The word Anglican is one of those words in the English language which has to be combined with another one, to allow us to know what group within the wide range of manifestations of Anglicanism a speaker is referring to. It is used by a range of disparate and contrasting Christian groups which do not routinely agree with one another. The reason for using the word descriptively may have more to do with the group’s history than with its current theological position. The bodies which together make up such networks as ACNA (Anglican Church of N America) or GAFCON (Global Anglican Futures Conference) are groupings which may have members with little or no engagement with the classic expressions of the Anglican spirit. Many come together to express a fierce biblical fundamentalism and an almost obsessive preoccupation with sexual ethics. The two examples I have mentioned bring together Christian bodies that use the Anglican designation while simultaneously attacking other more mainstream Anglican groups for their believed ‘apostasy’ and deviation from a very conservative brand of ‘biblical orthodoxy’.
Not long ago, the badge of being Anglican was invariably a claim to something which involved membership of a cross-cultural international Christian body reaching across the world. That vision does, of course, still exist and is given some sort of expression at the Lambeth Conferences held in England every ten years. Sadly, this inclusive vision of what it means to be an Anglican Christian has become less dominant over the past decades. The fierce struggles to allow a conservative understanding of Christian marriage to define ‘true’ Anglicanism have weakened the wider Anglican vision which seeks to hold together a variety of Christian beliefs within a single body. That struggle continues, but the casualty of this struggle has been a serious weakening of the wider church. It is hard to share a Christian message of peace, healing and reconciliation when the main energy for your existence comes from a bitter, even obsessive, objection to the way that one minority group in society wishes to express and live out their understanding of marriage.
Among the many Anglican groups which exist in an impaired or broken relationship with the main body of Anglicans, which look to Canterbury for leadership, is a body called the Free Church of England (FCE). This group maintains links with many other Anglican networks through its membership of the GAFCON organisation. The origins of the FCE in the 1840s do not concern us here, but it is sufficient to say that the debates among Anglicans about authority were then every bit as passionate as today. My current interest in the FCE is sparked by news of serious power struggles within this tiny church which has only a few hundred members in the whole of Britain. The bishop Primus, John Fenwick, is facing some serious challenges to his leadership and there has been talk of financial/property irregularities as well as doctrinal disputes.
Like other people taking a current interest in the FCE, my curiosity has also been piqued by the succession of unhappy members of the C/E who have found, for a time, a spiritual home in the FCE having made well publicised exits from the national Church. Recently three well-known dissident Anglicans, Brett Murphy, Calvin Robinson and Matthew Firth have all received a welcome in the FCE after loudly protesting their failure to agree with their bishops and the discipline of the C/E. The task of overseeing the ministries of these men cannot be easy, since each of them arrives at the door of a new church with a powerful, somewhat overwhelming, sense of their ability to know the will of God both for themselves and for their new church. Calvin and Brett are also highly skilled and accomplished communicators. Watching the YouTube of Calvin debate at the Oxford Union about marriage is to be impressed at his fluency and intellect. Even though his politics and theology, coming from an ultra-right wing stable, are to be resisted, few would win arguments in the face of such eloquence. All three possess gifts of conviction and rhetoric. The problem is when those same gifts of rhetoric are used against authority. A bishop in any church will find it hard to assert episcopal authority in the case of such powerful individuals. Two of the three have, in fact, already parted ways with the FCE. Calvin has moved on to the Nordic Catholic Church where he functions as a priest. He had received Deacon’s orders at the hands of Bishop Paul Hunt of the FCE in 2022. Something similar seems to have happened to the highly gifted Peter Sanlon who, for a short period, had taken his congregation in Tunbridge Wells into the FCA in 2019. Sanlon’s congregation are now, since 2021, part of the Presbyterian denomination. Brett’s sacking from the FCE and his position at Morecombe is a very recent development. It is not clear whether this suspension will hold as the congregation, not the FCE, apparently owns the church plant and can, in theory, seek episcopal oversight wherever they wish. Whatever the precise reason for this parting of the ways, I suspect that Brett’s influence through his social media presence will always prove a threat to any who claim canonical jurisdiction over him. Whatever the reason, it does not bode well if the FCE cannot harness the abilities of such talented individuals to the plough of making the FCE whatever it is meant to become for the future of the Church. Meanwhile, the last surviving member of the trio of recent recruits, Matthew Firth, has been put in charge of the work of planting churches in the north of Britain. The city of York has been mentioned as a possible centre for his future work.
My direct knowledge of the FCE is based on current internet discussions but I also have had some past acquaintance of both the men who are the current bishops in this Church. In the case of John Fenwick, the FCE Primus and Bishop of the northern Province, we knew each other as students. Both he and I had tapped the same source of scholarship funding to study the Orthodox Church. His interest and later doctoral studies on the liturgy of St John Chrysostom were, at the time, somewhat novel for an evangelical (late 70s). His continued interest in the Fathers of the Church still pervades his theology, as a YouTube of one of his sermons makes clear. His exposure to Orthodoxy will undoubtedly have left its mark on his theological outlook. Conservative and authoritarian forms of Orthodox theology of course exist, and these may have been imbibed by the young Fenwick. They would not, in my judgement, find it straight-forward to co-exist easily with the conservatism of an evangelical Anglican like Brett Murphy or the distinctive Anglo-Catholic conservatism of Calvin Robinson. The falling out with Brett may be a clash of theological outlook or more simply, an attempt by the individual with institutional power (John) to regain control over the one (Brett) who has considerable articulate and charismatic power.
Read it all at Surviving Church
