Schismatic, Unnecessary, Unwise and Unfaithful - or Free to Leave?

This is the fifth in a series of personal responses to the Prayers of Love and Faith which seeks to address the issue of why the arguments against leaving the Church of England are not strong enough to bind the consciences of those seeking to leave.

The following is a personal reflection on the situation faced by many conservative evangelical clergy in the church of England after the introduction of the ‘Prayers of Love and Faith’ in December 2023. Specifically, I will seek to demonstrate that it is neither wrong nor unwise to leave the Church of England on the grounds of conscience. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not seeking to argue that staying within the Church of England is necessarily sinful or unwise, I am simply trying to make the case that leaving is neither unwise or sinful in the current situation.

In order to make this case I will first explain why leaving might be appropriate and then examine the various arguments which seek to show that leaving is either schismatic or that the concerns of those wishing to leave on conscience grounds are not valid.

The arguments I consider will be as follows  

1. Leaving is appropriate: no association with false teachers.

2. Leaving is schismatic: sexuality is a secondary issue, and so splitting over it is unwarranted.

3. Leaving is unnecessary: evangelical Anglican ecclesiology allows us to distance ourselves from false teachers without leaving the institution.

4. Leaving is unwise: it diminishes the strength of those staying in to contend – we’re stronger together.

5. Leaving is unfaithful: For a pastor to leave in the current situation is to act as a hired hand, abandoning faithful sheep to the false teaching wolves.

---

1.      The argument for leaving the denomination

The argument for leaving the Church of England is comparatively simple. It is the consistent witness of the New Testament that Christians must separate themselves from false teachers; those who claim to be Christians and yet preach another Gospel. Some of the relevant passages are as follows:

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 where Paul warns the Corinthians not be yoked with unbelievers, and calls them to separate from them.

Romans 16:17, 18 where Paul urges the Roman Christians to stay away from those who cause divisions and teach contrary to the apostolic faith.

2 John 9-11 where the apostle tells the church he’s writing to not to welcome anyone who does not continue in the teaching of Christ. To welcome such people is to “share in their wicked work.”

1 Corinthians 5:9-11 where Paul tells the Corinthians not to associate with anyone who calls themselves a brother/sister but Is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolator, a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler.

Titus 3:10 where Paul urges Titus to warn divisive individuals and then have nothing to do with them if they fail to heed the warning.

It is certainly true that the visible church has always contained individuals who teach falsely. The Church of England in the 20th Century provides more than its fair share of examples. When challenged by our non-conformist brethren about this, evangelicals within the Church of England have always responded that, whilst some bishops might teach falsehood, the foundations of the church remain sound, based as they are on orthodox doctrine and liturgy.

Sadly though, the current situation in the Church of England is far more serious than a few rogue bishops teaching falsehood. By their teaching and decisions the House of Bishops, with the consent of General Synod, has enshrined into the liturgy of the church, and by implications into its doctrine (casuistic protestations not withstanding), a grievous error which is in danger of excluding people from the kingdom of heaven (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

Further evidence that revisionist bishops have fallen into false teaching comes from the manner in which change has been pushed through. The duplicity and lack of transparency in the process has been breathtaking, with Synod being asked to approve prayers of blessing the legal standing of which is in doubt. Even the minimal safeguard achieved through the Cornes amendment [1] has been ignored, as there is an increasing recognition that the Prayers of Love and Faith are, at the very least, indicative of a change of doctrine, something which the Cornes amendment ruled out. Jesus taught his disciples that false teachers would be known by their fruit (see Matthew 7:15-20). The fruit of the LLF process provides strong evidence that those pushing for change have indeed fallen into false teaching.

If it is concluded that the house of bishops (the teaching authority in the Church of England) has fallen into false teaching then, prima facie, it seems wrong to constrain the conscience of those who wish to leave. Any argument that would seek to persuade those in my position not to take this step would need to show either that the changes in question are not of sufficient importance to warrant the accusation of false teaching, or that it is possible to obey the biblical injunctions to separate from false teachers and yet remain in the denomination.

I will now examine a number of these arguments:

2.      Leaving the denomination is schismatic

This argument is frequently adduced by those in senior positions of leadership in the Church of England. The driving concern here is to honour the words of Jesus in John 17, where he prays that those who believe in him would be one even as he and his Father are one. Sexuality, it is argued, is a secondary issue, unity is not. This line of thought is based on the conclusion that the recent changes in the Church of England stance on blessing gay relationships, does not constitute a ‘first order’ or ‘credal’ matter. It is therefore not right to divide over this disagreement. Instead we should work hard to maintain ‘good disagreement’, for visible unity is something worth sacrificing almost anything to attain. 

This argument has a number of weaknesses which I will now explore.

A creedal matter

Firstly it is by no means clear that the matter in hand is not creedal. Of course, formally there is no line in the creed which speaks directly into sexual ethics, and yet it is not a simple task to maintain a hard and fast demarcation between doctrine and ethics (and pastoral practice for that matter). As Alasdair Roberts has argued doctrine and ethic interpenetrate one another, such that the ethical life of the church is part of the form that orthodox doctrine takes. As the apostle James says, ‘Faith without works is dead’. The implication of this is that whilst formally the ethics of sexuality are not a creedal matter, functionally a departure from the bible’s teaching in this area has creedal implications. In rejecting the word of Christ in this area, revisionist teachers are rejecting his Lordship, as Christ exercises his rule through his word. Furthermore in departing from the historic biblical understanding, such teachers are rejecting the Unity, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity of the Church. This approach to doctrine and sexual ethics is not a novel one. For example Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary on Titus 3, argues,

 “... if a person were to maintain that God is not triune and one, or that fornication is not a sin, he would be a heretic.”[2]

Here, false teaching on sexuality is placed on the same level as false teaching on the Trinity – both are heretical. In a similar way Wolfhart Pannenberg argues that a church changing it’s teaching on marriage and sex ceases to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

“Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.”[3]

For these reasons, I’m convinced that creedal orthodoxy is indeed undermined by the current changes.

A first order issue

But even if we do not accept that sexual immorality is implicated in the creeds, there is clear New Testament teaching that issues pertaining to sexuality are considered first order issues i.e. issues that have implications for one’s salvation. It is clearly possible, therefore, that a (formally) non-creedal issue can be an issue of primary importance and therefore an area over which an ‘agree to disagree’ approach cannot be tenable.  

An Anglican view of unity

In addition the calls to unity made by senior church leaders often reveal an unbiblical and indeed un-Anglican view of unity. This view, which seems to have seeped into the Church of England, reverses the biblical and confessional order on which unity is based.

In the prayers for the church militant in the BCP Holy Communion service the minister prays the following: “beseeching thee to inspire continually the universal church with the spirit of truth, unity and concord.” The order of those last three words is important here. Truth comes first and is the basis of Christian unity. This unity is then expressed in concord between members of Christ’s body as they seek to serve and love one another.

Unfortunately the prevailing view of unity in the Church of England hierarchy reverses this order. Those within the denomination are called first to concord (or a typically English perversion of concord, namely ‘niceness’). This then forms the basis of unity, even across serious doctrinal difference; and it is the context in which the church discerns the truth that the Holy Spirit is communicating to this generation. Such a view of unity is both unbiblical and un-Anglican.

Unity in the scriptures, and in the Church of England’s confessional documents, is always rooted in the truth rather than in visible community harmony. The latter flows from the former not the other way round.[4]

This can even be seen clearly in John 17, the proof text used by those advocating visible unity at all cost. The unity for which Jesus prays, is a unity rooted in the apostolic message (see John 17:20). Given that unity is rooted in apostolic teaching, it is false teaching that creates schism, not the response of those who seek to distance themselves from it. If anyone can justly be called schismatic, it is those revisionists who have so clearly departed from the scriptures as understood by the church catholic for almost all its history. Leaving the Church of England because of this false teaching is therefore not schismatic but is rather one possible biblically faithful response to the current crisis.   

Dealing with the Donatists

One historical parallel often drawn is between those feeling the need to leave the Church of England and a  4th century group known as the Donatists. The Donatists split from the catholic church in North Africa and formed their own church. The history of the Donatist movement is complex and some scholars have argued that socio-economic factors played a greater part in the schism than theology did. Nevertheless, there were some theological issues in play. Chief among these seems to have been the Church’s response to bishops who handed over the scriptures in the face of persecution. When the persecution was over many of these wished to resume their position as bishops in the church. The Donatists argued that such bishops were apostate, that their orders were invalid, and that their sacramental efficacy had been compromised. The Catholic Church, in contrast were willing to readmit such bishops. In response the Donatists refused to be in fellowship not only with the readmitted bishops but with any churches that accepted their ministry or were led by those ordained by the readmitted bishops. This led necessarily to schism.

It is often argued that those leaving the church of England over the current sexuality debates are 21st century Donatists; being unbiblically rigorous, seeking to set up a ‘pure’ church untainted by the world and in doing so causing schism and division. On closer inspection, however, the comparison does not stand up as the respective ecclesiastical contexts makes any parallel between Donatists and those wanting to leave wholly untenable.

In the 4th century North African Church, the catholic church was the church. To leave it was therefore by definition to leave the church and found a new church in opposition to the catholic church. In contrast those wishing to leave the Church of England do so precisely out of their fidelity to the church catholic, who’s unity is found fundamentally not in institutional ties but in adherence to the apostolic deposit as understand by the catholic church. This is reflected in the fact that the vast majority of those who leave the Church of England end up ministering in existing church networks, most usually the FIEC or one of the ANIE (Anglican Network in Europe) convocations. In the latter example, there is a case for saying that those leaving the Church of England are more ‘Anglican’ than those who remain, given that the Anglican church in the majority world has largely distanced themselves from the Church of England over this issue but has embraced and supported both ACE (Anglican Convocation Europe) and AMIE (Anglican Mission in England) [5]. For these reasons the charge of Donatism is entirely unsustainable.

Validity of the sacraments

A slightly gentler version of this critique comes from those who argue that whilst many ministers in the Church of England (both bishops and clergy) are teaching falsehood; this does not invalidate the ministry of word and sacrament within the denomination. Given that the faithful ministry of word and sacrament constitutes the reformational definition of the church, the presence of such a ministry means that leaving on grounds of false teaching is not appropriate. This argument is linked with the Donatist controversy as the Donatists argued that the apostacy of church ministers made their sacramental ministry invalid and of no affect. Augustine countered that the efficacy of the sacraments depended not upon the character of the minister but upon God’s promise to communicate his grace through the forms of the sacrament. Sacramental grace could therefore be received even through an unworthy minister. Such an understanding is enshrined with the 39 articles of the church of England. It is worth quoting Article 26 in full:

ALTHOUGH in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.

Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed.[6]

Cranmer here shows a thoroughly Augustinian approach to the question of unworthy ministers, arguing that if the ministry of word and sacrament is received by faith then it is still effectual even if administered by evil men. It is on this basis that some who are conservative in their approach to questions of sexuality, nevertheless argue that it is right to remain within the Church of England.

This argument is not decisive for the following reasons.

Firstly, Cranmer and the group who drafted the articles were operating in a very different context. After the ecclesiastical vacillation of the Henrician regime, in Edward VI, the reformers finally had a monarch who was determined to enact their desired doctrinal reforms. With the articles and the new Book of Common prayer, the doctrine of the Church of England became thoroughly reformed. From a reformed perspective then the direction of travel was positive when the articles were drafted, (notwithstanding the disastrous and dramatic reversal that soon came about on the accession of Mary to the throne). In this context then the purpose of article 26 is not to encourage individuals to remain in a church which teaches falsehood. Rather it is addressed to those who are still under ungodly ministers despite the doctrinal reformation that has taken place. The article brings comfort to those in this situation by assuring them that if received by faith, then the ministry of word and sacrament is still effective despite the ungodliness of the minister. That a positive trajectory is in view can be seen from the second paragraph of the article. Those enduring the ministry of ungodly ministers are encouraged to hold on with the expectation that further reform will ensure that such ministers are tried and deposed from their positions.

In contrast, the current context could not be more different. Not only do ungodly ministers hold ministerial authority, but the teaching authority of the church has fallen into false teaching. Furthermore, the current trajectory is precisely the opposite. Humanly speaking there seems very little hope that ministers teaching falsehood will be deposed from their positions; how could they be when a majority of bishops agree with them? Unlike in the 1550s we are not now in a situation where doctrinal reform has been achieved and moral reform can be expected to follow. Rather doctrinal error has been formally  introduced into the teaching of the church precisely by those supposed to guard the flock. Whilst the content of Article 26 remains true, and individuals within the Church of England can and no doubt will continue to receive the ministry of word and sacrament through unworthy ministers, to use this article to bind the consciences of those who seek to leave is an untenable application of Article 26.

Secondly, if it is assumed that Article 26 does require conservatives to remain within the Church of England, then this line of argument proves too much for those who deploy it. How so? If the continued ability to receive word and sacrament from ungodly ministers even in the context of a denomination that has lapsed into false teaching constitutes a reason to stay in that denomination, then it is hard to see how the reformation would ever have happened. The moral failure of the clergy had been a perennial issue throughout the medieval period, calling forth a number of reform movements, the majority of which remained within the Roman church. The 16th Century reformers’ critique of Rome, was however, not at root moral but doctrinal. In departing from the apostolic deposit as faithfully taught by the church catholic, the reformers were convinced that the Roman church had lost its way. When calls for doctrinal reformation fell on deaf ears, leaving the Roman church was, according to the reformers, the only way to maintain continuity with the church Catholic.

Do those arguing from article 26 really wish to assert that Luther, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, Cranmer and Bullinger et al were wrong to leave the Roman church on the grounds that the ungodliness of ministers does not nullify the ministry of word and sacrament? That seems unlikely. What then, makes it appropriate for the above reformers to leave the Roman Church in the 16th century, but inappropriate for conservatives to leave to Church of England in the 21st century?

Unless those arguing on the basis of Article 26 are willing to say that the current doctrinal errors are not as serious as those of the medieval Roman church, then their argument to stay should also be applied to censor the very reformer who wrote the article in question. Given that neither of these options (criticising Cranmer or downgrading sexuality to a secondary matter) is palatable for those arguing in this way, Article 26 cannot be used as a way to bind the consciences of those who wish to leave.  

3.      Leaving the denomination is unnecessary

This view maintains that leaving is unnecessary because it is entirely possible to maintain biblical separation from false teachers whilst remaining within the denomination.

A two-fold ecclesiology

In its stronger form, this view contends that leaving the Church of England due to concerns with false teaching within the denomination stems from an ‘unbiblical ecclesiology’, as biblically speaking there are only two levels of church; the local and the universal. Denominational structures, therefore, in no way imply Christian fellowship, biblically speaking, meaning that it is possible to separate from false teachers without leaving the denomination.

Key to this view is that it is possible to sharply distinguish a ‘spiritual’ sphere in the church from a ‘legal’ or ‘institutional’ sphere. Because denominational links (including those with diocesan bishops) fall into the ‘legal’ or ‘institutional’ sphere, it is possible to remain denominationally connected to false teachers without this implying spiritual fellowship. A possible analogy for this position is relationship of the church to the civic authorities, where it is possible for Christians to live in an ungodly and anti-Christian state. Submitting to false teaching bishop, as far as it is biblically licit, is therefore analogous to submitting to ungodly civic authorities.

From a historical perspective ,this distinction between the institutional and spiritual aspects of the denomination is a novel application the reformation ‘two kingdoms’ doctrine, traditionally used to distinguish between the authority of the civic magistrate and that of the church.

From a confessional perspective, Article 19 of the 39 Articles is often adduced to defend the twofold ecclesiology of local church and universal church. The article states that, “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.” According to proponents of the ecclesiology described above, the word congregation here refers to individual local congregations.

A number of responses can be made here. It is not immediately clear that the above view of the church as existing on only two levels can be biblically maintained. In both Acts and the NT letters there is evidence of embryonic church structures that exist between the level of the individual congregation and the universal church. So, for example, Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders across the whole island of Crete. Many of Paul’s letters are written not to individual congregations but to all Christians meeting in a city or province. The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 is another example of this phenomenon. Whatever theological status one gives to such structures, it does seem an exaggeration to say that in the NT the church exists only at two levels.

However, even if it were admitted that the above analysis of the church is correct, there remain a number of issues as to how this interacts with the current crisis in the Church of England.

Firstly, it seems an odd argument for someone within the Church of England to make. The Church of England has been historically committed to the 3 fold order of ministry (bishops, priests and deacons), and because of its belief in a distinctive episcopal ministry has, throughout its history, considered itself to be more than simply a collection of loosely united congregations. For someone to use what is in effect a congregationalist ecclesiology as an argument to remain within the Church of England is somewhat ironic to say the least.

Nor can Article 19 be used to argue that this twofold ecclesiology is valid within a confessionally Anglican framework. The word ‘congregation’ used in this article cannot refer simply to single local congregations. This is clear from the second part of the article which reads as follows

“As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred; so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.”

The Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome mentioned here, clearly cannot refer simply to individual congregations, but groups of congregations under the episcopal oversight of a bishop (or multiple bishops). Given the commitment to episcopacy in the 39 Articles, as well as the mention of these historic churches, it seems untenable to suggest that ‘congregation’ here refers simply to one local congregation.   

Spiritual partnerships

Secondly, and more substantively, even if this twofold ecclesiology is accepted as being faithful to the biblical view of church, that does not negate the need to grapple with the reality of spiritual partnerships that extend more broadly than the local congregation as a result of one’s denominational position. Whatever the biblical ideal, the current ecclesiological arrangements undoubtedly put ministers in a spiritual partnership with their diocesan bishop at the very least (and arguably through their diocesan with the whole house of bishops).

The clearest evidence of this is the way pastoral ministry is construed within the Church of England. Whenever an incumbent is inducted into a parish or benefice, they are given ‘the cure of souls’ ie authority and responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the parish. This cure of souls however is not something that the bishop relinquishes to the incumbent. Rather the bishop remains the chief pastor, and shares the cure of souls with the incumbent. There is in some sense, then, a delegation of spiritual authority which the bishop ultimately retains by virtue of their office. This dynamic works itself out in a number of ways. So, for example, if a bishop is present at a communion service, they are entitled and expected to pronounce the absolution and the final blessing. In addition it is expected that any priest wishing to excommunicate a parishioner will first gain the permission of their diocesan. Furthermore the appointment of ministers within the diocese (and therefore the local congregation) is within the Diocesan Bishop’s gift.

These three examples, (pronouncing absolution and blessing, permitting excommunication, and appointing ministers) cannot be relegated to a purely institutional or legal sphere in distinction to a spiritual sphere. All three examples clearly pertain to the spiritual governance of the church; to maintain that no spiritual partnership exists between an incumbent and their diocesan bishop when they share these spiritual functions is to my mind untenable. Even a declaration by an incumbent that they no longer consider themselves in spiritual partnership with their diocesan bishop or an incumbent setting up an informal arrangement of spiritual oversight with an alternative ‘overseer’ (as is being encouraged by CEEC) does not negate the reality that a spiritual partnership continues to exist between diocesan and incumbent regardless of the incumbent’s intention, desires or words. For these reasons it seems difficult to argue that there is not some kind of spiritual partnership existing between incumbent and their diocesan.

Furthermore, the notion that a hard and fast dichotomy exists between spiritual and institutional spheres, has a number of problems. Whilst the bible does make distinctions between different realms (eg between the civic and ecclesiastical realms) the idea that this distinction can be easily imported into the church is hard to sustain. Furthermore institutional realities have spiritual impacts and to pretend otherwise is naïve and dangerous. In this instance, for example, an institutional policy of permitting the blessing of sexual relationship which the bible does not permit, will sear the conscience of many tempted in this area making it exceptionally hard for ministers within the institution to call people to repentance over sexual sin. Why, they might ask quite understandably, should we listen to you when your own church is willing to bless what you still call sin.

What's more, the exegetical gymnastics needed to come to a revisionist position will inevitably bring the clarity of scripture into question, further dulling people’s hearts to the call of Christ in his word.

There is also the danger that orthodox ministers who stay in the church may too find themselves slowly compromising on this issue, in order to retain the favour and undoubted benefits of being in good standing with the institutional hierarchy. Whilst this will not be the case for every orthodox ministers, those who having prayerfully examined their own conscience, decide that they need to leave the institution, should not be criticized for ‘letting the side down’ but should go with prayers and blessing of those who decide to stay.   

4.      Leaving is unwise

This argument is often made by those who hold similar theological convictions to those wishing to leave, and is based on the idea that we are stronger together. Anyone leaving, therefore unwisely hands more power to those seeking to further change the doctrine of the Church of England.

This argument was vividly illustrated on an evangelical Facebook group after the very tight vote in Synod to green light PLF. In a somewhat unedifying exchange one poster commented how grateful he was that no-one from AMiE (an English Anglican group outside the Church of England) had said ‘I told you so’ in reference to the Synod vote. In response another commentator observed that perhaps if those in AMIE had not left, the vote would not have succeeded.

One popular metaphor that has been used in this context is that of the flotilla. The orthodox in this analogy are likened to a flotilla seeking to steer through the icy waters of the current crisis. Much better, it is argued, to all stick together rather than go sailing off piecemeal in different directions. A further analogy attributed to Archbishop Justin Badi is that of the snake in the house. If you see a snake in your house, you don’t run away and abandon the house. Rather you call in your neighbors to help you kill the snake. These analogies make a common point. It’s much better, from a strategic point of view, to stick together and stay rather than abandoning the Church of England in piecemeal fashion.

A number of responses can be made to this line of argumentation.

Strategy

First, strategy must take second place to conviction and conscience. It is never right to go against biblical convictions or our conscience on the grounds that it might be strategically prudent to do so. The place for such strategic prudence comes after we have come to a settled conscience based on biblical convictions. If that settled conscience is saying that it is right to leave the Church of England, then questions of strategy are strictly irrelevant when it comes to making that decision. From a personal point of view I have often been deeply frustrated at how easy it is to talk past one another when discussing this question of strategy. I’ve been in a number of conversations where others have argued that we need to stay in the Church of England for strategic reasons, while I have been arguing that such reasons are wholly irrelevant for someone in my situation.

But even with that said, there’s still a case to made that staying is not the wisest thing to do. So for example, in the Facebook exchange referenced above it seems likely that even had the PLF vote been defeated in Synod (due to the presence of a few extra orthodox synod reps) another mechanism would have been found to get something similar (or worse) through, either via Synod or extra-synodical means.

Furthermore, the two analogies above have a number of weaknesses. With the flotilla analogy the argument cuts both ways. If it is better the stick together, then surely leaving together is logically just as sensible a strategy as staying together. Indeed given the trajectory of the Church of England it might be argued that a clean break at this stage is strategically prudent so that we avoid some the piecemeal departure from ECUSA that was so painful for the Anglican church in America.

Snakes

The second analogy attributed to Justin Badi, is wholly applicable in the context of the GFSA group and its approach to global Anglicanism. Given that the Orthodox form the majority in the Anglican communion and are the only parts of the communion that are growing (in contrast to the shrinking largely liberal western churches) a determination to stay and ‘kill the snake’ is entirely appropriate. The situation within the Church of England is different however. To stretch the metaphor (to breaking point) in the Church of England we have a rampant infestation of snakes (false teachers) who rather than being killed (excommunicated) by those whose job it is to guard the house (the bishops), are instead being welcomed in and encouraged to build their nests. The children of the house (churchgoers) are then being told that snakes are perfectly safe, that they don’t bite and aren’t poisonous. Those who warn against the snakes are labelled as dangerous and dismissed as bigoted and divisive. In such dire circumstances leaving the house and moving to a different one seems the prudent thing to do!

In summary then it is at least doubtful that, even on the secondary grounds of strategic prudence, staying is the wisest course of action.

5.      Leaving the church of England is unfaithful

I have left this point of view until last, because, to my mind it is the strongest objection to leaving the Church of England. Its strength resides both in its biblical grounding and the emotional heft it has for those who have been called to be under-shepherds of Christ’s flock. The primary rationale for this point of view is based on one's understanding of John 10 and the distinctive role of pastors in the church.

Given that it is the pastors job to resist the wolves who are trying to devour the sheep, (in this case false teachers pushing a revisionist approach to sexuality), to leave the Church of England, except if forced out, would be to fail in this calling and become a ‘hired hand’ who runs away when the wolves come. A pastor who leaves the Church of England is, therefore, unfaithful to their pastoral call.

This objection has incredible emotional and indeed moral force for those contemplating leaving the Church of England, as it focuses the discussion not upon distant bishops, diocesan structures, or the right interpretation of certain passages of scripture, but upon the impact that any decision will have upon the Christians currently under the pastor’s care within the Church of England.

Despite the emotive strength of this argument and its grounding in John 10, there are a number of crucial weaknesses which tell against it.

The identity of the good shepherd

First there is a question as to whether John 10 can be applied appropriately in this way. Key to his argument is the identification of those who leave the Church of England with the category of the ‘hired hand’ in John 10. It is worth quoting the relevant passage in full

 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep." (John 10:11-13 NIV)

The primary purpose of the ‘hired hand’ metaphor is as a contrast with what Jesus, the good shepherd will do. Presumably Jesus’ listeners would have been familiar with the category of the ‘hired hand’ and would have made the obvious link. Jesus as the ‘owner’ of the sheep cares for them in a way that a hired hand does not. A hired hand runs away whereas Jesus stays and dies for the sheep.

There are a number of problems with drawing a straight line from the ‘hired hands’ to those who leave the Church of England. It is by no means clear that Jesus’ teaching here is aimed at questions of church leadership. Whilst Jesus does make a contrast between himself and those who have gone before, this is primarily a historical reflection on Israel’s past leadership not didactic instruction on the future leadership of God’s people.

Taken in its fullness, the metaphor of the hired hand does not map on well to pastoral ministry in the church context. The two reasons the hired hand runs away are ‘because he does not own the sheep’ and because he ‘cares nothing for the sheep.’ In pastoral ministry no-one in leadership ‘owns’ the flock but that certainly does not make them hired hands. Furthermore, the notion that those willing to leave the Church of England ‘care nothing for the sheep’ is manifestly untrue. If this was the case, then ironically the above argument would not carry such emotional weight.

The broader context of the shepherd/sheep metaphor also makes it difficult to draw straight lines between Jesus’ teaching and a current-day pastoral system. Jesus speaks of, “other sheep not of this sheep pen,” that he will bring into the flock, a reference to the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Instructive for the current discussion is the language of flock and sheep pen. In the passage’s context there is no hint that these terms are being used to describe local congregations of believers, let alone denominations. Rather the language used seems to apply better to the church as a whole, the universal church with its ‘one shepherd’ the Lord Jesus Christ.

The role of the under-shepherd

Aside from these exegetical concerns, a number of other factors rebuff the claim that those who leave the Church of England are acting as hired hands. Among these is the primary function of an under-shepherd of Christ’s flock, namely to feed Christ’s sheep or in the words of Psalm 23 to lead them into green pastures. Those leaving the Church of England have become convinced that, for them at least, it has become impossible to carry out this function in good conscience within the denomination. Surely, it is best in this situation for pastors to acknowledge this and act accordingly either by leading their congregation out of the Church of England, or by trusting God to provide an under-shepherd who is in good conscience still able to lead the flock within the current church structures. The alternative is for the conflicted pastor is to go on ministering in the Church of England, against the better judgement of his conscience, something which Paul calls sinful in Romans 14:23.

In addition there is also the rather banal but surely relevant observation that pastors change jobs all the time and no one views this as a dereliction of their pastoral duty. Taken to its logical conclusion, the above argument would seem to put us in the rather odd position where those leaving their congregation and moving outside the Church of England on the grounds of conscience are labelled ‘hired hands’ whereas those leaving their congregation to go to another congregation within the church of England, for other likely less weighty reasons, are given a free pass.

God's sovereign care

Finally, and perhaps most importantly in this matter, God remains in sovereign control over his flock. He does not need any one of us, pastor or not, to accomplish his good purposes for his people. No minister is indispensable because, ultimately we are under shepherds, not the Good Shepherd of the flock. As Jesus goes on to say in John 10 “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.  I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.”

Conclusion:

Schismatic, Unnecessary, Unwise and Unfaithful.

These are the four charges often laid against those who leave the Church of England over issues of sexuality. Whilst I in no way wish to bind the consciences of those who believe it is right to stay, none of those charges are robust enough to bind the consciences of those wishing to leave. It is my hope and prayer that evangelicals wrestling with these weighty matters will bear with one another in love and treat gently those who have come to the opposite conclusion. To quote the words of Anglican Futures :

“We are convinced that the greatest challenge for our generation is not, ‘How do we respond to heterodox church leaders?’, but the holiness with which we treat our brothers and sisters whose conscience leads them to take a different path.”

Lord have mercy.  

[1] In February 2023, Rev Andrew Cornes proposed a motion endorsing the House of Bishops view that, “the final version of the Prayers of Love and Faith should not be contrary to or indicative of a departure from the doctrine of the Church of England”. It passed in all three Houses of General Synod.

[2] "Commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus" 

[3] Wolfhard Pannenberg, Should we support Gay Marriage

[4] Even more worryingly, at the recent Lambeth conference, Archbishop Welby appeared to justify this view of unity amid difference by arguing that it was in fact a reflection of the Godhead.

https://www.anglicanfutures.org/post/lambeth-2022-being-reconciled-to-the-true-god

This is simply the latest manifestation of an unhelpful trend in contemporary theology where current social relations are justified by reference to the Trinity. As with many other examples of such ‘social trinitarianism’ trying to sanctify the current divisions within the church of England by reference to the three persons of the Trinity verges on Tritheism. Are we really supposed to believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are capable of disagreeing with one another being held together only by their mutual self-giving love? Any appeal to Jesus’ ordeal in the garden of Gethsemane to support this position mislocates the ‘disagreement’ evidenced here in the divine nature of the son, rather than correctly ascribing it to his human nature. Jesus in other words possesses two wills, as a function of possessing two natures, the Godhead possesses only 1 will and is therefore incapable of disagreement.    

[5] The Anglican Network in Europe is an Associate Member of the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans https://www.thegsfa.org/about-us

[6] Article 26, Articles of Religion | The Church of England

Many thanks to Roan Lavery from Unsplash for the image

---

Anglican Futures offers practical and pastoral support to faithful Anglicans

If you would like to hear more:

subscribe to our regular emails

at http://eepurl.com/him4BT