Evangelical Futures: A report from five years in the future … What do you do?

Church News, February 2027 General Synod, Day 2 :

‘In contrast with the typically sanguine proceedings at General Synod, the result of the Private Members Motion on same-sex blessings was greeted with intense emotion on both sides of the debate.

Late last evening, the motion, ‘that this Synod: request the House of Bishops to commend an Order of Prayer and Dedication after a same-sex civil marriage’, was finally carried by the required two-thirds majority. The outcome prompted ecstatic applause from progressive and liberal Synod members. They hugged and congratulated each other warmly, while extending gracious commiseration to the traditionalists who opposed the motion.

In contrast, the evangelical membership of Synod appeared deflated and devastated. How was it possible, they must have been thinking, that, despite the best efforts of their most articulate spokespeople, the traditionalist argument had fallen on deaf ears?

This debate formally concludes the ‘Living in Love and Faith’ (LLF) discernment process. Therefore, like their counterparts in the Church of Scotland and the Church in Wales, Anglican evangelicals will have to come to terms with a new ‘settlement’ on the issue of human sexuality and gender identity: one in which the Church of England now affirms that same-sex marriage is entirely compatible with human flourishing and a life of holiness.

However, this settlement began a few years ago, when, to comply with the Conversion Therapy (Prohibition) Act 2023, most evangelical resources that relate to sexuality either underwent extensive editorial revision or were completely withdrawn from publication.’

Ponder that prospective future-gazing for a while and let it sink in. Is such an outcome so outlandish and beyond the realm of possibility? And, if not, how do you think that you and your church (whether Anglican or non-Anglican) would react to it. How would that outcome affect your relationships with Anglican evangelicals who decide to leave? Also, how would it affect your relationships with those who decide to ‘stay and fight’?

For many Anglican evangelicals, the key to maintaining faithful distinctiveness in a future LGBT-affirming Church of England is visible differentiation. This was first described as ‘the necessary alternative’ in a 2016 document entitled ‘Guarding the Deposit’, which was endorsed by the Church of England Evangelical Council. It stated:

‘Crossing this apostolic boundary line would thus, we suggest, have inevitable ecclesiological implications. For there would be many loyal Anglicans who would wish to see a visible “differentiation” between a community committed to the apostles’ teaching and one that is not thus committed.’

The paper presented the following six alternatives for implementing visible differentiation, which are summarised below:

A. A third province for the ‘non-apostolic community’ (i.e. for those clergy and parishes who want freedom to mark the formation of permanent same sex relationship in a public service).

B. Overlapping ‘deterritorialised’ provinces (i.e. provinces of Canterbury and York are changed from geographical divisions to doctrinal divisions of church polity).

C. A third province for the ‘apostolic community’ (i.e., for those clergy and parishes who refuse to affirm same-sex relationships).

D. A society for the ‘apostolic community’ (i.e. a self-governing affiliation which receives oversight from orthodox bishops via delegated episcopal ministry).

E. Delegated episcopal oversight (for those who reject episcopal oversight that does not refuse affirmation of same-sex relationships).

F. Departure of the ‘apostolic community’ (i.e. to leave all Church of England structures and governance for another Christian or Anglican jurisdiction).

For option F, the author mentioned that ‘there are good historical precedents for such a departure in the history of the Church’. However, he also carefully outlined the extreme conditions under which that option might be permissible: ‘a church which had so entirely departed from apostolic teaching and practice that it could no longer be regarded as in any sense part of the Church of Jesus Christ, or a church in which Christians were implicitly or explicitly forbidden to practice apostolic Christianity.’

I would add to these conditions, ‘or a church which had officially approved or connived at behaviour that, through Scripture, is explicitly condemned by God’.

Yet, in the third century, Athanasius faced a far graver departure from apostolic truth when he confronted the Arian heresy that denied the deity of Christ. The Arians (who denied that Jesus was ‘true God from true God’ and ‘one in being with the Father’) resorted to underhand tactics to claim that Athanasius had been abusive towards them. Eventually, he was able to clear his name. However, his opponents were able to persuade successive emperors to depose the faithful bishop from the see of Alexandria on five occasions.

Athanasius obediently observed his banishment from Alexandria. However, he was warmly received as an honoured guest and well looked after by Maximin, the bishop of Trier. Yet, even in exile, Athanasius did not fall silent, but persisted in regularly encouraging the faithful of Alexandria to continue in the faith ‘once delivered to the saints’ and in his adamant opposition to Arianism. His uncompromising polemical tone is evident in his discourse against the Arians: ‘How then can they be Christians, who for Christians are Ario-maniacs? Or how are they of the Catholic Church, who have shaken off the Apostolical faith, and become authors of fresh evils?’

Therefore, although Athanasius deferred to the emperor’s earthly authority by accepting banishment, he did not abdicate his divine calling. Instead, he continued to provide the faithful of Alexandria with sound episcopal oversight.

In turn, the Trinitarian faithful of Alexandria remained in their churches, until forcibly expelled, but restricted themselves to no more than a perfunctory recognition of the newly installed Arian bishop, Gregory of Cappadocia. They refused to participate in Holy Communion with Arians, like Gregory, and they were heavily persecuted for it. Nevertheless, they continued in their faith and practice and to recognise Athanasius’ spiritual authority over them.

So, as the prospect looms large that the Church of England might provide public liturgy that affirms God’s approval of same-sex marriage, it is worth considering what would it mean for Anglican evangelical clergy and laity to follow the ‘stay and fight’ example of Athanasius and the Trinitarian clergy and laity of Alexandria.

Certainly, in emulating Athanasius, Anglican evangelical leaders would become similarly overt, adamant, and uncompromising in declaring that engaging in any same-sex sexual activity is incompatible with God’s call to holiness. Also, as Athanasius did, those threatened with disciplinary action for taking this stance would not shy away from continuing to denounce false teaching and unfaithful behaviour firmly, publicly, and persistently.

Also, in following the example of Alexandria’s Trinitarians, Anglican evangelical laity would continue to recognise and generously support such forthright and faithful evangelical clergy. Their visible differentiation would include refusing to participate in Holy Communion with those who support public liturgy that promotes false teaching.

Of course, it is just as important for us to ask what it would mean for non-Anglicans to provide the kind of support and welcome that characterised Maximin’s kindness towards Athanasius during his exile.

In practical terms, it would entail non-Anglicans opening the floodgates of generous spiritual and material support for those Anglicans who ‘stay and fight’ (as much as for those who might leave). As with Maximin, the extent of that generosity would dwarf any hardships or sanctions that Anglican evangelicals might face. I’d even go as far as to say that there is more Scriptural evidence in support of using our worldly means to protect faithful Christians from the harm caused by this kind of adversity than for any other earthly purpose. It’s not an ‘either-or’ proposition, but, donating to a church building programme doesn’t even come a close second to this.

As Jesus Himself said: ‘Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward. And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward (Matt. 10:40-42).

That said, it would be remiss of me not to mention the many evangelical organisations, including the Evangelical Alliance, that for decades have catered to and encouraged fellowship among Anglican and non-Anglican evangelicals alike.

Nevertheless, if ever there was a time for all evangelicals to ensure that faithful Anglicans ‘who have risked their lives [and livelihoods] for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ do not face undue hardship for their orthodox apostolic beliefs, but, instead, are spiritually and materially well provided for, then this is it! And that’s whether they ‘stay and fight’, or leave.

As a non-conformist, I am urging us all to remember the terrible suffering that 2,000-odd non-conformist clergy faced when, in 1662, they faced disciplinary action (including removal from their posts and even eviction from their homes) for defying the Act of Uniformity.

As an evangelical, I am urging us to express the same spirit of practical brotherly love that prompted disciples in Antioch to decide collectively that they would send relief via Paul and Barnabas to the church’s leaders in Jerusalem, when Agabus prophesied of an impending global famine.

However, as much as I’m encouraging material support, I’m also urging greater mutual openness to ministry between faithful evangelical congregations, whether Anglican or non-Anglican. This mutual openness is an important and necessary dimension to our brotherly love and respect for each other.

I belong to a New Frontiers church, but I’m aware of many faithful Anglican evangelical clergy whose ministries I would commend without hesitation.

So, whether the future-gazing by which I began this article comes to pass or not, it is still a good idea for me to introduce and commend the ministries of faithful Anglican clergy (and the useful and important resources and publications that they have developed) to the leaders in my church.

What’s more, we don’t have to await the decision of a committee to do that. It is something that you, I and, in fact, every non-Anglican can do today.