Christian Today carried an interesting little article concerning St Leonard’s Church in Buckinghamshire. You can read it here. In the grand scheme of things, the issue seems like something and nothing. The stated issues don’t seem huge to me and, depending on your particular tendencies, it is either a case of a hard-nosed minister being awkward and not dealing with the church very well or an unreasonable, unsympathetic church treating their minister badly. You can read the article and decide for yourself.

Leaving aside the whys and wherefores, the key point of interest is this:

A Church of England vicar is not obligated to step down despite a congregation’s vote of no confidence after his actions allegedly caused attendance to “plummet,” the diocese says.

Going on to note:

The Diocese of Oxford said the vote was “not legally binding,” which means that Haywood is not obligated to depart. Haywood has led St. Leonard’s, a small congregation near Wendover Woods, and three other Buckinghamshire churches since 2021. He was appointed to the position by the bishop of Buckingham. He previously served as the curate in the Benefice of Hugglescote with Donington, Ellistown and Snibston.

“This vote is not legally binding and the vicar, the Rev. Chris Haywood, is not obliged to leave,” the diocese stated. “The diocese is working with all parties concerned to bring about the best resolution to this breakdown in relationships.”

As you read the article, then, the congregation are deeply unhappy. So unhappy, they held a vote of no confidence in their minister. A vote that they apparently won. But the diocese are clear that such a vote has no legal standing and the minister can stay in post. It was the diocese who appointed him and they who can remove him. Which raises fascinating questions (to me at least) concerning authority in the church.

It seems to me (again, leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the specific matter at hand) the diocese are entirely right so far as the episcopal system is concerned. There are fascinating examples from church history of Anglican ministers – whose congregations tried (literally) locking them out of the church, abusing them, turning pews around and altogether revolting in almost every way against their ministry – who stayed, preached through it all and basically held their ground. This is the episcopal system – the congregation are simply a bit part in proceedings! It is the diocese who appoints ministers and it is the diocese who removes them. The bishops can appoint and remove; the congregation effectively have to wear it come what may.

No doubt someone will tell me it’s not exactly like that. I appreciate there are sometimes levers that can be pulled in certain places with particular foundations. But for the most part, this is what it is. Authority lies with the bishops and those who belong to the episcopal church, under their authority, largely must wear what they say. Particularly as far as who is going to minister in the local church.

Congregationalism, by contrast, would not end up in such a position. It is the members who appoint their leaders and it is the members who may remove them. In the congregational churches, a vote of no confidence is, indeed, binding. It’s not even a matter of no confidence, but an active vote to remove someone from eldership. And, for the most part, congregational church leaders do not want to lead churches that have no interest in following their lead. A vote of no confidence is usually a sign that the minister probably isn’t going to stick around. Sometimes, the issues might be desperately petty. They may even be downright unreasonable. But if the church are adamant that they don’t want to follow your lead, most congregational leaders accept there is little point flogging a dead horse. Those who try tend to find that when votes of no confidence are ignored, members simply vote with their feet thereafter.

There are questions worth asking here about the good of the church and the ministry itself. It is hard to imagine some of these issues getting to the position they do if someone decides, for the good of the ministry itself, to relent. A minister clinging on for ‘the good of the ministry’ in the face of the entire membership seeking to remove you either has a messiah complex (in which case a period out of ministry proving he isn’t Jesus is no bad thing) or hasn’t recognised that – even if absolutely in the right – a church that staunchly will not be led toward righteousness is better left to its own self-destruction. Such churches, quite frankly, are better off not existing because they very probably aren’t true churches at all and a godly minister would do well to find one that is concerned about following Jesus rather than trying to lead unbelievers as though they belong to Christ.

Likewise, churches that are in the right, yet find ministers who will not back down in the face of a huge overall majority of godly people, discover that the guy in post should never have been appointed at all. Aside from arrogantly assuming, in the face of a church full of spirit-empowered believers who also know their bibles, that they alone know the mind of God on a given matter, digging your feet in and creating a complete deadlock cannot possibly serve the cause of the gospel well. I’m not suggesting godly ministers will give in to every bit of opposition however few are voicing it nor insignificant the matter. But where a majority of the church are all voicing it, and consider it a vital matter, there comes a point where creating a deadlock in which ministry simply cannot continue is clearly not working for the good of the gospel. It is, even sometimes where you are in the right, to put self-interest above kingdom interest. Sometimes the right thing is to listen to your church even if you don’t think they are right on the matter and, if you really can’t wear what they are saying, for the good of the kingdom you may need to move on.

But in the end, there is a fundamental question of where authority lies. Those in the Anglican Church who hold votes of no confidence are acting as though they are Congregational Independents when, despite what some like to claim out of expediency, they are no such thing. In the end, if you are Anglican, you are necessarily under the authority of the bishops who can overrule the local church congregation. It is in the nature of the system. Of course, if you think the bishops are in error and you cannot submit to them, your only option then is to excuse yourself from their oversight entirely. That is, to recuse yourself from the entire structures of Anglicanism over which they preside. That is to say, you have to become properly Independent and Congregational if you want to function like Independents and the Congregational.

This latest example serves to show the nonsense of what some in the Anglican Church wish to claim. They are not functional independents because churches that vote to remove their leaders have no ability to do so. Churches that make clear they are unhappy with their minister can do nothing about it. It is the bishops with whom authority lies. Which means those who wish to be free of the authority of the bishops must come out of Anglican structures altogether. If they wish to be Independents, let them become Independents. Otherwise, they are just using words and both meaning something altogether different by them and speaking against the reality of the situation they are in. Either come out from among them and be ye separate (and Independent) or you are under their authority, with no ability to dictate who leads, who belongs or what is taught.