C of E responses to Archbishop Welby’s letter: parishes vote ‘no confidence’, conservatives take him to task
by Barbara Gauthier (received by email)
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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
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.”