CofE: Should we stay, or should we go?

Is it yet another “should I stay or should I go” moment for evangelicals in the Church of England?

It feels like an interminable dilemma, especially with the process around the blessing of same-sex unions in recent years. With each significant development, the question re-emerges with a more negative tone. Yet, in the last two months, there have been announcements that push both ways.

For over a year, the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process had been stalled by the vacancy in Canterbury. But then, since the appointment of the new Archbishop, there have been some pivotal moves which have changed the landscape.

The Alliance Campaign was widely mooted and plugged. Church leaders were being actively primed to make bishops aware of the consequences of bringing their anticipated proposals to the February General Synod, namely for standalone services for same-sex blessings and for removal of discipline for clergy in same-sex marriages. Rightly calling this out as a change in doctrine, the campaign urged a proper legislative process. For some this was a new and bold move. Others have been taking decisive action for two years and it seemed like a kind of reset.

But then, exceeding all expectations, in the week following their meeting in October, the House of Bishops announced their intention to follow a Canon B2 process for standalone services. They have concurred that such a move constitutes a change of doctrine, which requires a two-thirds majority in each of the three houses in General Synod. Changes to the ban on clergy being in same-sex marriages, however, would only require a simple majority in each house.

The Alliance Campaign has been paused, though effectively it has been remarkably successful; its aim fulfilled before it was fully implemented. It is now likely that The Alliance will focus on recruiting lay people for the next quinquennium [five year session] of General Synod, in order to vote against the measures. There will be little appetite to do anything else with such a broad coalition representing many mixed economy churches. For now, however, there is a sense of relief and hope.

On the day after the House of Bishops’ statement, GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference), which represents orthodox churches across the Anglican Communion, issued a communiqué declaring a resolution to break fellowship with Canterbury and the Church of England. The GAFCON primates also rejected the other so-called instruments of Communion, namely the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council, and vouched to reorder the Communion with only the Bible as the foundation. This decisive move is predicated on the inaugural objectives of the movement, “to respond to the abandonment of the scriptures by the most senior leaders of the Anglican Communion and to seek their repentance”. Referring to “the absence of such repentance”, it is thus a logical and even unsurprising step.

Even without standalone services and relaxation of clergy discipline, the current provision of the Prayers of Love and Faith marks what many would consider to be a de facto departure from the doctrine of the Church of England. Some, equally disenchanted by the appointment of Dame Sarah Mullally to Canterbury, will be emboldened or even awakened by the GAFCON communiqué. Yet there is also likely to be a loss of momentum triggered by the surprising turnaround in the House of Bishops.

For those who stay, I think we need to take stock and not lose what we have gained in our response to this process. In several instances, the apostle Paul uses the phrase, “hold on to what you have” (1 Thess. 5v21, Heb.3v6, Rev.2v25;3v11). I think that there are two things we need to hold onto.

Firstly, we need to hold onto the clarity we have secured on our commitment to our doctrinal foundations. We need to keep teaching boldly in our local churches. We need to stay visibly faithful to the Bible in our relationship to wider church structures. I also think we should continue to give our parish share in a way that honours our integrity.

Secondly, we need to hold onto the unification of the evangelical constituency. As we have collectively responded to doctrinal error, we have put away tribal arguments on secondary issues, sought to understand our differences and put the gospel first. Let’s continue to do that in fellowship and accountability, which may continue to require alternative oversight.
And finally, by holding onto both of these things, we can and must promote new vocations that shape a positive, Biblically-faithful future for the Church of England.