I posted this question on Facebook the other day
Why is the case for evangelicals in the Church of England always put in terms of why they shouldn’t (or even sometimes, should) leave the Church of England and not why they should/shouldn’t join with other Evangelicals? I’m planning to write a bit more about this soon but would love to hear the views of others (please note I’m not asking for you to rehash the arguments for/against leaving but rather, why is the debate not framed in terms of joining?)
I got quite a lot of responses and discussion by my usual standards on Facebook. So, in this article, I intend to first of all say a bit more about why I was raising this type of question, secondly, I am going to attempt to sum up the discussion and hopefully get to a stated response to what the issue is. Thirdly, I wanted to respond a little bit more, to engage with some of the arguments made and so flesh out some reasoning behind my own position. For the record, up front, I do believe that Anglican Evangelicals need to leave the Church of England as it stands. I have argued previously that this is not because of recent ethical debates and departures so much as it is that in my opinion, the CofE departed from faithful doctrine many years ago.
What was my question about?
Looking back, I recognise that the wording may have been clumsy but I wanted to attempt to make as concrete as possible what is in effect a question about Evangelical unity. What I mean is that the focus of much debate seems to be around “What can Anglican Evangelicals do in order to remain and be happy within the Church of England?” This comes both from those within the CofE and from friendly onlookers. What doesn’t get asked is “How is fellowship with other evangelical brothers and sisters helped or hindered by the decisions that we make.
And this takes me to my title. The language of “leaving and cleaving” of course refers to the marriage union. I think it has applicability here because whenever there is greater unity with one position, then that must in some way lead to less unity with those who oppose and seek to rival that position. There must always be a level of leaving and cleaving.
Discussion
It is possible that some of the answers were shaped by my wording of the question, however much of the discussion tended to at wrst, despite my pleas slip back into debate about whether or not/why Anglican Evangelicals should leave the CofE. At its best the discussion moved to reasons for not joining with other evangelicals. Furthermore, the assumption seemed to be that I was talking about formal unity through a denomination, network or umbrella group. Now, whilst I think that those things matter, that wasn’t what I said. In fact I was careful not to. Yet it is fascinating in itself that the question was heard in that way.
Older readers may remember that John Stott and Lloyd Jones famously had a strong public disagreement at the 1966 Evangelical Assembly. I think that date and event is significant to discussion now. You see, as far as I’m aware, Lloyd Jones is one of the few, if not the only significant figure in modern history to make such a call. Yet two things are of note. First that the response has been almost entirely on the first part of Lloyd Jones’s plea, a critique of attmepts to be an evangelical wing in a mixed church and a call to leave. I’m not sure that anyone has really engaged with his arguments except to restate the very points he critiques and rebuts. Secondly, people never really did engage with his second point, a call for Evangelical unity. To the extent that they did engage with it, it seems that they heard it as a call to create a new Evangelical denomination. Yet, it is worth a look at the argument he is/isn’t making.[1] His point, in true Lloyd Jones fashion as a doctor starts with a diagnosis. It is namely that attachment to denomination is too strong, so that there is a complacent contentment, a happiness to be a wing of a mixed church. Secondly that there is an attractiveness to the ecumenical movement because it appears to offer fellowship beyond denomination but that it falls short because it is not unity in truth. Thirdly, he argues that expressions of Evangelical unity, limited to occasional conferences are too weak. His answer is that we need to prioritise evangelical unity with the same degree of passion/focus that the ecumenical movement pursues its focus on a false unity. Lloyd Jones does not call for a new denomination here, whether or not he personally desired one. In fact he leaves open the question about how that unity should be achieved.
Now some of the responses were along the lines that the question of why/why not join together was too big and too vague. I don’t see that as a barrier to discussing the question. Surely part of such a discussion includes work on scoping and defining further “what do you mean by” is a legitimate follow up question. At the same time, nor am I convinced that the “leave/not leave” question is any less complex as we discovered on a separate issue, Brexit. You see, those that do leave, have to consider what they are leaving to. Meanwhile, those who remain have a number of possibilities regarding how to remain and why. Do they remain and ignore what is going on in their denomination? Do they remain and accept the trajectory of their church? Do they remain and seek to reach a form of accommodation with the rest of the denomination? Or do they even remain on order to seek to reform the church?
One suggestion from a non-Anglican was that there was a level of class snobbery involved, that Evangelical Anglicanism is dominated by middle class culture and so looks down on non-conformity, especially where it is perceived as working class. He lined this to power, status and legitimacy for the established church. Whilst some respondents attempted to play down the established element and emphasise the parish system as central to the Church of England, it is worth noting that the Parish system is itself rooted in an established church thinking, that the CofE is the English national church.
Some took offence at the suggestion of class snobbery. One respondent pointed out that they were themselves working class and Anglican. Others stated that they were Anglican and had built good relationships with non-Anglican, especially during theological training. It is worth noting two things here. First, that there is a difference between observing how a system/culture may work and commenting on individual experiences. Secondly, if you want to know if there is prejudice against non-conformist/working class Evangelicals then surely it is the working class nonconformists who need to be asked.
However, the impression I gained from the conversation was that primarily the reason why the “joining” question wasn’t entertained from the Anglican side is that the need isn’t seen because the need to leave isn’t seen as a serious option. There seem to be a few reasons for this.
One thing that had come up in my conversations is the sense that “this is our church … Not theirs.” This means that there remains a strong desire not to be forced out. I wonder if appeals to “come out” are heard as part of that pressure?
I wonder too if we have not grasped the level of “heart ties”? These are not just pragmatic decisions. This of course does not mean that there’s aren’t practical considerations, reasoning nor a desire to listen to Scripture.
I know of a number of people who talk in terms of 1 Corinthians 7 and what It means to “remain as you are.” I think that relies on the assumption that the Church of England remains a true church. I think also that if we say “Remain as you are until something significant changes.” Then we are left asking “what, if anything at all, will be that significant change?” Those Christians and churches who left the Baptist Union and Methodist Church considered the significant change to be the appointment of national leaders who departed from the Gospel and /or key Christian doctrine, especially around the atonement, identity of Jesus and authority of Scripture. Yet, that moment is surely long past in the Church of England and if you are not going to leave over that, then what is bigger than that?
Further answers, helpfully honest I think that focused on why not leave but perhaps gave some clues as to why the “join/cleave” question is not engaged is that there are aspects of Anglican identity that are crucial and only available within the Church of England. Those focus primarily on polity. This does leave questions about what we prioritise.
Others have continued to emphasis the view, summed up as “we are de-facto independents, we get on with our local Gospel work and ignore what is going on around us.” Of course that begs the question “then if the Cof E really doesn’t matter that much why stay in and why engage in the debates and struggles?” Alongside this is the view that some form of accommodation within the Church of England is possible.
Finally, I pick up that the sense is that we are already “joined” in that there is a level of unity that people are satisfied with, they don’t expect to lose it and they don’t expect or want more. Part of this means that non Anglicans don’t think about the “join/cleave” side of the equation because we don’t expect or even want the Anglicans to leave. I have recently suggested that non-conformists are like the third wheel on a date, hoping that Evangelical Anglicans will leave their actual date, the Anglican liberals who they only seem to bicker with. Yet in reality, we have accepted that we will always be the third wheel but after all, the Anglican Evangelicals are paying for the meal. So, let’s not rock the boat.
Part of it also highlights a confusing inconsistency. I’ve not specified organisational unity, nor did Lloyd Jones. Yet, frequently, this came up in the discussion. The running theme was “we don’t need organisational unity to be with you and in fellowship with you.”. Fair enough, non-conformists don’t tend to worry about that. So when it was suggested that insisting an exclusive institutional membership was somehow cult like, this didn’t seem to me s major problem for the “cleave” side.
However, whilst insisting they don’t need organisational unity to enjoy the benefits of fellowship, of bring part of the one church with us other Evangelicals, my friend were insisting that they do need that organisational unity with Anglo-Catholics and liberals. So what do we have when the institution seems harder to leave than the EU?
My take on the leave and cleave questions
My view is that our priority should be to seek unity, fellowship and partnership with those who share our beliefs. I am with Martyn Lloyd Jones in that true unity is “unity in the truth.” Therefore, I believe that true unity is evangelical unity. This does not mean that I think Evangelicalism gets everything right in doctrine or practice. Nor do I think that people who are not Evangelical therefore cannot be believers. However, I am Evangelical because I believe Evangelical doctrine offers the best fit and best expression of the gospel and Biblical truth. I believe that other approaches, especially liberalism and forms of Catholicism to be in error, even if there may be aspects of truth within them. However, I get on with other individuals personally and whatever their personal state, I have to think about what it means for a local church to partner with error.
Now at one level, you might respond to that by saying “fair enough, so just partner with the Evangelical Anglican churches and don’t worry abut the rest of the CofE. If you refuse to do this, you are described pejoratively as separatist. I think this reflects the way in which separatists were historically seen as those who kept themselves well away from those in mixed denominations out of what seemed a kind of fear of being contaminated by contact with someone who has been in contact with a liberal. I hope that it is possible to see that the case is somewhat different, especially when it comes from those of us who have spent most of our lives attempting to partner with our Anglican brothers and sisters.
So, first of all it is worth saying that if I see myself as having true unity with my Anglican brothers and sisters then I will care enough about them not to endorse and encourage them in their error. That’s why Martyn Lloyd Jones as a spiritual doctor offered a diagnosis and a prescription. I cannot keep watching as Anglican Evangelicals continue to be caught in the horrific mess that is the current Church of England.
I think that some of us have held back for so long, is not because we didn’t think the red lines had still to be crossed. Rather, it was that what we were told by Evangleical Anglicans was that they were staying in to fight, to reform the church, to remove the wolves. However, we are still to see any signs of this or even a plan to do this. Sadly, what we have seen is frequent attempts at accommodation, of being able to stay in with special provisions but allowing the wolves to do what they want as long as they don’t interfere with the Evangelical bit. The problem is that when this is the case, we don’t have a shep fold anymore, rather, we are simply helping to set out the tables at the wolves’ restaurant.
Secondly, we have misunderstood the nature of the CofE acting as though de-facto independency is possible. It isn’t. The Church of England’s own understanding of what it is means that the church is the whole denomination. It’s bishops who have the authority to exercise disciple, who are ultimately responsible for teaching and who confirm the faith of members. A church cannot walk away without losing its building. There is a sense in which they are trapped. What this means is that we cannot partner with a local Evangelical Anglican Church without being directly yoked with everything else coming with that. This isn’t about a form of hyper/second degree separation.
And so, first of all, I think that if we are serious about being joined together, evangelicals cannot continue to accept the status quo. This is both because we care about our brothers and sisters to warn them that they need to leave, even if that is an unpopular message. It also means that we are clear that it is right and legitimate to insist on an exclusive relationship, where we aren’t the third wheel and where there aren’t rivals for that unity.
I believe that there are ways in which Evangelical Anglicans can leave the current Church of England whilst remaining Anglican. We should focus on helping those who wish to do so.
[1] See extracts here Against Heresies: Evangelical Unity: An Appeal (extracts from the address given by Martyn Lloyd-Jones at the second National Assembly of Evangelicals, 18th Oct 1966)
—
I’m not planning to make further public comment on this matter as in many ways it doesn’t really affect me or our own local context much.
I did write a follow up, not intended as an opinion piece about what I think should happen but about what I think might happen. It was scheduled for next week but following the reaction in some quarters to this article I’ve decided not to publish it at least for the time being. If anyone would like a copy, please feel free to contact me below and I’ll send it to you.
Faithroots 