From here:
A group of parishes is preparing what could be the first step towards a formal split in the Church of England over issues such as homosexuality, with the creation of a new “shadow synod” vowing to uphold traditional teaching.
Representatives of almost a dozen congregations in the Home Counties are due to gather in a church hall in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, later this week for the first session of what they say could eventually develop into an alternative Anglican church in England.
Organisers, drawn from the conservative evangelical wing of Anglicanism, say they have no immediate plans to break away – but are setting up the “embryonic” structures that could be used to do so if the established church moves further in what they see as a liberal direction.
The new alliance will be viewed as a “church within a church” but founders have not ruled out full separation if, for example, the Church of England offers blessing-style services for same-sex unions – a move expected to be considered by bishops in the next few months.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Church of England will follow the lead of TEC and the ACoC. Western Anglicanism is in the grip of the dominant principalities and powers of our age and its submission to the rulers of the darkness of this world has been willing, defiant and full of pride – or should I say Pride. The outcome is inevitable.
Horrible
I do hope, David, that you’re being too pessimistic, but the accompanying article supports your view. Very depressing.
That’s the way religion works. I wish them well.
The most extraordinary thing in all of this, is that the Church of England has managed to retain such a disparate collection of theologies for so long. It is a wonder that a split has not happened a great deal sooner between orthodox clergy and their heterodox counterparts.
The rumblings have been going on for decades, in fact, as far back as the 60’s and 70’s. At that time there was the infamous evangelical split between the views of the well-known conservative Anglican Rector John Stott and Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the later of whom exhorted evangelicals to leave the Church of England or any denomination that was not unified regarding orthodoxy.
John Stott argued that the church has always housed heresies and errors, and that abandoning a church was not part of the apostolic example. Lloyd-Jones argued that there cannot actually be a church – in the apostolic meaning of the term – if there is no agreement among its communicants regarding what the church actually believes. Only in unity in orthodoxy can there truly be a properly Christian church.
In hindsight, it would seem that Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was correct, although he merely took to heart what the Lord first observed, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”. Neither can John Stott be entirely blamed, since the Church of England (even back in the 60’s and 70’s) had not yet attained the form of complete stagnation and rampant heterodoxy that now characterises it.
When the gospel is honoured more in the breach than the observance, it is well overdue to conclude that time has run its course on a church. Although I note with some dismay that these preparations are somewhat tentative, and the clerics in the article speak as if they needed to hedge their bets. The time for vacillating is past. The time for action is now.
The Church of England will be left as a mouldering series of museums where exciting, contemporary neo-pagan worship is performed for empty pews. On the one hand, the Roman Catholic Church has vacuumed up the Anglo-Catholics through Benedict XVI’s ordinariate, and on the other, this move – if carried through – will evacuate the evangelicals (i.e. orthodox, bible-believing, “faith-once-and-for-all” Anglicans.
As long as the appointment of the ABC is subject to the approval of the civil government retaining orthodoxy within the Church of England and indeed the Anglican Communion is virtually impossible as the recent appointments are much more concerned with pleasing the civil government rather than upholding the Gospel. The result is obvious by the fact that the ABC simply does nothing much more than stand back and allow apostasy to take over. This is NOT a matter of liberalism versus conservatism but rather apostasy versus orthodoxy. What we are witnessing is flagrant refusal to uphold the WORD by allowing whatever pleases the general public to believe whatever they want — the small god rather than the TRUE GOD. The Anglican Communion is quickly becoming like the church of Laodicea – Revelation 3:14-17. It is long since past the time for the apostate leadership to repent.
There are five or six main branches of Christianity and hundreds (if not thousands) of dénominations.
That ship has sailed. 🙂
But there is only one gospel and one “faith, once and for all delivered unto the saints”.
As soon as a person starts referring to statistics of denominations, they have demonstrated they do not really understand what they are talking about one two levels: one categorical and the other theological .
There are only several major groupings of any significance within Christianity, and the denominations within each grouping share the substantive portion of their beliefs. Thus, the existence of many denominations means absolutely nothing as a brute fact.
Secondly, there is a difference between denomination and Christianity. To conflate the two, as you seemingly do here, is suggestive of a very superficial conception of the Christian faith. The Christian faith is shared among many denominations and the fact that they are many, does not ipso facto invalidate them.
Your comment is very insightful. The structural division of Christians for historical and practical reasons into various branches and traditions, does not negate the fundamental underlying unity among all branches with respect to core doctrine, including long-standing beliefs about sexual immorality.
The problem of “progressive” Christianity is that they are hell-bent on promulgating new doctrines that *no* branch of Christianity has ever believed for almost 2,000 years, and that are contrary to what every branch has understood the apostolic teaching to be.
Consequently, “progressive” Christianity is in fact a new religion, lacking, as it does, any basis in history or apostolic teaching.
Atheism seems to have its branches as well, and Dawkins’ ship of fools is sinking fast. Does the number of takes on atheism mean its ship has sailed?
What do you mean by “traditional teachings:” creationism? male-only clergy? the solas? If not, why bother?