by millions of Christians in the Anglican Communion today.
“CEEC continues to believe that structural reorganisation is the only provision that will guarantee orthodoxy going forward. General Synod’s decision will sadly trigger the launch of a de facto parallel province, as outlined by the recent Alliance letter to the archbishops and bishops, and CEEC will work with our partners in the Alliance to make this a reality. We are committed to remaining within the Church of England and hope that the bishops will come to the table to negotiate an acceptable settlement.”
The motion was carried narrowly by a vote by Houses – Bishops 22 for, 12 against; Clergy 99 for, 88 against; and Laity 95 for, 91 against. The General Synod heard from a range of speakers standing for orthodoxy, including CEEC members – Helen Lamb, Aneal Appadoo, Vaughan Roberts, and Bishop Paul Williams. The speeches tackled bad process and the resulting loss of trust, the likelihood that this motion amounts to a change of doctrine, and the need for a safe space for orthodoxy.
CEEC remains committed to Jesus’s commission to his local church to ‘Go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you’ (Matthew 28:19-20).
We dare to pray that even in these challenging times God will grant a revival harvest in this country.
Several things are worth noting about this statement.
Notice, for example, talk of a new province is watered down in the statement from CEEC. I argued in my previous post that a new province would not credibly provide the separation they are after nor safeguard orthodoxy in the long run. You can re-read that article to see why. But it bears saying, CEEC aren’t even asking for a new province but, more subtly, refer to a “de facto parallel province”. Which is to say, not actually even a province at all. Given what I noted concerning the problems of an actual province, this is a considerably weaker response than even that.
The reason is clear enough within the statement itself. CEEC note, despite stating that ‘the leaders of the Church of England seem intent on leading the church away from the biblical teaching and doctrine’, they go on to insist ‘we are committed to remaining within the Church of England’. Here we get to the nub of the nonsense of their position.
CEEC are arguing that they need ‘structural reorganisation’. They want a ‘de facto parallel province’ because the bishops are ‘intent on leading the church away from the biblical teaching and doctrine’. Their solution is not separation. It is not safeguarding orthodoxy by removing themselves from the auspices of errant leaders. Their solution is ‘a facto parallel province’ that involves ‘remaining within the Church of England’. That is, remaining in the same church in formal fellowship with the same primates and bishops that they currently insist are leading the church into heterodoxy. They won’t have an actual province of their own, just a de facto one that must therefore operate under the auspices of the same primates they currently insist are so errant they need new structures apart from. They certainly won’t be leaving the Church of England, which is headed by the same primates they insist they can no longer operate under. They won’t even break formal fellowship with them, but are adamant they will remain within the same church. I noted that some of these things would be at issue in various ways even if CEEC argued strongly for an actual new province. What they are proposing falls some considerable way short of that.
Notice also that the statement calls for ‘a safe space for orthodoxy’. Apparently CEEC are no longer arguing for church reform. They have apparently given that up. Now they are simply asking the heterodox bishops steering the ship to provide them with a ‘safe space for orthodoxy’. That is quite the goal for the Church of Christ!
The ever-diminishing hoped-for returns from negotiations are laughable. Indeed, there is no negotiation. And why would there be when your declared position is ‘we are committed to remaining within the Church of England’? If they know you will never leave, they have no reason to grant you any of what you ask for. You will stay come what may so they can do what they like with impunity, knowing CEEC will continue to tell their folks to sit tight, negotiating some further trifles in the hope that the bishops – who have no interest in orthodoxy – will eventually throw them a bone they can parade as a victory for the faithful.
CEEC say that they ‘hope that the bishops will come to the table to negotiate an acceptable settlement.’ Not only will they not, they have no reason to do so. The settlement is at the behest of the bishops. They know – because CEEC have put it in black and white here in their statement – that the call is on their folks to remain come what may. The bishops therefore have no reason to give way. If you will never leave, and are committed to remaining in the Church of England, you have written them a blank cheque to do what they will knowing you aren’t going anywhere.
As I said yesterday, faithful Anglicans need to take seriously what the scriptures say. Here is John:
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. – 2 John 1:9-11
And here is Paul:
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15What accord has Christ with Belial?b Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
17Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
18and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty.” – 2 Corinthians 6:14-18
Both seem pretty clear that unless faithful believers in the Anglican Church separate themselves from the heterodox, they are sharing in their evil deeds. As I argued yesterday, even a separate province in practice will not create the kind of separation that scripture demands. What CEEC are proposing falls some way short of that. It needs to be said that those who remain are sharing in the evil deed of those with whom they remain in fellowship. They are choosing to remain within an errant denomination bent on heterodoxy. These are choices they are making, they are not faithful choices and they have very specific implications for those we might consider faithful.
I am entirely unsurprised by this statement from CEEC. I am similarly not expecting many to jump ship. We have been here many times before, the story is always the same and I have seen little evidence anything will be different this time. The handwringing will continue for a while, the dust will settle, then everyone will stay put and console themselves with comments about ‘contending’, which looks remarkably like continuing in fellowship with false teachers, unbelievers and the heterodox whilst maybe writing a feeble letter to the bishops. It will be applauded only by those who think clever wordplay is a substitute for biblical fidelity.
The bigger question is what those of us outside the Church of England do. The stall has been laid out pretty clearly by CEEC: they are not for leaving, they are committed to remaining in the Church of England under the heterodox people they claim to want nothing to do with. It is a nonsense position that cannot credibly be viewed as separation in any meaningful sense. It is an active choice to remain in fellowship, under the auspices of those who deny the gospel and continue to peddle false doctrine. If we take John and Paul at all seriously, those who choose to remain must be viewed as actively taking part in their wicked works. Which is to say, it is unfaithfulness.
As we know, all discipline is hard. Nobody (at least, nobody who is not a psychopath) enjoys removing people from church membership. Nobody enjoys breaking fellowship. Especially not with people who are longstanding friends. But the goal of discipline is not to cut people off or to be unkind. It is to cause people to sit up and see the situation they are in is dire and dangerous. It is supposed to lead people to repent and take action rather than waltz headlong into disaster.
We are now at this point with Evangelicals in the Church of England. How can we continue to remain in formal fellowship with them when they are actively choosing to remain in what they recognise themselves is heterodox? How can we remain in fellowship with them when they choose to function in such a way as John says they are taking part in the evil deeds of those they continue in fellowship with? How can we consider ourselves kind and loving to remain in fellowship with people who are acting in ways that are disastrous for them, for their churches and, frankly, for our own partnerships? If we recognise that ‘a little leaven leavens the whole lump’ and we have seen that writ large within the Church of England, ought we not to sit up and take notice ourselves and seek to safeguard our own churches and gospel partnerships? What good is it if we simply watch the disaster unfold within the Church of England and then make exactly the same missteps and bring the same issues back into our own churches and partnerships? Aside from being deeply stupid, it is dangerous and it will have severe and lasting effects for the gospel in our nation if we allow it to happen.
We can see where CEEC stand. They are remaining with the heterodox come what may. They are not for separation. They are, therefore, happy to associate themselves with the unfaithful and – as John says – take part in their wicked works. These positions are unfaithful and make them unfaithful.
As nonconformists, we must ask ourselves whether we wish to be partakers of these same wicked works or not? Are we prepared to do what scripture calls us to do and separate ourselves in order to maintain the purity of the gospel? Are we prepared to break fellowship – not because it is fun or enjoyable – but because it is what the scriptures call us to do and we trust the Lord in these things more than we fear the awkwardness?
Every Evangelical Nonconformist I know would accept there are genuine believers in the Roman Catholic Church. They would argue they are there despite the teaching of the church and not because of it. But I don’t know a single Evangelical Nonconformist who would be arguing we ought to maintain fellowship with Roman Catholics who have departed the gospel on that basis. Nor do I know a single Evangelical Nonconformist who would counsel a genuine believer to remain within that errant communion. Why then, when we can see the Church of England has departed from orthodoxy, and though we recognise there are genuine believers within it they exist despite the leadership and the doctrine being propagated by them, do we not take the same line?
In the end, the purity of the church matters. But it seems some of us find relational awkwardness and longstanding friendships trump biblical fidelity. If we really do love our friends in the Church of England, it may be time for us to bite the bullet and actually love them in the way scripture suggests we should. We may need to back out of fellowship in order to encourage them to do what they ought and back out of their errant fellowship so that we might, in God’s good timing, hopefully have fellowship with them one day again.
I have a strong suspicion that the new Labour government will precipitate a crisis for evangelicals in the CofE by removing the exemption for the CofE in the same-sex marriage legislation, so in effect mandating every CofE minister to perform these ‘marriages’. This action would render all the efforts of CEEC and the Alliance over the past few decades a futile waste of time.
This may well be more likely if Harriet Harman is made Chair of the Equalities and Human Right Commiission as has been suggested: see (paywall) https: //www. thetimes. com/uk/politics/article/harriet-harman-equality-human-rights-commission-head-wk87b9ktw
It’s certainly possible. And I would have little sympathy if they did because it would be theirs to do as the established church enmeshed in the state. They have been desperate to keep their bishops in the Lords and maintain the influence they perceive they have in law, but such is the deal that is struck. It is one of the many problems that ensue from unbiblical polity entwined with the machinations of state.
Nevertheless, we are not there now and Labour have not yet done any such thing (though they have threatened it a few times from the backbenches and, truth be told, nobody can deny removal of the Lords spiritual and enforcing equality within their ranks would be a popular move among the unbelieving majority). So, the question remains: what will Evangelicals do given their own bishops seem intent on doing this anyway?
I see no future for orthodoxy or Evangelicalism in the Church of England. I have consistently echoed Lloyd-Jones’ call – and nothing has changed since 1966 to make me think any differently – that Evangelicals should leave mixed denominations and join with their Evangelical brethren elsewhere. Most Anglicans, however, are not for doing that.
Given we have seen this play out over many decades, the question is no longer really about what Evangelical Anglicans will do. I think they have laid out their stall pretty comprehensively. The question is, what will the rest of Evangelicalism do in response to them? I think it is only going to become harder to maintain the thin veneer of fellowship with those who will not abandon their denomination despite the pervasive rot and appear to want more to do with liberal bishops than they do with their Evangelical counterparts elsewhere. It is difficult not to take their stance as a pretty clear indication of what they think about fellowship with us. I just think we should formalise that reality.
‘ If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting’
I do not see how you can claim that the CEEC are not taking this verse seriously. It would make more sense to claim that they are too focused on just this verse or perhaps taking it too narrowly. But, the recent noise is all about answering the question ‘can and how do we remain in the CofE without receiving false teachers into my house or giving him a greeting.’
The answer could turn out to be ‘no, we cannot’, but the idea that by ‘do not receive him into your house’ John was referring to remaining in the same episcopal organisation must surely be recognised as false.
I think this misunderstands the nature of what is actually going on within the CofE. The fact that they have had these issues at play for centuries now, which have been getting worse, mean the question has been asked and repeatedly answered: we are happy to remain in the same house!
What they have put out in their statement is specifically that they are committed to staying within the house, whether or not the bishops are orthodox and those also in the house with them are orthodox too. It is very much an exercise in working out how they can remain in the same house as false teachers rather than actually separating from them (which would mean leaving the CofE).
Their main commitments in the statement are: (1) they will remain in the CofE with false teachers; (2) they want structural differentiation that still keeps them under the authority of the false teachers within the CofE; (3) they want to remain within the worldwide Anglican communion under the authority of false teachers.
I cannot see how this is a credible working out of what Paul and John say. It is trying to find out how they can remain in the same house as those both Apostles insist we must separate from.
And we have had centuries of this and the direction of travel has never been positive. We have also seen the ‘fighting’ language before. We know what ‘fighting’ means, and it is never successful nor does it ever amount to much.
But, you’re assuming that when John says ‘house’ he doesn’t mean an actual house but an episcopal organisation. That doesn’t seem justifiable to me.
And, of course, you can make the Bible say anything if you swap out one noun for another.
If a non-Christian master allowed his Christian servant to hold a prayer meeting in his house is the servant sinning for not having a fuller separation from the non-Christian?
I’m not assuming that at all. I think John means house in a literal, domestic sense. What I do think however is that what John says *applies* to a welcome in your home *applies* as much (if not more so) to your church and denomination. It seems to me it is you who is taking a overly literal view of what John is saying – as though a welcome in your home specifically is the problem, but having fellowship with false teachers and heretics in any other setting is absolutely okay!
If there was any doubt, I also included a fairly long quote from Paul which was similarly clear and doesn’t use the word ‘house’ at all and doesn’t rely on it having a specific meaning.
it does, however, specifically land on the word ‘fellowship’ which is particularly relevant to our discussion here.