I’ve just watched this video by a guy called Rev Dan. It’s about why he believes that not only should he stay in the Church of Engand but you (if you belong to the CofE) should do too.
Now, I’ve got a lot of time for Dan, and people like him. In fact, I quite like him. He’s concerned for the Gospel, for the church and for taking God’s Word seriously. I suspect we share a lot of common ground both theologically and missiologically.
However, his video message sadly has a lot of problems and so sadly I have to say, I believe he ends up giving himself and others faulty, dangerous even, advice. Those are strong words and if he should pick up on my article, I hope he won’t take too much offense. Let me explain why I say them though.
First of all, it seems that when Dan encourages people to stay in the Church of England, he primarily has in mind vicars and presumably other members of the clergy. He thinks that they have a job to do. However, those words are also going to be heard by church members and he doesn’t tell them what to do when their own parish church is apostate, when false teachers or wolves have taken control. Are they being asked to stay?
Secondly, he talks much about the obedience to God and that’s very much through the prism of personal calling, which is rather subjective isn’t it. A vicar may feel a personal call to stay in the Church of England but even if we accept the concept of internal calling, we would surely expect there to be some kind of external call as well. That’s where the problem lies. An external call to serve needs to be by a true church. The Church of England in its 39 Articles defines the church as “a congregation of faithful people”. Arguably, the CofE no longer fits even its own criteria to be a true church. This is also important too because Rev Dan doesn’t seem to have thought through the implication of his claim that the obedient thing to do is to stay and insistence that vicars are bound by their calling.
Thirdly, Dan seems to be unclear or confused. He talks a lot about being able to continue to serve and witness because you are still within the apostolic and catholic church. He also talks about the importance of maintaining faithful ministry and witness otherwise it might be lost. This, as well as presuming that the Church of England remains part of the holy and catholic church (when Anglican provinces around the world are rapidly concluding that it does not and so that they cannot be in fellowship with it), this kind of talk seems to minimise the reality that there are plenty of other believers grouped into congregations that are not part of the Church of England but are part of the apostolic and catholic church in the proper sense of those words.
This means that not only is it wrong to presume that people will be left un-shepherded and communities without a Gospel presence and voice, it also means that in terms of calling and accountability to calling, there is a true apostolic and catholic church to be held accountable to, not through the bishops of the Church of England. This also means that those of us outside of the CofE have a fraternal responsibility to make clear that the right thing to do is to leave. Unfortunately, I think a lot of non Anglicans are nervous and don’t think they have permission or authority to do this.
My fourth concern is that whilst I’ve heard a couple of Dan’s podcasts and like I said, I suspect we would share much in common theologically, what I observe, not just from him but from others is that when the subject gets personal, core hermeneutical and exegetical principles fall by the wayside. So, in this case, Dan ends up arguing that people should stay in the Church of England because Daniel stayed in Babylon, Jesus spoke in the Synagogues and people weren’t told to leave the churches in Revelation. He has treated the current situation in the Church of England as directly comparable to the situation in 2nd Temple Judea, ancient Babylon during the exile and with the churches in Revelation. Yet, it is obvious that those cases are not equivalents.
The Babylonian Empire is comparable if anything to the World. Daniel found himself in exile, away from home and there got on with serving God amongst a pagan people. Indeed, he and the exiles learnt that they could still be God’s people away from the land, buildings like the temple and the structures and institutions of Judea. Synagogues are not the same as churches either but clearly for Jesus were simply places to engage and meet with people to bring the good news of his kingdom. Furthermore, Jesus was turning up as the rightful prophet, priest and king. As for the churches in Revelation, Jesus’ words are addressed to local congregations, which assumes that at least those are places still listening to, still in relationship with him and the apostles (or Scripture). In any case, candlesticks would be removed suggesting that decisions would have to come and further, Revelation 1-3 has much to say to local churches but not to a denomination. So, whilst I encourage Dan’s courage and passion for the Gospel and for God’s people, I believe he is wrong on this.
Faithroots 