We have now had the weekend to come to terms with the appointment of Sarah Mullally as the new (and first ever female) Archbishop of Canterbury. I strongly suspect this appointment will change absolutely nothing from a Conservative Evangelical perspective. But at the risk of flogging a dead horse, let me make a few brief observations.

The upper echelons of the Church of England are now overtly liberal. Whilst some would call into question Justin Welby’s Evangelicalism, he was at least a self-proclaimed and one-time Evangelical. He was joined by the liberal Stephen Cottrell as Archbishop of York. Welby has now been succeeded by the liberal Sarah Mullally. This now places liberals in the two most senior positions in the Church of England. The leadership – if it wasn’t already – is now thoroughgoing liberal and this is what all who remain within are submitting to as their church authority.

It also bears saying that Sarah Mullally is (obviously) a woman. My friend, Stephen Watkinson (erstwhile CofE minister) had this to say:

I don’t really think it has been possible to be a consistent complementarian in the CoE if you had a woman who was your diocesan bishop. It’s now not possible in any ordained context with the appointment of Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury. You are under the authority of a woman contra 1 Timothy 2:12.

While it’s no surprise following “evangelical” Justin Welby, she is also a liberal, which makes the wave of false teaching being enshrined in the church likely to progress at pace.

“Conservatives” in the CoE will still want to claim they are seeking the reform or renewal of the church I suppose. We should pray and seek that they would see reality and leave.

Complementarian, Conservative Evangelicals now need to reckon with the fact they are in submission to a liberal-minded woman that they do not believe is in any way biblically qualified to hold the position she now occupies.

Once again, it is interesting to see the reaction to the appointment from those remaining in the CofE. In one response, Gerald Bray (see here) sneers and belittles Mullally’s training for the role, managing to be both rude and patronising whilst utterly ignoring the elephant in the room: she is disqualified by the bible, not because she has been inadequately trained in a theological college nor because of relevant work experience. Ironically, his clear sense of his own superior training doesn’t seem to have led him to the evident conclusion that he ought not to continue in a church that requires his submission to church leaders that are unqualified biblically.

In another response to this news, striking another blow to any credible sense in which Complementarianism has any space within the CofE, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet – Rob Munro – actively congratulates and welcomes Sarah Mullally to her role. This is the man tasked with providing oversight for those who insist they cannot submit to female authority. Not only does he welcome her to her new role, but makes it evident that all those who would prefer alternative oversight are nevertheless ultimately in submission to an authority they find unconscionable. Only, not unconscionable enough to actually depart from fellowship and submission to it. Not to worry, insists Munro, as Sarah Mullally has ‘a long track record of gracious engagement, and the theological convictions we hold’. Phew. Well, that’s that sorted then! Munro insists she will work hard to ‘maintain the integrity’ of complementarian ministry in the Church of England whilst seeming not to notice how her appointment actively undermines it and makes it impossible.

Church Society – those bastions of orthodoxy and staunch contenders for the faith – also choose to ‘offer our congratulations and prayers’ as Sarah Mullally takes up her role. To their credit, Church Society do point out ‘more concerning is the appointment (for the third time in a row to this position) of someone who does not hold to the doctrine of the Church of England on marriage and sexual ethics but wants to change it.’ They stop short of recognising that they are now submitting to this self same person, congratulating her as she takes up her post, and see no need to withdraw. This is apparently both consistent and contending for the faith.

The issues extend well beyond remaining in the Church of England. The Gafcon Primates Council have released this statement. They note that Mullally’s ‘appointment will make it impossible for the Archbishop of Canterbury to serve as a focus of unity within the Communion’. They state clearly, ‘due to the failure of successive Archbishops of Canterbury to guard the faith, the office can no longer function as a credible leader of Anglicans, let alone a focus of unity. As we made clear in our Kigali Commitment of 2023, we can “no longer recognise the Archbishop of Canterbury as an Instrument of Communion” or the “first among equals” of global Primates.’ They conclude:

Since the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury has failed to guard the faith and is complicit in introducing practices and beliefs that violate both the “plain and canonical sense” of Scripture and “the Church’s historic and consensual” interpretation of it (Jerusalem Statement), she cannot provide leadership to the Anglican Communion. The leadership of the Anglican Communion will pass to those who uphold the truth of the gospel and the authority of Scripture in all areas of life.

Gafcon gathered in Jerusalem in 2008 to reset the Anglican Communion back onto its biblical foundations. Today’s appointment makes it clearer than ever before that Canterbury has relinquished its authority to lead.

In other words, it is impossible to remain in the Worldwide Anglican Communion faithfully under this appointment and clear separation – and an overt rejection of Mullally’s leadership – is required if faithfulness to biblical teaching is to be evident. If that is the view of Gafcon – that they cannot remain in submission to Mullally’s leadership and must make clear separation between themselves – where does that meaningfully leave those who remain in the Church of England other than in an inherently unfaithful position?

As if these things weren’t already clear, let us restate again the specific issues with this appointment. The leadership to which all within the Church of England are now to submit is confirmed liberal – denying the gospel both theologically and ethically – and as a female appointment makes it impossible for faithful complementarian ministry to operate. This has ramifications both for those in the Church of England as well as for any who would continue in the Worldwide Anglican Communion under such leadership. Even the apparent lifeboats floated so that some might have a faithful yet distinctly Anglican ministry have been scuppered.

The reason why these things are largely ignored in the response pieces from Evangelicals boils down to this: those who remain in the Church of England have long accepted that these things will now be features of their ministry. They now find justifications that sound credible only to those who have already accepted their conclusion: we will remain even if Satan himself became Archbishop of Canterbury.

My late friend, Jeremy Marshall, recounted asking exactly this of Evangelical friends in the Church of England and was surprised to find more than a few overtly affirmed this was, indeed, their position. I have also seen plenty insist, yes, even under such circumstances as Satan himself took up the office, they would remain. It is surely high time that faithful Evangelicals who reckon this to be both absurd and blasphemous start to recognise this is where we are at. And once we recognise reality, similarly ask ourselves: can we really stay in fellowship with Church of England Evangelicals on those terms?