C of E responses to Archbishop Welby’s letter: parishes vote ‘no confidence’, conservatives take him to task

Jun 22, 2017 by

by Barbara Gauthier (received by email)

The GAFCON announcement of next week’s consecration of Andy Lines as Missionary Bishop for Europe has generated surprisingly few responses outside the Church of England. Primus David Chillingworth of the Scottish Episcopal Church brushed off the announcement much as one would a fly buzzing around one’s sandwich at a picnic lunch: “I don’t think it will make very much difference here.”  And he predicted that Scotland would have few takers of whatever a “missionary bishop” might have to offer, stating most confidently that “the congregations which we have which will be giving serious thought to their position within this Church following this vote will do that on their own and in context of our relationships here.”

Those reactions from within the C of E focused exclusively on Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby’s letter denouncing the sending of a “missionary bishop” as a clear violation of Anglican canon law which forbids unwarranted and unwelcome “border crossings.”  Two parishes in the Diocese of Chelmsford responded immediately by passing motions of “no confidence” in what they called the “unbiblical leadership” of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishop of Chelmsford.   The motions were passed unanimously at one church and with only one vote against and one abstention at the other.  In addition to a declaration of “no confidence” one motion also included resolutions stating that they would “stand together with other like-minded brothers and sisters in Reform, New Wine and other constituencies” and they would “regard any ministers, who have walked away from orthodoxy by persisting in false teaching or false living, as no longer faithful Anglicans and as having broken fellowship with us, the outward expression of which breach we will determine in due course.”

Conservative commentaries that were posted shortly after ++Welby’s letter to the Primates was made public were less than laudatory in their assessment of ++Welby’s shortcomings, his secular (mis)management techniques and his refusal to uphold the faith once delivered and drive away all erroneous doctrine from the Church of England.
Lee Gatiss of Church Society, who has been quite outspoken in his support for ++Welby’s “good disagreement” plan, offered some candid reflections on ++Welby’s letter.  While GAFCON was hinting strongly that they might consecrate a missionary bishop for Scotland and AMiE earlier this spring, Gatiss was declaring to his evangelical colleagues that he intended to remain within the C of E, come what may.  He had also urged all biblically faithful Anglicans to do likewise and continue to proclaim the truth as the loyal opposition, whether it be received by the church at large or not.

Gatiss had also commended +Rod Thomas, the new evangelical Bishop of Maidstone, as the prime focus of evangelical strength in the Church of England and a model of “mutual flourishing” and “good disagreement.”   However, after the SEC vote to authorize gay marriage, +Thomas himself drew the line and decided to break rank with his fellow C of E bishops by declaring himself in a state of broken communion with the SEC bishops, who had turned away from Biblical truth and Christian doctrine.  While it might be possible for evangelicals to subscribe to a “good disagreement” on the role of ordained women in the life of the church, +Thomas said, such a compromise regarding the doctrinal redefinition of marriage would be utterly unthinkable.

After reading ++Welby’s letter, Gatiss agreed with +Thomas’ assessment, proclaiming that “this is not a matter on which there is room for friendly disagreement and continued fellowship, but one which involves obedience to clear biblical teaching, and which concerns the salvation of people’s souls. He added, “We cannot simply agree to disagree on these important theological issues, even if we have differences over tactical responses.”  If “good disagreement” is no longer a workable solution in matters of human sexuality, however, “it is entirely possible — biblically mandated in fact — for us to disagree without being disagreeable.”  Gatiss has not given up on the Church of England but he does pray earnestly that ++Welby will come to his senses and may yet “give us a better, more biblical, lead.”

Church of England layman Daniel Leafe has written perhaps the best response to ++Welby’s letter to the Primates, reflecting on how ++Welby’s way of proceeding is creating great distress for biblically faithful evangelicals.  Leafe cannot help but wonder what the Archbishop of Canterbury was thinking by condemning GAFCON’s decision to create a missionary bishop for Scotland.  Has ++Welby embraced TEC’s “schism is worse than heresy” mantra by loving institutional unity more than doctrinal truth?  In his careful analysis of +Welby’s letter, Leafe reveals that the Archbishop’s approach to truth is contextually cultural, relativistic and pluriform.  In fact, Leafe continues, it appears that ++Welby is “doing ‘good disagreement’ with himself, within his own head and between his own statements, or whether in fact anything is true at all.”

Leafe concludes that “if there were any residual doubts about the wisdom of the Primates’ decision to ordain Canon Andy Lines as a missionary bishop to Europe, such doubts are removed by this reaction from Canterbury.”   Canon Lines’ consecration is “timely and now essential” because as an orthodox bishop who does not have to minister within heterodoxy and who cannot can be used as a symbol of the success of heterodoxy, his “existence as well as ministry exposes [++Welby’s] lie that all things, save for institutional unity, are adiaphora .”   He ends by thanking the Primates, for they have truly “refreshed the hearts of the saints” and brought the gift of hope to evangelicals in the Church of England.

James Oakley pick up where Leafe leaves off.  Is schism the ultimate heresy for ++Welby?  He notes that “recent events in the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC) have led to big cracks opening up in the wider Anglican Communion.”  A house divided against itself cannot stand and the Archbishop of Canterbury rightly wants the Anglican Communion to stay together and  walk together in spite of profound disagreement.  These “latest events have left him having to work frantically to keep the Anglican Communion together” but at the same time “he’s also frantically paddling to stop the Church of England ship from cascading over the waterfall of outright division and schism.”
For Oakley, the most disturbing part of ++ Welby’s warning the Primates not to engage in “border crossings” is his failure to mention the proximate cause of said “border crossings” — the Scottish Episcopal Church’s change to the Canon 34 in expanding it to include gay marriage.  Oakley then asks, “What does all this show us about how Justin Welby sees things unfolding, and the kind of outcome he’s working for?  Here are his three observations:
1. ++Welby has failed to act by refusing to follow through on his promises made to the Primates at their January 2016 meeting in Canterbury.
2. The choice of timing for his letter is odd — after the GAFCON Primates promised to provide a missionary bishop but before the SEC vote.
3. His letter is highly critical of the prospect of Anglican primates consecrating a bishop to work in another province but there is not one word of censure for the actions of SEC.

The only possible conclusion is that, for the Archbishop of Canterbury, “it looks, superficially, that schism is the most serious sin.”  A clear signal is being sent out: “What SEC did is fine. They will not be censured on the basis of what the Anglican primates resolved in January 2016.”  What the GAFCON Primates is not fine because “border crossing” is a sin against institutional loyalty and it will lead to schism. Ironically, what ++Welby fails to see in all this is the reality before him “that, pending repentance, schism is unavoidable in the current Church of England.”

So what can ++Welby do to avert schism in his own church?  Oakley concludes that “it may be too late to keep the Church of England together, or at least to stop some groups of people and/or parishes from leaving. But the Archbishop of Canterbury has a choice.” As Oakley sees it, the Archbishop of Canterbury has two options before him:

Option 1: He could use his influence to aid and abet those who wish to lead the Church away from the one, true, catholic and apostolic church. If he does this, he will share with them the responsibility for the ensuing schism.

Option 2: He could use his influence to steer the Church of England firmly into orthodox waters, whilst leaving those who wish to leave such a church to do so. If he does this, he will share responsibility for preventing the Church of England from splitting from the worldwide Christian church, and he will have no responsibility for those who choose to secede from both.

Right now, Option 1 seems by far the more likely course of action, but it’s not too late.  ++Welby can still choose to return the C of E to its orthodox roots, but “it will require firm, decisive leadership that makes this clear to all.”  On the other hand, Oakley surmises, it may be that ++Welby is right after all, that “schism is the most serious sin,” but that actually depends on how one defines “schism”:  “If schism is to depart from Christ, his word, and his universal church,” Oakley admits, “then it is the most serious sin in all the world.”

General Synod meets again in a few weeks and it may be that in his presidential address, ++Welby will further clarify his position.  But then again, maybe not.

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

Help Anglican Mainstream uncover the truth!!!