Photo: Pexels – Pixabay

This post continues the series on what is happening in the Church of England. It should be read after reading two other posts which provide important context: ‘What is love?’; and ‘A right heart – Lamenting with Psalm 44.’ You may also find it helpful to read ‘Church of England – An open letter.’

Someone said to me recently: “The Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process said lots about different views that are sincerely held; it didn’t say enough about the consequences of disagreement on those sincerely held views – and in particular what the Bible has to say about the consequences.”

I agree. Much has been said during the LLF process about speaking into silence; and it seems to me there has been a deafening silence about this vitally important matter. So we need to think about the consequences of disagreement. And I am finding that the second letter of the apostle John is a helpful part of the Bible to see what a biblical response to this kind of disagreement might consist of.

I hope this post will help those who are concerned about what is happening to vocalise their concern. I hope also that those who disagree with my current position will at least have a better understanding of why I hold the position I do.

It’s worth also noting that we all have different temperaments – and we all have different attitudes to conflict and confrontation. Some people love confrontation; others run away from it. I tend to be in the latter category, so this isn’t easy for me. And as we’ve seen and we’re going to see it’s not about anger; it’s not about confrontation for the sake of it. Rather it’s about listening to what God has to say in the Bible; it’s about love for those with whom we profoundly disagree, and for the church; and it’s about obedience to God. But whatever action we take needs to be done in the right way – in a godly, loving, humble, lamenting, obedient way.

United in truth (verses 1-3)

So let’s come to John’s second letter. It’s worth saying this is the same John who wrote John’s gospel; who wrote Revelation; and who wrote the other 2 letters in his name. This is the apostle of love. And the first thing to notice in verses 1-3 is that we are united in the truth.

1 The elder,

To the lady chosen by God and to her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth— 2 because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever:

3 Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, will be with us in truth and love.

2 John 1-3

John probably calls himself ‘the Elder’ to highlight the authority he has: at the time of writing he’s one of the last living apostles; the others have all been killed for their faith. And ‘the lady’ he refers to is probably the church – or perhaps a local church.

What I notice most in these three verses is the repetition of a particular word: Truth. It’s mentioned 4 times. John says that he loves the church ‘in the truth’, and ‘because of the truth.’ Later on in the letter the words that are repeated are the teaching – that is, the teaching that’s been passed down from Jesus himself through the apostles – and love. And we find throughout the letter that unity, love and truth go hand in hand. But here in the opening verses we see that God’s people are united in truth. It is the truth that brings us together; it is the truth that unites us.

We often say that unity is important and it is – vitally important. But it has to be the right kind of unity. And here John is very clear what the right kind of unity looks like – unity based on truth. And by the way: I was very conscious from the beginning of the LLF process that the word truth appeared nowhere in the title rubric for ‘Living in love and faith’, or the ‘Prayers of love and faith.’

A comment also about visible unity. Christians have always had to live with the fact that the visible church isn’t necessarily the real church. We can’t see into people’s hearts; we can’t see if they are born again by the Holy Spirit. And so we love each other on the assumption that we are true believers. But that only works as long as the truth is maintained as the foundation of our unity. It’s why the official teaching of the church is so important.

Walking in love (verses 4-6)

From these central verses of the letter it’s clear that John’s chief concern for the church he’s writing to is that they love each other – that they walk in love.

And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another.

2 John 5

This isn’t a new commandment – it’s one they’ve been given previously. John is referring, of course, to Jesus’s commands to love: Found, for example, in John 13:34-35 and Matthew 22:36-40. The greatest commandment is to love one another, God, and neighbour.  Elsewhere, of course, Jesus also commands his people to ‘love your enemies’ (Matthew 5:43-45). We have dealt with the question ‘What is love?’ in a previous post.

But crucially, John then goes on to define what is meant by love in the context into which he’s currently writing – and in particular how love relates to truth.

And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

2 John 6

The apostle tells us that part of love is obeying God’s commands. And of course this is in line with what Jesus himself says in John’s gospel:

“If you love me, keep my commands.”

Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.”

John 14:15, 23

But we’re not just called to love God and each other; we’re also called to love our neighbour. And we do so by obeying Jesus’s commands, and commending his commands to others. Jesus said “I have come that they may have life and have it to the full.” (John 10:10). We want human flourishing – we long for human flourishing. And we believe that the commands of Jesus and the other writers of the Bible do indeed promote human flourishing.

So we’re to walk in love: and that includes walking in truth, obeying Jesus’s commands and encouraging others to obey Jesus’s commands. How different this is from our culture’s prevailing view of loving others, which one person summarised in this way:

Our culture has accepted two great lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.

Rick Warren

Responding to those ‘running ahead’

But sadly there will be those who come with different commands, and with a different teaching. And it’s likely that what John writes in verses 7 onwards show us the reason he writes this particular letter, and with the authority of ‘the Elder.’

Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.

2 John 9

It’s worth noting two things:

1, How the wider church worked at the time

We will know from our study of Acts how local churches were established and sustained. In the book of Acts we journey with the apostle Paul as he travels around sharing the gospel, establishing new churches, appointing leaders, and then moving on to a new area. Later on he revisits some of those churches and tries to strengthen them in their faith. In that way we find many local churches and many teachers and missionaries travelling round: visiting the local churches, encouraging them, strengthening them, teaching them, bringing them news and resources. These travellers would be dependent on the hospitality and the welcome of the church. And to some extent the churches relied on them – for news and encouragement, and to be connected to the wider church.

But there was a problem: This system was open to abuse. A teacher might arrive in a particular town, to a particular church – and often the church would meet in someone’s house – and perhaps they’d be given hospitality and welcome. But as this person started teaching it would be clear that what they were teaching was fundamentally different in some way from what the apostles had taught the church. They had – as the apostle puts it in verse 9 – ‘run ahead and not continued in the teaching of Christ.’ They might have viewed themselves as Christian missionaries – perhaps seeking to bring the gospel to a new generation. But as far as the apostle John is concerned they are imposters – deceivers who have not continued in the teaching of Christ.

2, What were they teaching, and is the issue today as serious?

John mentions the particular error he’s concerned about in verse 7:

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

2 John 7

These visiting teachers were saying there is a God, but he hasn’t come to earth in human form – he hasn’t come in the person of Christ. And we recognise that this is a vitally important issue. I’m sure we can think of all sorts of implications of this teaching. For example, here are two: If God didn’t come to earth in the person of Jesus Christ then we wouldn’t have such a full and personal knowledge of what God is like. And he wouldn’t be able to save us from our sins (for he had to be human in order to be our substitute).

Some people argue that the issue being addressed in the Church of England today – the issue of different views on human sexuality and marriage – isn’t as important as that issue: that it’s not of fundamental importance. And it may not be as fundamental as saying that God didn’t come to earth in the flesh. But many would argue that it is still fundamental. For example, the Church of England Evangelical Council have made a very strong case that it is so. And as has become clear in recent weeks, the majority of the Anglican Communion worldwide (as represented by GSFA) also see it as being an issue that is of fundamental importance.

It’s probably also worth saying that many of those who would like to change the doctrines of the Church of England also think this is an issue of fundamental importance. They view it as a matter of social justice, and would have serious difficulties working with myself and others who hold my views.

If as you read this post you are not convinced that this is an issue of fundamental importance then I respect that. But hopefully you can at least understand a bit more why many people on both sides of the discussion are saying that the depth and breadth of the disagreement has not been fully recognised up to this point.

Response

On the assumption that this is fundamentally important, what is the response – the action – that the apostle John calls for?

First, don’t be deceived by them

Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.

2 John 8

John highlights how serious this is. He says if you allow this person to teach then there is a danger you will be deceived, and therefore that you will lose what we (the apostles) have worked for – that is, your salvation. He urges them to do whatever is necessary not to be deceived.

Second, don’t support or encourage them

10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

2 John 10-11

It’s possible to understand John saying “don’t even talk to them” and “have nothing to do with them.” I personally don’t read it like that. We’ve already noted that these teachers travelled around spreading their teaching, and they depended on the local churches to look after them when they were in the area. And so John’s focus – his prohibition – is on supporting their ministry. 

Therefore I understand the welcome that is in view here as being a public, church welcome. And the prohibition might extend to hospitality if the hospitality is helping enable the teacher’s ministry in some way. For example if they need a place to stay and food to eat in order to minister, then the church is supporting them if they provide that place to stay and food to eat. And the apostle commands them not to do those things – for if you do you are sharing in their wicked work.

Our Action

So what does this mean in our context in the Church of England? The first question to ask is – who has ‘run ahead’ and is not continuing in the teaching of Christ? It would be very easy (and in my view unhelpful) to personalise the discussion at this point. As someone who was present at the General Synod debate in February, to my mind at present, and until they have clarified exactly what they mean in their paper ‘Bishops’ Response to LLF’, the House of Bishops collectively have ‘run ahead.’ This is how the paper has been understood by the media, and by the vast majority of the Anglican Communion as represented by the GSFA. As someone said recently: “This is the first time that the House of Bishops have collectively gone against the majority view of the Anglican Communion (on an issue of first importance).”

To give just a couple of examples from the Bishops’ paper:

These Prayers of Love and Faith will not be the same as conducting a marriage in church. They will not alter the Church of England’s celebration of Holy Matrimony, which remains the lifelong union of one man and one woman, as set forth in its canons and authorised liturgies. While there is a range of convictions held by the bishops about this important matter, we have not found sufficient consensus to propose a change in doctrine at the present time.

page 3

I may be wrong, but this suggests to me that the Bishops collectively believe that their source of authority is no longer the Bible, but a consensus among the House of Bishops – and that the doctrines of the Church could change according to that consensus rather than according to the teaching of the Bible (as provided for in Canon A5 and the 39 Articles of the Church of England).

Second, on page 8 the Bishops conclude the section ‘About Prayers of Love and Faith’ by quoting 1 John 4:16 and suggest that this supports everything in the paper. However at no point do they consider what love actually means biblically (for which see above, and also the article ‘What is love?’) It has been noted that the Bishops’ paper was prepared more quickly than it might ideally have been.

However, the Bishops were given more than enough time during the eight hour debate at General Synod to acknowledge this fact, and to recognise the serious concerns raised in the paper. Some did in an individual capacity (and are to be commended for doing so), but collectively they did not.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the House of Bishops – they have an opportunity in the next few months to clarify that they really aren’t changing the doctrine of the Church of England. So we can keep praying for them.

And then of course there are those clergy (and Bishops) around the country who are ‘running ahead’ and who have campaigned so brilliantly to help put the House of Bishops in the position they’re currently in.

For those who share my concerns, how might we respond, according to the Apostle John?

1, We need to respond in love

As we’ve already seen, Jesus calls his followers to love everyone: one another; our neighbours; and our enemies (not to mention God himself). We love each of those in different ways, but we still love. And as we’ve seen we love by obeying and commending Jesus’s commands. Therefore I take it that it’s right to lovingly call on the House of Bishops to repent. On 12th February I made a personal statement to my church family, in which I made it clear that there are two ways in which they can do that:

First – the House of Bishops clarify beyond doubt in the pastoral guidance and the amended prayers that they are in fact upholding the historical, biblical and apostolic teaching that is held by the Church of England and the vast majority of the Anglican Communion, and therefore that they are genuinely caring for those they are called to serve according to the pattern of Christ.

Or second, that they agree to some form of settlement whereby the Church of England adequately provides for those who cannot move in the direction the House of Bishops are moving us. What would that look like? For myself, I would certainly want to serve under, and be cared for, by a Bishop who shared my own biblically orthodox views and whose own position (and that of their successors) was guaranteed permanently. (Six weeks later I would add ‘A settlement that enables us to preserve our much treasured connection with the vast majority of the Anglican Communion as represented by GSFA.’)

Personal Statement given at Anlaby Churches, 12th February 2023

So we need to act in love which – in my view at present – includes lovingly calling on the House of Bishops to repent.

2, We need to not be deceived

That is, we need to keep focused on the teaching of the Bible and the founding Articles of the Church of England. And we need to find ways to receive teaching from those who teach the truth, not those who ‘have run ahead.’

3, For the time being we should not support or encourage their ministry

There are different ways in which we might express this. For me, I felt compelled in my personal statement to declare myself temporarily in impaired communion with the House of Bishops collectively (with the exception of the four Bishops who voted against the motion, and others who might identify themselves in due course). I saw this as a direct application of John’s instructions in his second letter. If you’d like to think more about Impaired communion – what it is and what it signifies – then do email me and I’d be happy to share a paper with you that I’ve written with the help of some colleagues.

I recognise that not everyone will find themselves in the same position as me. We are all in a different place – regarding our understanding of the issues, our understanding of 2 John, and our local situation. But I would urge all who read this post to consider how the teaching of 2 John might be applied in your situation, as a matter of love for God, for the church, for neighbour, and for all.

Conclusion

I would be very surprised if anyone reading this agrees with every point I make – not least because I am an Imperfect Pastor and my handling of the Bible may be wrong.

It may be that you hold a different view to me on a right approach to issues of marriage and sexuality. It may even be that you are a current serving Bishop in that situation. If that is the case, I respect your right to hold those views; but I would ask you to recognise the seriousness with which many of us take our disagreement – that we see it as an issue on which the apostle John himself commands us to separate ourselves from you.

Finally, a word to those who hold the same position as me and are wondering what to do in your situation. Don’t despair. God is still on his throne. Trust him. But I hope this post encourages you that there is something you can do, in active dependence on him, as you remain in the Church of England for the time being. Do consider signing the Declaration that CEEC are currently publicising. And do keep encouraging your vicar and PCC at this challenging time – they desperately need your encouragement to continue to operate in love, including in obedience to all God’s commands through Jesus and through the apostle John.