A house theologically divided against itself cannot stand.

In 8 January, the Anglican Centre in Rome issued a joint statement¹ with the Archbishop of Canterbury announcing the appointment of Dr John Shepherd as its Interim Director. Within days it came to light that he had preached a sermon in 2008 questioning the traditional view of Jesus' resurrection.

Immediately there were calls that Shepherd should resign,² and Justin Welby's judgment was openly questioned.³ Following the outcry Shepherd issued a statement seeking to clarify his beliefs⁴ but, as one commentator has observed, it far from confirms his orthodoxy.⁵

Shortly before this debate I was reminded of events 35 years ago surrounding the consecration of another resurrection-denier as a bishop. I believe that those events were a missed opportunity to steer the CofE away from the confused place it has now reached.

The Fire of 1984

A few weeks earlier a non-Christian friend had asked me if I could explain why CofE vicars were unable to understand the violent nature of Islam. My thoughts went immediately to the fire at York Minster which started 36 hours after the Archbishop of York, John Habgood, ordained David Jenkins as Bishop of Durham. Jenkins was on record as not believing in either Jesus’ virgin birth or the resurrection. In the early hours of the following Monday morning, ‘lightning’ struck the Minster, and the roof of the South Transept was consumed in flames. Many saw this as significant because that was the section of the Minster in which hands were laid on Jenkins by Habgood and others.

Faced with such a compelling set of circumstances, the Archbishops of the day did not heed the biblical injunction to ‘consider their ways’ (Hag 5:1). The Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, told The Times that “the Lord was on our side as we battled with those flames.” In a letter to the same paper, Habgood questioned the opinions of some who suggested that God was behind the incident, asking, “What kind of a god do your correspondents believe in?” He concluded that this was “the kind of world from which the Christian Gospel rescued us.”

Faced with such a compelling set of circumstances, the Archbishops of the day did not heed the biblical injunction to ‘consider their ways’ (Hag 5:1).

At the time many suspected that this denial of divine intervention was because the Church’s insurance policies did not cover ‘acts of God’, but were there more fundamental reasons behind their protests?

The South Transept of York Minster ablaze, 1984. PA/PA Archive/PA Images.Habgood’s god was shaped by the theology of deism, in which God takes no action in the world. This argument is consistent with Jenkins’ denial of the virgin birth and resurrection, for a prerequisite of both is faith that God is actively involved in our lives. The Archbishops therefore colluded in twin denials: the first being that Jenkins’ disbelief was of any consequence; secondly that the Creator remains involved with people.

Was God Serious?

It is easy for some Christians to react to major traumatic events when they occur with claims that they are expressions of divine anger. It is much harder to then watch through several subsequent decades of no apparent further consequences and still believe that God was serious when he broke out “like fire” (Amos 5:6) in 1984.

Elijah, however, did not meet the Lord in the storm, earthquake or fire, but through his still, small voice (1 Kings 19). God does not always work within our human time-frames; in order to understand his purposes, we must draw near him and listen intently.

Enoch was a prophet who warned of coming judgment 1,000 years before the Flood. Similarly, Israel rejected the Lord as their king over 1,000 years before Jesus’ incarnation, but they only spoke out their rebellion a few hours before his crucifixion (1 Sam 8:7; John 19:15). At this point there was no sudden thunder from Heaven, no immediate sword of the Lord - it was almost 40 more years before they reaped what they had sown.

When answering my non-Christian friend, I realised that many clergy are now incapable of discerning good from bad, unwilling to take God at his word and unable to understand his ways and purposes, as the recent debate around Rev Shepherd illustrates. But there are consequences of disbelief: throughout the Scriptures we discover that the Lord uses both nature and people to discipline those who are known by his name (Heb 12:4-8) and that he judges them more stringently than unbelievers.

The Lord uses both nature and people to discipline those who are known by his name (Heb 12:4-8) and judges them more stringently than unbelievers.

People Who Lack Knowledge

Israel was warned of the dangers of disbelief by various prophets. One was Hosea, who highlighted the consequences of not seeking truth, mercy and a knowledge of the Lord. Hosea specifically warned that God’s people would be destroyed for their lack of knowledge, adding, “Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children” (4:6).

Three decades after the York fire, we are in a situation where the ‘children’ of that generation are now in leadership. They bear all the signs of having embraced the disbelief of their forefathers and having forgotten the law of God. They are people who have not had their senses trained to discern between good and evil (Heb 5:12-14). Though the current Archbishop of Canterbury is from the evangelical stable, he seemingly approves of secular sexual ideologies which seek to eradicate all memory that the Lord created us male and female. Thankfully not all in the CofE agree – over 2,600 have now signed an open letter urging the House of Bishops to reconsider their position on transgender ‘celebration’ services.⁶

The CofE was built on disjointed foundations, and any house thus theologically divided against itself cannot stand (Matt 12:25). 35 years after the events of 1984, therefore, that we have arrived at this current state of affairs should be no surprise.⁷ But where is God?

It may seem that since 1984, the Lord’s response has involved little more than starting a fire. But if we join the dots of disbelief in that institution and elsewhere, we will appreciate that he has not forgotten, nor is he slow in fulfilling his promises: in fact, he is enduringly patient, wanting all to be given opportunity to come to know the truth (2 Pet 3:9). Only then, when it is his time, will he judge them in righteousness.

The Lord has not forgotten: in fact, he is enduringly patient, wanting all to be given opportunity to come to know the truth (2 Pet 3:9).

Many faithful clergy and congregations are ready to leave the CofE altogether, while others continue to hope that the tide will turn. There has never been a time like the present – as the hallmarks of judgment described in Romans 1 manifest across the nations - for believing Anglicans to seek the Lord’s heart and guidance.

I’m not sure if my non-Christian friend has accepted that the disbelief of their predecessors is the reason why many vicars are unable to discern the spirit behind Islam, but I pray that one day he will embrace the Son of God who was born of a virgin and whose transformed body was raised from the dead. Would that the leaders of the established Church would do the same.

References

1 Anglican Centre in Rome: Appointment of an Interim Director for the Anglican Centre in Rome.

2 Bird, S and Wyatt, T. Archbishop of Canterbury's envoy who disputes the resurrection of Christ urged to quit Vatican post. The Telegraph, 12 January 2019

3 Ashenden, G. The appointment of a heterodox priest as new Director to the Anglican Centre in Rome. ‘What would Jesus do?’ is not what Welby did.

4 Anglican Centre in Rome: A statement from the Very Rev Dr John Shepherd.

5 Believing in the body: Reflections of an Anglican Theologian.

6 See https://www.responsetohob.co.uk/.

7 The CofE is not alone. In most denominations leaders are falling over themselves to embrace the godlessness prevailing in the nation.

See also: 'Joining the Dots of Disbelief in the Church of England' by Randall Hardy.

Background links

July 9, 1984: Lightning bolt is responsible for catastrophic York Minster blaze | BT

Memories of York Minster fire in 1984 | York Press

How the York Minster fire sparked an unholy row in The Times | YorkMix

The fire at York Minster, July 9th 1984 | Prophetic Telegraph

THE UK DROUGHT 1984, Weather Vol 39(11) | DeepDyve

The future of the Church in Britain.

This is a question that was fiercely debated by members, clergy and bishops in the Church of England following the consecration of David Jenkins as Bishop of Durham in York Minster on 6 July 1984. Some hours later a bolt of lightning struck the Minster and burned the south transept where the consecration had taken place.

It was particularly remarkable because weather maps showed clear skies over the whole of the UK and northern Europe except for this one tiny cloud no bigger than a man’s hand crossing Yorkshire and delivering an electrical strike of such magnitude that it overrode a newly installed lightning conductor at the Minster.

Even the secular media saw this as an ‘act of God’ but not so the Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, who declared that God does not do such things. It later emerged that he was faced by a ‘God or Mammon’ dilemma as the Minster’s insurance might not have covered ‘acts of God’!

Liberal Theology

Jenkins had some unorthodox views on central tenets of Christian doctrine including casting doubt on the resurrection of Jesus. Although the Archbishop did not publicly support the views of Jenkins, he nevertheless continued to promote non-Bible-believing clerics to senior posts in the Church of England which brought liberal postmodernist teaching into the leadership of the Church that still has an influence today.

In last week’s editorial we were examining the influence of ‘postmodernism’ in the nation and noting its objective of destroying the family in its war against Christianity. We said:

The central tragedy of recent history over the past half-century is that neither Church leaders nor politicians have understood the philosophy of postmodernism, with its objectives of destroying Judeo-Christian civilisation.

For the Church to play a significant part in guarding the nation against destructive philosophies that undermine basic truth, its leadership must have an unshakeable grasp of truth that is derived from its source in God, the Creator of the universe.

For the Church to be able to guard the nation against destructive philosophies, its leadership must have an unshakeable grasp of truth.

When church leaders lack understanding of the truth - as revealed in Scripture, through the prophets of Israel and through Jesus the Messiah - and promote obscurity, distortions and lies instead, they come under the judgment of God. Paul makes this clear in Romans 1:18:

York Minster's south transept after the lightning strike, 1984. See Photo Credits.The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.

This particularly applies to Church leaders who claim to be men of God but are not faithful in declaring the truth. In the same passage Paul continues:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.

This is similar to Jeremiah’s complaint about the leaders of the nation in his day: “The shepherds are senseless and do not enquire of the Lord” (Jer 10:21). They were relying upon human wisdom; in 23:1 he elaborates this: “‘Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!’ declares the Lord.”

Undermining Truth

This exactly describes many church leaders and professors of theology in our seminaries and universities today, most of which are steeped in liberal theology and driven by its spirit of postmodernism, which has roots in anti-Semitism, atheism and Marxism.

I can speak from personal experience because I did a doctorate in liberal theology. I went up to university with a strong faith in God and a conviction that my life was to be devoted to preaching and living in accordance with biblical truth. Most of my faith was destroyed by the time I left university and it took me some years and a personal experience of spiritual renewal to regain my faith.

I went up to university with a strong faith in God and came away with most of my faith destroyed – having studied liberal theology.

Please do not misunderstand me – I am not despising biblical scholarship; indeed, we need good, sound, biblical scholarship to guard against deception in the Church and in the nation! But the postmodernist heresies that began in Germany in the late 19^th Century have penetrated deeply into our academic institutions, such that biblical scepticism undermining truth has been taught in many of our theological colleges and universities for the past century and more.

What is ‘the Church’?

In the light of this statement we can now return to the question at the beginning of this article: Can the Church come under God’s judgment? Here we must define our terms: what do we mean by ‘Church’?

If we mean the Church founded by Jesus on the Day of Pentecost when he fulfilled his promise to send the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, enabling and empowering them to take the Gospel to the nations beginning in Jerusalem, then to Judea, Samaria and out to all the world – if we mean the true Church that is the ‘Body of Christ’, then we must conclude that such a Church can never come under the judgment of God!

But are the institutions that we call ‘churches’ the true Body of Christ? I was recently discussing this with my wife who has for many years been studying church history. She told me about an incident of which I was not aware. When King James I became King of England (having previously been King James VI of Scotland), he brought with him a strong Christian faith although, like his father Charles I, he had Catholic sympathies. James wanted to make the Bible available in English to all his subjects.

At that time most Bibles were in Latin which many people, even among the clergy, could not read. He called together a group of Protestant scholars, some of whom were Church of England clergy while others were Dissenters (Nonconformist ministers). They allocated different parts of the Bible to individual scholars and collectively set about the task of translating the Bible into what became known as the ‘Authorised Version’ or the ‘King James Version’.

The group of scholars worked well together but there was one word upon which they could not agree, so they all came together to consult the King. It was the word ecclesia which in the original Greek of the New Testament means ‘a gathering’– or ‘congregation’ – ‘a gathering of people committed to a particular purpose’. The Dissenters wanted to translate ecclesia as ‘congregation’, whereas the Church of England clergy wanted to translate it as ‘church’, as in the Roman Catholic Bible.

The King agreed with the CofE clergy and the word ‘church’ came into the Authorised Version of the Bible and in most English translations since then.

The true Body of Christ can never come under the judgment of God!

What an amazing difference it would have made if our Bibles had all read ‘congregation’ instead of ‘church’. We might have been saved from the mess that we have today where ‘church’ can mean a building, a denomination, an organisation, a congregation, or a small group of believers in Jesus. We might even have been saved from the disgrace of whole denominations becoming infected by unbelief: becoming ‘a broad church’ tolerant of everyone’s beliefs (or unbelief).

Hope for Reformation

The prophecy in Hebrews 12:26-29 that all man-made institutions will be shaken and will crumble, appears to be happening: not only to banks, finance houses, business institutions and politicians, but also to the man-made denominational institutions that we call ‘churches’. This is surely the judgment of God falling upon corrupt institutions! `

The good news is that many Christians are recognising these institutional failings and are meeting in small groups for prayer, Bible study and fellowship similar to the first Christians. Luke describes this in Acts 2:42: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

Maybe what we are seeing today is the beginning of a new Reformation rediscovering the spiritual dynamic of the Early Church.

Further Response from Clifford Hill

Susan and Randall have asked me to explain why I believe that the true church as the Body of Christ cannot come under judgment. Let me say straightaway that I am not infallible and I’m open to correction from brothers and sisters in Christ – in this way we all learn from each other: so I really appreciate comments which I always read carefully.

I found the comments on this subject particularly helpful and I am happy to explain a little more of what I was trying to say. I was distinguishing between the true ‘ecclesia’ of God and the man-made institutions that we call ‘churches’. John is perfectly right in saying that of the 115 references to ecclesia in the New Testament only two are correctly translated in most English Bibles. They both refer to the riot in Ephesus where the whole town came together to oppose Paul’s teaching, chanting “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” This gathering [ecclesia] is referred to as “an assembly”.

All the other references are to ‘gatherings of believers in Jesus the Messiah’ and in each case ecclesia should similarly be translated ‘congregation’, or ‘assembly’ (of believers). It is entirely wrong to translate ‘ecclesia’ as ‘church’, as in most English Bibles.

Confusion can arise over the concept of God’s judgment because the word is so often used to mean his wrath and punishment. In fact, the word used for judgment in the New Testament (krima) can mean these things, but is also broader, simply meaning a verdict or decision. In this respect, we will all be judged – for we will all one day stand before the judgment seat of God, as Paul says in Romans 14:10.

It is true that a church can go off track and come under condemnation like the church at Laodicea. But if we are part of the true ecclesia of Christ, it is his intention to present us spotless before his Father – it was for this that he shed his blood. Paul says this in Ephesians 5:25-27:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the ecclesia and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word to present her to himself as a radiant ecclesia, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

The New Testament teaching is that the true ‘ecclesia of Christ’ can never come under condemnation, for “God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:9). True believers still undergo trials, but these are appointed for God’s paideia - his discipline - so our faith can be refined (1 Pet 1:7; Heb 12:4-11).

As such, the reference to “judgment beginning at the household of God” (1 Peter 4:17) most certainly does not refer to God’s wrath! It is referring to the persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire. It is the wrath of human beings upon God’s people – not the wrath of God upon his own people. That is made very clear in the context of the passage beginning 1 Peter 4:12: “Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering…But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ.”

Jesus himself said “Remain in me, and I will remain in you…if you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love” (John 15:4 and 10). Provided we remain in Christ we cannot come under his wrathful judgment: we are bound to Him in love.

Cliff