Hope Church, a former Evangelical Church in Halifax has left the FIEC and become part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Evangelicals Now report on this here. I was already aware of this happening and it has been in process for some time.
Evangelicals Now have offered their own response here. Frankly it’s dreadfully weak. Yes, it is good for Evangelicals to be challenged about how Biblical we are. But this isn’t what has happened here. A small church in a needy area has left behind Biblical faith and done so on the slightest of pretexts. I am intrigued as to why EN are giving space to justify a departure from Biblical faithfulness when this would not have been offered to others such as Steve Chalke in the past?
The argument offered by Doug Clark is so weak as to be laughable. He offers “transubstantiation”, the idea that the bread and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Christ (note the Eastern Orthodox Church don’t use the term transubstantiation but do believe that the bread and wine change to become Christ’s body and blood). This is based on Jesus saying “this is my body”. That of course would make Jesus’ words a laughable nonsense. He spoke those words whilst holding bread and wine. He did not say “will become my body.” Given that the disciples could see him holding up the bread with his actual living, physical body, it is fairly obvious that Jesus was not making a literal statement and that in fact, he wanted to point his disciples to his actual coming sacrifice. It should be straight forward for Evangelical Now to identify the nonsense suggested by Clark for what it is.
Readers will note that separately I’ve been looking recently at the idea of Sola Scriptura. This is important in this context because you will note two things. First, Clark replaces the authority of Scripture with the authority of the Church as the guard rail in contradiction to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Of course that just leaves us debating who are the truth church. Clark claims that our traditions are only 500 years old, of course missing the point that the reformers frequently went back to the Patristics in their theological working. Secondly, there is a faux humility of at work that hides pride and arrogance. It was Clark and his church that uniquely managed to discover the error of the Evangelical Church.
EN also fail to ask more serious questions. How can a church shift so quickly, so seriously and with such minimalist, shallow thought? This surely raises questions about the level of influence that one or two people can have in smaller churches, especially where those are plants into needy areas (Hope Church was planted in 2018). It would also be reasonable to ask in terms of church plants about support given by people to help a plant get off the ground. So, I would be encouraging church planting networks to be considering the following.
- To what extent do terms and conditions for support/reviews look at doctrinal and ethical faithfulness not just numbers. Are we looking at the health of plants not just the size.
- How do planting movements, especially within an independent polity get the balance right so that there is accountability as well as a sense of autonomy? This is particularly crucial with small churches where one or two leaders can exercise influence
- Does training for planters cover all the risks and dangers?
It should grieve us that Halifax has lost an Evangelical witness though it is helpful to remember that the work of the Gospel isn’t dependent on any one person or church. There are a number of churches and church plants serving into Yorkshire and across the north of England and these would benefit from support. One practical way to do this is to partner with Medhurst ministries.
Faithroots 