William Taylor recently gave a presentation to his church about the C of E and how he believes evangelicals ought to respond to challenges in the established denomination. The presentation has been made available online and is being promoted by St. Helen’s Bishopsgate on social media. It can be found here.
William has formal and informal leadership responsibilities across a wide range of organisations that impact on the evangelical world – so careful evaluation of his teaching is important. His influence and how people respond to it will inevitably impact many organisations – not least Church Society, AMiE, GAFCON, FIEC and Gospel Partnerships.
A few initial reflections from a Free Church of England rector in Tunbridge Wells on the presentation from the Church of England rector in Bishopsgate:
1. William gives a concise and hard hitting summary of the decline of orthodoxy in the established church. Whereas many are now afraid to call out the national church for its toleration and promotion of heterodoxy, William is bold and clearsighted in doing so. He should be commended for doing this, and his analysis deserves to be taken seriously. He is surely right in explaining the relationship between doctrinal decline and ethical chaos. He is prescient in warning that if our generation is unwilling to contend against false teaching, then our children will be liberals. Many could take a leaf out of Williams’s book in being so clear, faithful and challenging as regards the toleration of false teaching.
2. William addresses head on the fact that some ministers and congregations have already, or are in the process of considering, leaving the established denomination. As a minister who has transplanted a ministry out of the Church of England into the Free Church of England, I appreciate the willingness of William to discuss the possibilities and reasons for such a move. Again, many are hoping to avoid having the conversation – William’s forthrightness is helpful. In Evangelicals Now Sept 2018, I argued that evangelicals ought to not be ‘Silent Anglicans’ but rather ought to have a debate about what is to be done. William enables such a conversation to occur by making his views public. He should be commended for that.
3. Two matters, one’s Doctrine of Church (ecclesiology) and one’s view of Buildings are specifically highlighted as significant in determining a course of action. William said in the Q & A:
‘Those who are leaving often have a ecclesiology which is very different from what I articulated as a Biblical ecclesiology, or they feel – to be honest – that the buildings are a bit of a hindrance to us and it doesn’t really matter.’
These two matters are thus suggested by William as requiring careful consideration and study, and were indeed spoken about in his main presentation. We turn then to reflect upon them.
4. Ecclesiology
a. William argues that there are only two aspects of church which are biblical – the local congregation and the universal church (that is, all believers and angels throughout all time)
b. The concept of any intermediary structure – such as a ‘denomination’ is rejected. William said
‘There is no such thing in the Bible as denomination – it just doesn’t exist.’
This is of course accurate as an observation – but only in the sense that the ‘Trinity’ is not in the Bible.
c. William argues that the denomination can be viewed as a secular organisation:
‘The Church of England can claim validity, and we should recognise it as valid on two levels: One, a secular body. It owns a lot of property, it dishes out the property – an estate agent, a golf club. You know, it’s just a kind of secular body held together like Southwark Council. It’s also a spiritual body, insofar as the Church of England holds to the gospel. But insofar as it doesn’t – well it’s irrelevant.’
This creates a situation where if the denomination supports what a particular presbyter thinks is needed for gospel ministry – it can be recognised. So money and buildings can be accepted. But wherever there are problems in the denomination’s teaching or practices – it can be ignored. This is a very pragmatic approach to denomination – though to be sure William tries to present it as theologically thought through and Anglican.
d. Church History is used to defend William’s idea that the local congregation (or a homegroup) is to be approached as the true church – while the denomination can be viewed as a secular organisation such as a golf club or local council, when convenient. The problem is that the evidence adduced to support his view is mishandled:
i. So the first half of Article 19 is quoted to defend the idea that the local congregation is the church. But this interpretation of the first half is not credible since in the second half of the very same Article, the word ‘church’ is applied to denominations such as the ‘Church of Rome.’ As with Bible handling, context determines the interpretation of words.
ii. William claims Anglican divine Richard Hooker agrees with him:
‘Richard Hooker 1554-1600 – listen to this – “The truth is a particular congregational church is the highest tribunal to which an aggrieved party may appeal. If difficulties arise in the proceedings the counsel of other congregations may be sought … but the power of censure rests still in the congregation where Christ placed it.” So some say ‘Oh William – this line of ecclesiology you are taking means you are just a congregationalist.’ No – this is Anglican ecclesiology.’
The problem is that those who feel the sentiments here described as ‘Anglican ecclesiology’ have a rather congregationalist feel to them would be quite correct. The quote used is not from Richard Hooker – it is lifted from Thomas Hooker, a puritan congregationalist minister. The quote can be found cited in ‘A View of Congregationalism: Its Principles and Doctrines, by George Punchard, p. 106.
e. Given the importance of the matters being discussed, listeners will have to evaluate for themselves whether partial and misattributed quotations are an adequate basis for William’s unique take on Anglican ecclesiology.
5. Buildings:
William argues in the Q & A that those who leave the Church of England feel ‘that the buildings are a bit of a hindrance.’ By this he seems to be saying that congregations leave the Church of England because it makes life and ministry easier. Doubtless that is in some ways true – but I for one having made the move myself find it very hurtful to have an evangelical minister make this comment. The sacrifices made by families leaving vicarages, and congregations leaving much loved buildings are considerable – they are reputational, emotional, financial, practical and costly. Families may have to spend less time together in order to fund new housing arrangements, ministers are taking pay cuts, people are getting up early to lay out equipment for services. This and much more is being done – not to make ministry easier, or to avoid the price of staying in a provided building. I am struck that liberals in the denomination and secular media display empathy and understanding of this point.
6. Implications of all this will need to be pondered by others over time. The views William commends will shape the ability of Renew – and those organisations associated with it (Church Society and AMiE) to deliver their vision. The arguments William makes pave the way for him to announce that his church will be in broken or impaired fellowship with the House of Bishops – treating them as merely a secular organisation on the level of a local council or golf club. The problems with this are at least two fold. If the theology and vision such a move is based upon are faulty, it will lack spiritual as well as temporal power. Spiritually – God will not bless it. Temporally – no practical solutions to succession, curacies, finances or ordinations will be forthcoming.
7. I have long been frustrated at the lack of a debate among evangelicals over these important matters. I am therefore grateful to William for having the courage to share his own vision for the future so openly, so that it can be debated and evaluated. Doubtless others will be able to do with more depth and precision than I can, in this initial off the cuff reflection.
More importantly do bishops matter? We send 10-20 percent to the diocese for what? Salaries? One is hard pressed to find a bishop protecting the faith. Most spend their time globe trotting and throwing rocks at the faithful. If the laying on of hands is important at confirmation wouldn’t it be more effective and thrifty paying $500 per catechumen instead of the 10-20 percent? And, why do evangelicals think they are automatically orthodox? In some ways ACNA claims orthodoxy by not being TEC and not loudly proclaiming, affirming, and adoring nasty sex from the pulpit.
In this respect I agree with ++Beach that a big hindrance to a flourishing orthodoxy in the CofE is the tribalism of the evangelicals and catholics, neither will seriously work with each other. This is where ACNA got it right and is growing exponentially with nearly 1000 church plants, an agreed ministry, catechism, liturgy, etc. I believe that if the supernaturalists (as Lewis called the ‘orthodox’) worked together as brothers and sisters in Christ we could turn around the virus of liberalism within the CofE without creating a parallel version of Anglicanism locally. With regards to his view that the Bible does not validate denominationalism I believe that William is half-right but as an evangelical he does not give enough credence to the apostolic origins of bishops as successors to the Apostles. I think one can also talk of traditions and patrimonies existing within a global Church. Also, on a technicality I am told (but I could be wrong) that there is no legal body called the ‘The Church of England’, there are simply 43 diocese out of communion with other parts of universal Church.
Perhaps if we change the perceptions of denominations. We say then we are Christians who worship in an Anglican tradition, or Christians who worship in a Baptist tradition. We are Christians who are Charismatic in worship. The foundational beliefs of what makes one a Christian doesn’t not change, but how we express ourselves in worship of the one true God does. It always has bothered me when the focus is on a denominational identity. “I am an Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, etc……” We are Christians, worshipping in differing ways.
Hear, hear. Well said.
No there are distinctives in denominations that differentiate them. I am not Charismatic/Pentecostal however I can call a Charismatic/Pentecostal a brother or sister if as John 1:12 says they have received and believed in Jesus.
It is important here, I think to distinguish between the various church traditions that are identified by their heritage and basic theology and practices (Anglican, Baptist, Catholic) and the denominations (groups of congregations that share some form of higher governance). “Anglican” is not a denomination, but rather a description of all those denominations that share a heritage in the Church of England after the Reformation. Early in the 21st century, there were 63 distinct Anglican denominations in the United States alone. (I think there has been some amalgamation since, so perhaps down to 50 some now)
The point of the article, I think, it to demonstrate that while one can preach the truth in virtually any denomination, the denomination’s official doctrines, practices, governance and public statements have an impact on the local congregation or diocese. For example, if you look at orthodox TEC dioceses that stayed in TEC rather than exit for ACNA, you see that every time a bishop retires, he (or she, in the case of Geralyn Wolf) is replaced by someone more liberal/progressive. Bishops stop licensing orthodox clergy and dioceses stop funding orthodox projects. And the congregation must deal with the community assumption that the parish is representative of the TEC denomination when the name is on the door, and to some degree share its official doctrines (even if nowadays “official doctrine” changes every 3 years at GC).
“We are Christians, worshipping in different ways” is exactly what Justin Welby wants us to say- “progressive” theology with no Resurrection and no Hell, trans clergy, gay marriages are all just “different ways” of being Christian, in his point of view.
A timely article which I shall have to print off, as it covers the subject I wish to cover in our next few monthly home group meetings. The person who suggested it (an Anglican,) gave it the title ” Understanding Gods love for us, His world, and the mission of the Church..”
Our group consists in roughly equal parts Methodists and Anglicans, with a small sprinkling of Charismatics.
Anyway, as I began to consider this I indeed began to muse over the idea of the two Churches; the Church Temporal and the Church Spiritual. This makes sense (to me at least), because we are called by our Lord to be ‘in the world but not of the world.’
So as human beings we have to organise ourselves, provide buildings for meeting places and activities through which we demonstrate our faith.
So far so good.
The problem comes though when the issues over which we puzzled, wrangled and argued end up turning us into Denominations rather than the Church in our community.
Not only that but we become trapped in these denominations, tied to them by our buildings our offices, our staff, our insurances etc. A bit like how Jacob Marley was tied to a chain formed from his worldly priorities.
Not only is this a problem, but one also notices the denominational assumptions that creep into our group discourses. Those of us from non Conformist backgrounds have a very similar understanding of salvation, where others are more aware of the priest-laity divide and who is qualified to do what. It seems to me that Peter Salon’s article outlines the issues facing not just the Anglican Christian world but other denominations also.
However much “For the Parish” is maligned as an attack on Fresh Expressions I think it is well worth reading the parts of it that look at the value of having a distinctive building at the heart of a community. Those who have such buildings, if they use them to their potential, are well positioned to be a blessing to the community in a far different way than a church in a warehouse in an industrial estate on the edge of a city or that meets in a home.
I like how Peter compares “denomination” with “Trinity”. It is clear that a waiting Church requires creeds, a canon, denominations (even if only based on geography) and, most certainly, “overseers”. It is our nature to dislike people in authority, particularly if they have authority over us and we disagree with them. Heterodoxy and Heresy are there to be fought not to flee from–all the souls in and around those buildings need people who will continue to contend for the gospel even if the bishop or the denomination will not.
[…] em: <http://anglican.ink/2019/07/22/do-denominations-matter-to-anglicans-a-free-church-response-to-an-eva…>. Acesso em: 22 jul. […]
[…] Do denominations matter to Anglicans? A Free Church response to an Evangelical CoE argument by Peter Sanlon, Anglican Ink […]
Having been part of several congregations in the ACNA in the USA for over 10+ years, I can attest to the serious burden of having a lack of buildings. Having to rent space, and being there at the discretion of landlords (every church I was a part of at least a few times a year had to move their meeting place around–since the landlord wanted to use the usual space for something else….), & extensively setting up every week, is not at all ideal for a worshiping community.
If I were to advise church plants–it would be to make sure you have a large dedicated congregation to begin with (don’t plant anew with less than 40 or 50 adults), and seek to purchase and/or build as soon as is possible. Congregations languish and wane in rented spaces–as they lack permanence, and seemingly, commitment, by the parishioners. Having a physical home DOES make a difference!